Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 22:49:49 -0700 Subject: [MSPRINKER-AT-ccmail.sunysb.edu: Re: BHA: Re: test] Here is the second message from M. Sprinker: ------- Start of forwarded message ------- From: MSPRINKER-AT-ccmail.sunysb.edu Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 20:17:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: BHA: Re: test Message-Id: <01ISAVUS48DUDU7P5D-AT-ccmail.sunysb.edu> State University of New York at Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-3355 Michael Sprinker Professor of English & Comp Lit Comparative Studies 516 632-9634 12-Jan-1998 08:09pm EST FROM: MSPRINKER TO: Caroline New ( _owner-bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU ) Subject: Re: BHA: Re: test Thanks to Caroline New for retrieving Colin's message from the outer reaches of cyberspace into a form my system could assimilate. I have not read Ree's article, but it sounds as if it's missed the point of RB's critique of Rorty. RB/critical realism would say, I guess, that redescriptions (Rorty's term for what pragmatists are free to do) are not always optional, that things like famine, etc. are not subject to just any old account. One can't sensibly redescribe famine as, say, the will of the gods. Rorty would not so describe it, I'll bet, but he cannot, on pain of self-contradiction disallow such a redescription, and thus he is disabled from critically assessing any competing claims about the nature of famine, and instituting appropriate remedies on that basis. Rorty has his values (those of what he variously terms "bourgeois liberalism" or "North Atlantic liberal democracy"), but he cannot justify or validate them; they're just "his" (and others') values. They're decent enough values in most cases, but they lack any ethical or political bite. Give me Norman Geras, whatever difficulties one may have with his more recent writings, any day. Fraternally, Michael Sprinker ------- End of forwarded message ------- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005