[MD] Realism and anti-realism

[david buchanan]

Matt said:
...I've lost more and more interest in philosophical disputation is that once one realizes that a stated philosophical position--any ism, say--may not be what the stater thinks it is, then it becomes more and more difficult to diagnose and analyze properly a position.  This shouldn't be surprising for a pragmatist because philosophical positions are just covers for habits, which is to say that a position only ever comes into existence between two conversants.  (Not exactly true: only as a reaction to a state of affairs.  But often it is a person saying something.)  So really, analyzing an ism is analyzing a set of habits, which is to say a whole set of people who have reacted a certain way. .. It can be hard to figure out what a position is sometimes.  ...My favorite formulation of the issue is Richard Bernstein's, from his book Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Bernstein's first move in the book is to describe the condition that creates the two kinds of responses: Cartesian Anxiety.  As a good Deweyan, he wanted to describe something like a psychological condition for a philosophical response because in a certain way, psychology and concepts dovetail.  Philosophical problematics are as much a response to life as building a fire, prayer, and belching. My loss of nerve when it comes to disputation comes from the fact that it has become difficult for me to find the center of gravity to stated positions, such that they attain a relevant coherence as responses to life. I can't figure, for example, if a person really does have Cartesian Anxiety, or they're just saying a thing 'cuz it seems like the thing to say.


dmb says:
Philosophical positions are responses to life. That's roughly what James said in his opening lecture on Pragmatism, except these positions weren't framed as being "just covers for habits", nor were they put on a par with "belching". Quite the opposite, in fact. James said that a person's vision is the most important thing about that person. And like Pirsig, he uses Coleridge's categories to describe the two great rival camps; classic and romantic. 

James presented his pragmatic theory of truth through a series of lectures but he got through the entire opening lecture on pragmatism WITHOUT talking about pragmatism as such. Instead, the first lecture was all about these rival visions and the role that the individual's temperament plays in adopting or rejecting them. All philosophies are visions of the world and we kindle or shudder at them depending on who we are. I dare say that I know exactly what he's talking about. I Shudder at certain philosophies the same way I shudder at certain kinds of music or political ideologies or anywhere that allows for the expression of these visions. If we think of "isms" like that, then it's not really very important that we locate the essence of a position or analyze as if it definite features or a locatable center. I may never even try to define Polka or fascism but I know what makes me shudder. Philosophies are like that too. I think this is the main thing about philosophies. 

That's one of the reasons that I think it's legitimate to talk about the differences between Pirsig and Rorty in broad strokes. I keep saying that these guys have very different visions. It seems you're always wanting to gloss over the differences, Matt, and Steve seems quite certain that Pirsig and James aren't offering anything that Rorty doesn't already have. This kind of thing has always impressed me as the philosophical version of having a tin ear.

Let me be more specific, you and/or Bernstein are characterizing an idea that I basically agree with; that our philosophical positions are psychologically motivated. And yet I shudder at the characterization of it as "just cover" on a par with "belching". When I read stuff like that, I detect a certain kind of misanthropic cynicism and nihilism and that makes me shudder. A perfectly good idea is suddenly transformed into something I hate, that produces a slight feeling of nausea. 

Why does it not make you feel sick? Do you even see the difference that makes everything so different to me? Really?