Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:28:01 -0500
Subject: Re: PKF: Would Feyerabend have defended Wittgenstein and Whorfagainst 




a while ago, i had posted a message regarding sokal's new book. this post
did not elicit discussion probably because its an old issue and has been
discussed before, or perhaps because this list is not intended for such
discussions. i am emboldened by the current chomsky discussion to revisit
the discussion i was trying to initiate, in light of the fact that
chomsky has given his stamp of approval to sokal's prank and underlying
theory of science.

i am a novice at philosophy, science and linguistics and better minds on
this list will be more able to shed light on the suspicions i wish to
raise below.

one interesting question that arises is: is feyerabend a part of the
Left? i would venture that he would quickly say "no", since i sense in
him a distaste for being part of some conceptual movement. his actions
during the 60s, as presented in KT, show that he was a sympathizer with
many of the causes but was individualistic in his actions (choosing to
continue with classes during protests, for example). this then leads to
the question of what is the "Left"? and this seems to be the crux of
the sokal wars. sokal, having realized that his prank has played right
into the hands of the political right, has been scrambling to
[re]establish his left credentials and position himself close to
chomsky and ehrenreich, the darlings of the political left. it seems
to me, perhaps in my naivete, that the different camps in the Left
might share attitudes of humanitarianism but are sharply differentiated
by deterministic materialism (the marx variety? but more importantly
the scientistic variety) on one side and relativism on the other. the
latter side (relativists) seems to include (a) "obscurantists" (PKF's
word) such as derrida and members of the deconstruction school, perhaps
those members of the academia that sokal mainly targets, and (b) a
whole lot of thinkers pondering the ambiguity of knowledge (and
stressing the need for humility in its use) on different sides of the
scientistic divide (putnam? quine?... on the more positivist side,
dare i say?), the critical side of which i would say houses PKF's
thought.

i would conclude that at least on the political front and the
philosophy of science front (as opposed to linguistic theory, where
i have not read any contribution from PKF) we would find PKF and
chomsky holding opposing views. is it true that PKF and others are the
more "humanitarian" in that they detect and critique the
authoritarianism in science and its practice? that is my belief, and
i believe that this is the issue of subjective truth that each
"liberal" thinker must note in his consideration of science, just as
each theologian (or anyone who practices a religion) must confront
the similar kierkegaardian idea.

while i continue to greatly admire chomsky's relentless political
efforts against inequities and authoritarianism, i am skeptical of his
general approach (someone else posted a better expressed and more
relevant critique of his rhetorical successes in enforcing his point
of view in the field of linguistics) such as quoting (out of context)
and critiquing martin heidegger on the "meaning of truth".

someone mentioned that in this thread, each person is responding not
to the original question on PKF's possible view on the chomsky v
wittgenstein issue, but to his own view of the differences between PKF
and chomsky. i must admit that with this post, i am furthering that
vein of response!

	--ravi


note to daedalus: i would assume that the "terrorist" reference is the
usual fare of critics of the Left, who categorize people like say yasser
arafat as a terrorist and then equate Leftist sympathy with the
palestinian cause with a support of terrorism. i must quickly add that
i am not trying to stir up left-right debates (which unfortunately
never seem to lead to any meaningful discussion or outcome), but am
trying to keep this discussion alive, since it is of great interest
to me.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
science is the only subculture in which failure is legitimate -- kenneth boulding
**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu