[MD] Realism and anti-realism

[Steven Peterson]

Hi dmb,


> Steve said to Ham:
> It [Anti-realism] isn't meant as a pejorative term for idealism so much as a broader term for positions that deny the existence of an objective reality. Pragmatists and MOQers don't affirm the existence of objective reality. ... pragmatists are neither realists in affirming the existence of objective reality nor anti-realists in denying the existence of objective reality. We are anti-anti-realists. ...we don't hold the existence of objective reality as a metaphysical certainty  .. And we don't take objective reality as a _basis_ for developing a system...  ...Our descriptions of reality are always descriptions made for a purpose. ..We have no practice-transcending descriptions to offer. We aren't denying that reality is objectively real. We just can't make any sense of the notion ...
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> The term "anti-realism" was coined recently by Michael Dummett, an analytic philosopher who was dealing with issues in analytic philosophy. Putnam and Rorty famously debated realism and anti-realism but, if Hildebrand is right, they were rehashing issues that James and Dewey had already dispatched.


Steve:
No one should ever discuss issues that James and Dewey "already dispatched"?


dmb:
This is the same book wherein Hildebrand says that Rorty "eviscerates"
pragmatism. What's my point?
>
> You're pretending to speak for pragmatism but what you're saying is just analytic philosophy with some strains of pragmatism in it.
>
> I know, there are Jamesian-sounding thoughts and slogans mixed into what you say, but it's oddly stripped of James's pragmatism.


Steve:
I'm still wondering what your point is. Is there something you wanted
to disagree with in my explication of the pragmatist's position on the
realism/anti-realism debate?

Best,
Steve