[MD] Taking words Seriously

[Matt Kundert]

DMB said:
I understand the difference between an outright accusation and the 
expression of "difficulty" or "doubt". But as far as I'm concerned the 
question is whether or not you "get" the direct/indirect distinction 
(DQ/sq. In that respect, the difference between an outright 
accusation of Plationism and an expression of doubt about how it 
escapes Platonism is only a difference in the level of commitment 
on your part.
...
You're using the anti-Platonism of Wittgenstein (and Rorty) against 
the anti-Platonism of our radical empiricists, James and Pirsig. If 
Goodman is right, Wittgenstein got his anti-Platonism from James in 
the first place, at least in part.

Matt:
You're right, it is a difference in my level of commitment: I don't have 
a whole lot of commitment to pressing a critique of James or Pirsig.  
Maybe I don't "get" the direct/indirect distinction that James and Pirsig 
use, though I've been offering some versions I think work with them, 
even if mine aren't exactly theirs.

And I still don't think I'm using my anti-Platonism against theirs.  I 
like their anti-Platonism.  The two of us, however, might disagree 
with what might be fully anti-Platonized (maybe even how to tell).  I 
don't know, I'm relatively non-committal about this issue these days.  
I'm not really using my anti-Platonism against them at all, let alone 
against their anti-Platonism.

And I hope Goodman is right about Wittgenstein.  Like Rorty, I've 
always thought James and Wittgenstein go together well.  (Even 
though, it doesn't matter if Wittgenstein got some ideas from James 
or not on the score of how well they go together.)

Matt