tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post3907522471313050654..comments2023-07-04T03:53:40.171-07:00Comments on Matt Kundert's Friday Experiment: Rorty, Religion, and RomanceMatt Khttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05304261355315746372noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-35361813032752321912009-02-16T11:17:00.000-07:002009-02-16T11:17:00.000-07:00Stout, yes, I've been itching for a while to read ...Stout, yes, I've been itching for a while to read "Democracy and Tradition". I've owned it now for about a year and I have yet to crack it open.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-9147425821118466712009-02-15T18:59:00.000-07:002009-02-15T18:59:00.000-07:00Nah, I wouldn't think of it that way. I was just ...Nah, I wouldn't think of it that way. I was just a little confused because I don't know your viewpoint well enough.<BR/><BR/>It sounds like you just find the whole idea of having to defend the Jeffersonian compromise absurd. And it is, on a certain abstract level. I don't quite understand what believers are after when they plug away at it, except to think that they don't really believe in democracy. And if they do, I tend to think they know not what they wish for.<BR/><BR/>I remember Jeffery Stout, a philosopher of religion at Princeton and a kind of comrade in arms with Rorty, criticized Rorty's "Conversation-stopper," and I remember reading Rorty's capitulation in front of Stout's always discerning comments about religion and pragmatism, but I never did understand what the problem was because, despite the fact Rorty said he was shifting his stance, I didn't see it. It looked the same to me, though possibly less pissy, like in the James commentary.Matt Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304261355315746372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-24189993310760829752009-02-15T08:57:00.000-07:002009-02-15T08:57:00.000-07:00Staring off into a corner during a nice valentines...Staring off into a corner during a nice valentines day dinner with the wife I thought about my comment above and how I sort of stuck my foot in my mouth…<BR/><BR/>Oh well, it’s not like I have it all figured out.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-35153178037362768362009-02-14T07:41:00.000-07:002009-02-14T07:41:00.000-07:00Ok Matt,it’s not so much that I disagree with anyt...Ok Matt,<BR/>it’s not so much that I disagree with anything stated in these two essays (particularly God as a conversation stopper) it’s the silliness of it. To bring up God as justification for policy in debate seems to me no different then bringing up God in a debate between physicists on the big bang – both are equally inappropriate conversation stoppers. <BR/><BR/>It’s no different then when some douche brings up the laws of physics during an obvious fictional movie – it’s always a buzz-kill. <BR/><BR/>When we’re talking politics we’re talking politics, when physics, physics, and let movies be what they are, idol entertainment. <BR/><BR/>So yes, keep “God talk” our of the public sphere where all views don’t hold it as the final answer – absolutely.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-73229430578805483082009-02-12T04:41:00.000-07:002009-02-12T04:41:00.000-07:00Hm,I didn't think about it that way... Principle t...Hm,<BR/>I didn't think about it that way... Principle that is..Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-25164722338847022112009-02-11T19:53:00.000-07:002009-02-11T19:53:00.000-07:00I'm not sure at what point you stop agreeing with ...I'm not sure at what point you stop agreeing with the two Rorty essays, though for what it's worth, when I began writing this particular piece, I didn't think I had all that much to say about religion. Between you, the pragmatic theist, and Leela, the atheistic pragmatist, I've been thinking about it more lately, and when I returned to Rorty's work, it become more and more obvious to me that the topic of religion is ripe as a condensation of the effects of pragmatism. <BR/><BR/>This is a fairly dense piece that is more suggestive than anything else. I have planned three other pieces, one on religion and science where I hope to expand on pragmatism's defense against the narrow enemy of scientific reductionism and the broader enemy of intellectualism; one on the problem of Rorty's actual use of the private/public distinction and a utilitarian ethics of belief; and one on what kind of atheist a pragmatist should be.<BR/><BR/>But in relation to what you said, I don't think pragmatists can stomach a principled distinction between authority and principle. With principles, as Stanley Fish argues, principles can be nothing more than rules of thumb and with authority, what is authority but trust accrued to something of proven use? In other words, in a pragmatist redescription of things, principles and authority pretty much amount to the same thing under scrutiny.<BR/><BR/>What I think we really have is a problem with the difference between critical and non-critical acceptance of beliefs one finds that one has (which ultimately is the difference between having a lot of inferential links to your beliefs and not, or more colloquially, the difference between having a lot to say when asked why you believe something, and not). Critical reflection, the spawn of Socrates, is something we want more of in our culture, but it is pretty much predicated on wealth and leisure, so until the time we can extend that to everyone, I think rules of thumb of charity suggest we shouldn't be so harsh on people with three jobs.Matt Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304261355315746372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-47894563386733670352009-02-11T06:19:00.000-07:002009-02-11T06:19:00.000-07:00Matt,I really agree with both essays - to a point....Matt,<BR/>I really agree with both essays - to a point. I certainly don't want my policy makers stating the reason for they're decision was the will of God, if they want to think that fine, but certainly don't throw it out there. <BR/><BR/>I'm not the sort of theist who goes around talking about God - I don't even go to church. And in todays environment don’t plan on taking my kids there either. <BR/><BR/>But it also depends on the nature of our religious atmosphere – when we use God as a justification for a given stance, are we speaking principally, or as a proxy of God’s voice? I think it’s a pretty shallow example of the believer to suggest that the real reason for the/a belief is God’s will, as surely God’s will stands for certain underlying principles, right? In other words, what if we [for a moment] objectified Democracy in the same way one does God and said, “the reason for my stance on abortion is due to Democracy’s will.” Ok, well of course that sort of begs the question, “What is Democracy’s will?” I’ll be waiting for an argument from authority here of course. However, surely that argument (or hopefully that argument) will be based on the fundamental principles of Democracy – freedom and equality. <BR/><BR/>Finally, is one couching his beliefs when he appeals to God’s will in biblical dogma, or in the principles of goodness and love. If it’s the former, then get your fundy ass out of here, if it’s the latter, then I understand you quite well I think. So for me the conversation stopper lies in the authority vs. principle stance.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-77638114292080070772009-02-10T08:00:00.000-07:002009-02-10T08:00:00.000-07:00rth, nice one Andrewrth, nice one AndrewAndrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24152639.post-37175737183119238842009-02-10T06:22:00.000-07:002009-02-10T06:22:00.000-07:00I suppose this means I have some reading to do bef...I suppose this means I have some reading to do before I comment... You don’t talk to Matt without first preparing for him.<BR/><BR/>Short of that I would throw out there – God isn’t a “personal-noun”, although it’s certainly used as one. And on the third day of the 4rth year of our lord Democracy, it was provided for us a stimulus check, and it was good. Although, as we are all ruthless sinners, we divided it all up evenly amongst ourselves, became fallen, and were denounced from the garden and given the mark of communism upon our foreheads. It is only through Democracy’s divine grace and the sacrifice of his only son Capitalism that we shall find salvation.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.com