tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post2469678564631741290..comments2023-07-04T03:53:40.171-07:00Comments on Matt Kundert's Friday Experiment: Literature as Equipment for Living and as Spiritual ExerciseMatt Khttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05304261355315746372noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-86211322088456782762014-07-12T08:59:35.178-07:002014-07-12T08:59:35.178-07:00It is a little disturbing, but as you imply, it...It is a little disturbing, but as you imply, it's also one of those formulas that forces further thought, rather than embodying a truth itself. Because since Gilbert Ryle, in <i>The Concept of Mind</i>, people are much more aware in analytic philosophy that there is a deeply-embedded ambiguity in the word "know"--namely, the distinction between know-how and knowing-that. You may know <i>how</i> to ride a bike, but even the most lingually capable would be hard pressed to put all the things you know how to do into words, into propositional "I know that to ride a bike I must...." So that "hidden" you use above still might have some truth to it, what Brandom covers with "implicit" (which I talk a little about in "On the Asymmetry"). I think our habits--including linguistic habits--are informed by things we may have forgotten, and so in some sense those belief/habits do have those specifics hidden in them. ("Informed" is a curious word to use in this context.) But as you say, defending a stance importantly requires those specifics. Part of this is nicely captured in Brandom's terminology of entitlement (justification, defense) and commitment (which includes the implicit), along with his notion of the default-and-challenge structure of the game of giving and asking for reasons (which comes up in <a href="http://pirsigaffliction.blogspot.com/2014/07/on-asymmetry-between-practical-and.html#sec6" rel="nofollow">section 6</a> of "On the Asymmetry"). <br /><br />Years ago, when I first read Ong's <i>Orality and Literacy</i>, I dawned on me what the purpose was of what we now call "talking points." They are, at root, oral formulas that help you remember the things you believe. Their misuse and utility, and the rise of the talking point with the concurrent rise of neoconservative talk radio (an oral medium), is something that I've wanted to put together for a long time, but have never quite had the seed drop into the solution to crystallize everything.Matt Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304261355315746372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-46165392614894124492014-07-10T19:59:16.711-07:002014-07-10T19:59:16.711-07:00"you only know what you can remember" bu..."you only know what you can remember" bugs the shit out of me. Makes me feel small. I guess because I want to think that even though I can't remember specifics, I have hidden them in the foundation of my beliefs. It bugs me because I realize it to be true when it comes to defending a stance. Great to see some new material out of you. Barry (still haven't figured out how this publish thing works)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com