on 7/3/01 4:46 PM, Nathan Goralnik at rhizome85@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> I understand what you're saying. I just don't think the reference to
> pragmatism is particularly a propos.
I do.
> Rorty's public/private dichotomy
> doesn't really establish a spatial ontology (I mean, it effectively does)
> but at it's root it's just a political distinction: don't let Martin
> Heidegger influence your public values. I just think that what you're
> referring to is Arendt's dichotomy :) That's all.
The separation between political and spatial-ontology is completely
arbitrary - the reason that its' political is because you can make a
spatial-ontological division.
I think the point is pretty simple - why not let Heidegger influence public
values? What distinction makes them different from private? If Heidegger (or
whoever you want to talk about) is right about the way values function, then
those ethics (or at least the ethical reasoning) is going to apply in either
sphere. Rorty just starts with an idea of liberalism that he will defend at
all costs and then proceeds to reconcile that liberalism with what he thinks
other people are saying.
> Perhaps this will only be of interest to Stuart and Asher, but I think
> Spanos provides an interesting defense of Heidegger from Rorty: the idea
> that Dasein's technological relationship to the world saturates Western
> culture in a lateral continuum. Rorty's public/private distinction then
> seems rather arbitrary and reactionary.
Or to put it in English, "you're still acting the same way, dumbfuck."
The ONLY thing that stops us from using Rorty's reasoning to say "Ok, so
Rape is bad - I'll use that as my private philosophy but DAMN it's FUN! -
that can be my public philosophy" is his arbitrary standards for liberalism.
Certainly rape is going to destroy any sort of democratic process, but if we
have to use Rorty's reasoning - I mean, what the fuck?
(Yes, that is a valid philosophical proof - I swear.)
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"We're concerned about AIDS inside our White House ? make no mistake about
it." -- Bush, Washington, D.C., Feb. 7, 2001
> I understand what you're saying. I just don't think the reference to
> pragmatism is particularly a propos.
I do.
> Rorty's public/private dichotomy
> doesn't really establish a spatial ontology (I mean, it effectively does)
> but at it's root it's just a political distinction: don't let Martin
> Heidegger influence your public values. I just think that what you're
> referring to is Arendt's dichotomy :) That's all.
The separation between political and spatial-ontology is completely
arbitrary - the reason that its' political is because you can make a
spatial-ontological division.
I think the point is pretty simple - why not let Heidegger influence public
values? What distinction makes them different from private? If Heidegger (or
whoever you want to talk about) is right about the way values function, then
those ethics (or at least the ethical reasoning) is going to apply in either
sphere. Rorty just starts with an idea of liberalism that he will defend at
all costs and then proceeds to reconcile that liberalism with what he thinks
other people are saying.
> Perhaps this will only be of interest to Stuart and Asher, but I think
> Spanos provides an interesting defense of Heidegger from Rorty: the idea
> that Dasein's technological relationship to the world saturates Western
> culture in a lateral continuum. Rorty's public/private distinction then
> seems rather arbitrary and reactionary.
Or to put it in English, "you're still acting the same way, dumbfuck."
The ONLY thing that stops us from using Rorty's reasoning to say "Ok, so
Rape is bad - I'll use that as my private philosophy but DAMN it's FUN! -
that can be my public philosophy" is his arbitrary standards for liberalism.
Certainly rape is going to destroy any sort of democratic process, but if we
have to use Rorty's reasoning - I mean, what the fuck?
(Yes, that is a valid philosophical proof - I swear.)
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"We're concerned about AIDS inside our White House ? make no mistake about
it." -- Bush, Washington, D.C., Feb. 7, 2001