I totally agree. Zarathushtra was most definitely a pragmatist. And I much prefer to refer to Zarathushtra as a pragmatist and an existenitalist rather than a relativist.
Zarathushtra viewed the world as a world that constantly opened itself up to observation, to constantly new and bewondering observation too. This is precisely where pragmatism takes off.
So we can find Zarathusha's thinking reverberating in all the great pragmatist thinkers, like Nietzsche and his American counterparts Charles Peirce and William James, for example. And most of all Gilles Deleuze, among the French 20th century philosophers. Plus of course Richard Rorty!
Ushta
Alexander
2008/8/29 Special Kain
Dear friends,
Maybe we should let go of such old dichotomies, such as either-meaningful-or-meaningless. What also striked me about Popper's reasoning was his idea to offer a THIRD option: the world is neither meaningful nor meaningless, it is INDIFFERENT towards meaning. But - and that's what Zarathushtra came up with so many centuries ago - the meaning we've created for ourselves DOES affect the world through our words and actions. It's common sense that convictions shape this world. Thus, we are co-creators.
On the other hand and in good Peircean spirit, I also believe that meaning is an open process. There's no end. Things mean what they cause. We can't foresee all effects, nor can we fully understand EVERY SINGLE effect today.
That's why I agree with Alexander that Zarathushtra was an existentialist. But we was also a pragmatist in a Peircean way.
My two cents,
Dino
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar