[MD] Realism and anti-realism

[Steven Peterson]

Hi dmb,


> Steve asked dmb:
>  Is there something you wanted to disagree with in my explication of the pragmatist's position on the realism/anti-realism debate?
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> Yes, I'm saying that you are explicating the position of analytic philosophers on an analytic dispute. I'm saying your explication is hardly even relevant to the MOQ or classical pragmatism. I'm saying that you are misleading people - once again - by conflating the MOQ's pragmatism with an entirely different school of philosophy.
>
> Think about this way. Some people come to pragmatism by way of a defeated positivism. They arrive there as a kind of consolation prize, instead of the foundational truths they thought they could have.
>
> But James invented the thing in order to reconcile whole schools and rival visions and Pirsig arrived there by way of mysticism. We're talking about the difference between math nerds and neurotic artists. It's epic. Why can you not see this!?


Steve:
I'll admit to being a "math nerd" philosopher. Now, can you explain
how the response of the "neurotic artist" philosopher with regard to
realism/anti-realism is superior? I understand that to you my response
feels nerdy, but I don't know what you find wrong with my argument if
anything, and you haven't made an alternative case for a
MOQer/pragmatist position on realism/anti-realism.

Best,
Steve