> [DM] >> It is correct that SOM stops us discussing and exploring our >> values because values are thrown out of an ungrounded >> objective approach to knowledge (ungrounded in human >> experience). > > [DM] >> Where I have a problem with SOM grounded >> science and secularism is that they dress up these values (many >> of which are good values) as valueless objective knowledge. >> People then make all kinds of truth claims against each other, >> where in reality their differences are due to different values. >> > [Platt] > Can you give some examples of specific values that are dressed up as > "objective knowledge?" I'm having a hard time imagining them. Truth as > defined by Rorty and others in the postmodernist camp is considered to be > relative to culture or a power play, except, incoherently, the truth of > their own privileged stance. Not many are buying their self-falsifying > claims these days except a few humanities academics. Truth may have > "objective value" in that truth as a general concept cannot be denied > without asserting a truth, just as values cannot be denied without > asserting a value. But, I await your comments.
DM: Sort of thing I have in mind are claims about what is human nature, or what is natural or natural behaviour. Usually this stuff is more value loaded than describing any necessity. Truth I find of little value as a concept. What does something being true mean? Is the hat in the box? Don't know unless I look. Yes it is, yes it is true, only means that it is true due to experience after the experience. Sure you can say it was true before we looked but knowing the truth is just having an experience or imagining something could be experienced. So it has to be someone's experience. Is this relativism? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
