Ethical foundations of the left

[Justin Schwartz]

Some pragmatists are skeptics of a sort. Classical Jamesian and Deweyan 
pragmatism was antirealist about truth, substituting (respectively) "what 
works for you" and "justifief belief." Pierce was not, but he was so upset 
with what D & J had done to pragmatism that he changed the name of his 
philosophy to "pragmaticism." Modern neopragmatism is all over the map on 
this. Rorty can be construed as a sort of antirealist heir to James who 
accepts a "consensus" theory of truth, although he is slippery and backs off 
from thsi when pressed. Posner is corrosively skeptical about any big 
epistemological questions. Quine and Sellars were scientific realists, as is 
Boyd. Goodman was a total relativist.

--jks


>From: Peter Kosenko <kosenko at netwood.net>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: Ethical foundations of the left
>Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:39:20 -0700
>
>In what sense do you mean that pragmatists are
>skeptics?  One might say that there is a quality
>of common-sense realism about many of the
>philosophers who began what we call pragmatism.
>For example, Pierce argues that if there is not a
>reason for disbelieving our experience, we have
>every pragmatic reason to believe it, until our
>experience and interaction with the world
>contradict our beliefs and we have to
>reconceptualize.  Someone on another list pointed
>out the respect in which Pierce held Scottish
>common-sense philosopher Thomas Reid, who attacked
>Hume's idea that experience is "reflected" in our
>"minds" as "images" and is hence inherently
>unreliable (even causally disconnected).  He held
>that our perceptual experience just IS our
>experience, and there is no need for the special
>translation into the register of "mental images."
>In other words, Reid was skeptical of Hume's
>skepticism.  And so, I believe, was Pierce.  And
>one isn't going to find many pragmatists defending
>Descartes' brand of skepticism.
>
>Of course, what Pierce means by "belief" isn't the
>same as what theologians mean by it.
>
>Maybe you were thinking of Rorty or Wittgenstein
>or someone else.
>
>By the way, I'm not an academically trained
>philosopher, so answers that take that into
>account would be helpful.
>
>Peter Kosenko
>
>Luke Benjamin Weiger wrote:
> >
> > > Another point, is that assuming that Justin has represented
> > > Posner's position correctly, then he sounds suspiciously
> > > like a pomo.  Many other pomos have drawn upon views
> > > akin to Duhemian holism to justify a relativist epistemology,
> > > in ways that Quine would most certainly have disapproved.
> > >
> > > Jim F.
> >
> > Justin has indeed accurately represented Posner's positions.  However,
> > pragmatism is much more sophisticated than post-modernism in that its 
>best
> > thinkers are in the mode of the classic skeptics: they employ powerful
> > analytical arguments to undermine argument itself.
> >
> > -- Luke
>
>--
>=============================================================
>Peter Kosenko
>Email: mailto:kosenko at netwood.net
>URL: http://www.netwood.net/~kosenko
>=============================================================
>"Man is a rational animal.  He can think up a
>reason for anything he wants to
>believe."--Benjamin Franklin

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp