On Fri, 23 Jun 1995, Andrew Moreno wrote:
> John Warfield wrote:
>
> >It seems to me useful to make a distinction between "suppositions" and
> "presuppositions".
>
> Useful towards what purpose?
Today, in the philosophy community, there is a movement that goes by
various names, but what it involves is almost a total disconnect with the
past, accompanied by a belief that virtually all received doctrine is
suspect. Some people say this is primarily coming from the "Parisian
Nietzscheans", such as Jacques Derrida and the late Michel Foucault.
Foucault's book, THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE, is sort of the New
Testament of this movement.
Among the many quotable pieces of that book are:
"The manifest discourse, therefore, is really no more than the repressive
presence of what it does not say; and this 'not-said' is a hollow that
undermines from within all that is said."
"...the tranquility with which [the pre-existing forms] are accepted must
be disturbed; we must show that they do not come about of themselves, but
are always the result of a construction the rules of which must be
known,and the justifications of which must be scrutinized"
WHAT DOES THE FOREGOING HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? Well, suppose you
profess to be a manager/leader, and suppose you are being driven by
presuppositions of which you are unaware. Suppose you love to be open
with your associates, but when you make decisions, the not-said undermines
what you have said, because your associates do not see what you said to
ring true. Is it possible that it did not ring true because you were not
aware of it, and therefore couldn't make your case?
I'm also reminded at this point of Richard Rorty's quotation:
"Uncovering the presuppositions of those who think they have none is one
of the principal means by which philosophers find new issues to debate."
Get a free life!
>
> Whether or not a person is aware or not aware of the beliefs they are
> operating from is sort of irrelevant. Making that distinction doesn't
> obscure the fact that their behaviour is directly related to their
> beliefs.
Irrelevant to who? Your second sentence is my point exactly. Authenticity
is important as someone else said in this same list-serve sequence.
>
> I think that making that distinction is the beginning of being able to
> change those suppositions or presuppositions which usually result in
> changed behaviour. However, making that distinction will not change those
> beliefs. There needs to be something more to accomplish that.
YES, I AGREE. THE ALCOHOLIC NEEDS TO ADMIT TO BEING ONE IF THE BEHAVIOR
IS GOING TO CHANGE, AND AFTER HAVING DONE SO, SOMETHING MORE NEEDS TO BE
DONE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN NECESSARY AND
SUFFICIENT.
-- WARFIELD SIGNING OFF. Jwarfiel@osf1.gmu.edu