One thing: Chuffed and igather, I remain more or less skeptical of this skepticism of coherence of thought - not least because even that skepticism implies a coherent commitment to be skeptical, and so doesn’t even come close to abiding by its own terms. Which, I imagine, you’ll answer by saying “see, that’s more incoherence!” and then, it seems to me, we are stepping into a tactic of winning every argument in advance by simply claiming that there are no commitments worth making irreversibly, and that?
All you people are (are you?) on the same page, basically. (I know—reductive?!) I feel like the tumblr universe is pointing this out: Postmodernism, coherence, pragmatism—they’ve all been on the dashboard. It’s there, put it together.
As if asking in earnest, “But how do I know that words mean what I think they do” doesn’t presuppose that your words already mean what they do. As if wondering if you can know anything doesn’t already presuppose you know things. Aren’t discourses little enunciations of coherence? Isn’t any specific instance of coherence just another mode of discourse creation? I don’t get it.
