Comments on: Pragmatic Faith: Oxymoron? Maybe Not. (Part Two) http://sgshaw.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/pragmatic-faith-oxymoron-maybe-not-part-two/ looking to see the world through his eyes Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:48:25 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: sgshaw http://sgshaw.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/pragmatic-faith-oxymoron-maybe-not-part-two/#comment-6 sgshaw Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:03:19 +0000 http://sgshaw.wordpress.com/?p=15#comment-6 Recontextualization encompasses all types or modes of experience. It is not limited to simply one or another. If the 'web of beliefs' is representative of the human mind in its entirety, then this must be the case. See Rorty, "Inquiry as Recontextualization" for clarity on this point. I often narrow my use of terms, inter-weaving pragmatism and postmodernism to where they best fit. Your question of suffering (unless I have misunderstood what you mean by suffering) falls, in my opinion, under postmodernism rather than pragmatism. (This is not a flippant use of terms--I have substantial reasons for preferring one over another.) To account for suffering on a universal level would require an unprecedented epistemology. Such a lofty goal would doubtless be the zenith of a modern Christian epistemology, but the postmodern mind (and epistemology) is not so concerned with this sort of thing. However, I don't want to launch into a long list of reasons why this is so if I have misunderstood you from the outset. If I have, please let me know. Maybe we can get a discussion going on here! Recontextualization encompasses all types or modes of experience. It is not limited to simply one or another. If the ‘web of beliefs’ is representative of the human mind in its entirety, then this must be the case. See Rorty, “Inquiry as Recontextualization” for clarity on this point.

I often narrow my use of terms, inter-weaving pragmatism and postmodernism to where they best fit. Your question of suffering (unless I have misunderstood what you mean by suffering) falls, in my opinion, under postmodernism rather than pragmatism. (This is not a flippant use of terms–I have substantial reasons for preferring one over another.) To account for suffering on a universal level would require an unprecedented epistemology. Such a lofty goal would doubtless be the zenith of a modern Christian epistemology, but the postmodern mind (and epistemology) is not so concerned with this sort of thing.

However, I don’t want to launch into a long list of reasons why this is so if I have misunderstood you from the outset. If I have, please let me know. Maybe we can get a discussion going on here!

]]> By: Nathan http://sgshaw.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/pragmatic-faith-oxymoron-maybe-not-part-two/#comment-5 Nathan Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:12:09 +0000 http://sgshaw.wordpress.com/?p=15#comment-5 The experience that you are describing appears only to accommodate theoretical experience, (reading the Bible, for example), never phenomenal experience. If I am wrong, and the experience you are describing does account for the phenomenal kind, how does pragmatic faith take on board the experience of suffrage, or natural disasters causing suffrage? The experience that you are describing appears only to accommodate theoretical experience, (reading the Bible, for example), never phenomenal experience. If I am wrong, and the experience you are describing does account for the phenomenal kind, how does pragmatic faith take on board the experience of suffrage, or natural disasters causing suffrage?

]]>