[Ian] > Even if I agreed with that single Rorty statement, out of any context > - I fail to see how that supports any point you are making about PoMo > / Relativism as a whole. So yet another "Platteral Shift". > > Secondly Platt, hoist with your own petard again, too - we could > debate what Rorty meant by "reality" in that sentence - but of course > the word "right" is the significant one in the context of Matt's > thread. > > We're talking about useful vs right and the fact that some things are > relatively more useful (better value / better quality) than others. A > model of what is "right" is not one of those things.
Ah yes, "more useful," right out of the postmodern playbook. From Roger Caldwell: "A similar problem arises, as Bricmont points out, with regard to Richard Rorty's neopragmatism. If, as Rorty proposes, we replace the notion of truth with that of usefulness, so that we accept only those propositions which we find in general to be 'useful', then the question arises as to whether they are really useful or not. That is, the very criteria by which we judge a proposition to be useful involve the same recourse to a correspondence with reality which the theory denies us in advance. We are left, inescapably, with the conclusion that the theory is incoherent." Incoherence -- a familiar companion to Ian. For Caldwell's full expose of postmodernism, see: http://www.philosophynow.org/issue42/42caldwell1.htm > On 5/6/08, Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ian, > > > > "No area of culture, and no period of history, gets reality right more > > than any other." -- Richard Rorty > > > > So tell us about your reality, Ian. > > > > > > > Platt, > > > > > > A far cry from the caricature in your head, but not so far in reality - > > > a gap easily brigded - by anyone who cares. > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > On 5/5/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Quoting ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > Arlo, Platt > > > > > > > > > > > [Platt] said > > > > > > Pirsig proposes a universal > > > > > > moral order. Postmodernists propose moral relativism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both true, a universal moral "order" that "orders" things according > > > > > to their "relative" morality in layers. > > > > > > > > A far cry from postmodernism where it's all relative. 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/
