Blackburn is a dishonest asshole.

Blackburn on Eco on Hilary Putnam: also leads him to misunderstand another celebrated episode in modern philosophy of language. The philosopher Hilary Putnam once proposed a "twin-earth" thought experiment, in which we imagine an earth just like this one, except that the stuff playing the role of water is some different chemical, called XYZ. We can imagine, according to Putnam, the persons on twin-earth talking happily of "water." Eco interprets Putnam as proposing that persons on twin-earth would thereby be referring to water, or H2O, because he takes rigidity to imply this. But Putnam's point was exactly the opposite, namely, that they would not be referring to water, but would be referring to the stuff that surrounds them, to XYZ, which is not water but a good substitute for it.
et alia | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 6:31 pm | #

Putnam himself on Twin Earth's XYZ: "Then there are two theories one might have concerning the meaning of 'water'.(1)One might hold that 'water' was world-relative but constant in meaning...but 'water' doesn't have the same meaning in W1 and W2.(2)One might hold that water is H2O in all worlds (the stuff called 'water in W2 isn't water) but 'water' doesn't have the same meaning in W1 and W2"

(analytic nonsense continued)
et alia | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 6:44 pm | #

"If what was said before about the Twin Earth case was correct, then (2) is clearly the correct theory. When I say 'this liquid is water...the force of my explanation is that 'water' is whatever bears a certain equivalence relation to the piece of liquid referred to as 'this' in the actual world."

I realize that's a log of gibberish, and a lot of it is questionable. But from what I can tell, Eco has Putnam right, and Blackburn is wrong, wrong, wrong.
et alia | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 6:49 pm | #

BTW, the Putnam quotes are from the essay, "The Meaning of 'Meaning'". Further on in the same essay, he just comes out and says it: "'Water on Twin Earth is not water, even if it satisfies the operational definition (has the same gross characteristics) because it doesn't bear same(L) (e.g., is not H20) to the local stuff that satisfies the operational definition."

If you can't count on a guy to get stuff in his own philosophical idiolect right, why trust him at all outside of his specialty?
et alia | Homepage | 11.22.04 - 6:56 pm | #

hmm...I probably should have seen that one coming. Venom will absolutely not be tolerated in these comment boxes. Rather it will be judged.

What is one to make of Rorty's analogy between "superman" and "deconstruction" (referring to the most shallow and popular readings--are they truly dominant)?

Rorty's angle seems a rather psychoanalytic one, talking about "use value" he almost seems to risk conflating Derrida with Habermas.

Of course Derrida was himself "obsessed with purity"--who isn't?

Rorty, as is to be expected maybe, seems fairly content to align Derrida's project with his own:

"His larger point is that words gain their fluctuating meanings from the fluctuating contexts in which people put them. What matters are the relations between those contexts, not the relation of words to reality."

It may be a nitpick, but would Derrida really have "agreed" that "no two uses of a sentence ever have exactly the same import?"
Matt | 11.23.04 - 12:00 pm | #

What to make of a "usefulness" without "method"?
Matt | 11.23.04 - 12:04 pm | #

These enormous and vague questions are in no way calculated provocations.
Matt | Homepage | 11.23.04 - 12:24 pm | #

I don't know Derrida or Rorty enough to comment on those questions—not that I'm supposed to, but I figured if there was an analytic philosopher (Blackburn)involved in a post, I'd want to push him down and kick him a few times.

The thinkers I have an affinity for are the so-called Western Marxists--the SI, Adorno. I've only ever been able to get a handle on Derrida through others writing on his work. That aside, I figure somebody that the analytics hate so much must have something good going for him. Besides, it seems that if one could 'bracket' off what the man wrote from every other aspect of his life, all reports are that he was an extraordinarily decent and generous man. That the analytics feel they have to slander somebody like that who just died shows how petty they are, and is a betrayal of any coherent idea of philosophy.
et alia | Homepage | 11.23.04 - 4:44 pm | #

I wish I was familiar enough with Blackburn to argue with you et alia...but I'm not.

I see no reason to "bracket off" anything Derrida ever wrote from assessments of his "true person."
Matt | Homepage | 11.24.04 - 2:35 pm | #

Would recommend interview with Rorty: "Against Bosses, Against Oligarchies" (pdf), available online.
Anonymous | 11.25.04 - 8:06 am | #