{Matt]
> That was very coy of you to address Ian with that quote from Rorty, but you
> know who it should go to. Do you want to go around this again? Are you
> rescinding on the equilibrium we reached? If you sincerely want to talk
> about truth again, I'd ask that you either leave Rorty out or do more than
> contextless quotes, and particularly more than quoting a guy talking about
> someone else's understanding of someone else. Trusting the opinion of
> somebody is one thing, but throwing that out is like if someone came in here
> and said, "Pirsig is a lame duck," and then quoted Galen Strawson. If
> that's all they had, no one would, rightly, take them seriously.
>
> But if you do want to have at it again, let me remind you of our previous
> point of agreement, to which I've not only made reference to recently, but
> many times since its happening. I'll lead with your reply to me to remind
> you of your agreement with what will follow (from the "Mill: Quality
> philosopher" thread, June 2006,
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/2006-June/003295.h
> tml):
>
> Now, Platt, the question is: do you want, now, to contest something up
> there? You are, of course, free at any time to change your mind about
> things. I'm not going to hold you to something you said two years ago (this
> isn't a presidential election, after all). People change their minds. Do
> you not agree with the basic thrust of my explanation now? Do you not
> assent to this, the essential (if absurdly long and circumlocutorious)
> conditional in the post:
>
> "If you're willing to agree that the notion of an "Absolute Truth" that is
> an object of inquiry creates an activity that has no criteria for even
> knowing if we had found what we were looking for (an activity that would go
> on indefinitely with no parameters for even knowing which direction is the
> right direction to go hunting in), then you should be willing to agree with
> me (to this limited extent) that the notion of "absolute truth" in
> philosophy is a wheel that spins idly by itself, that its dead weight, that
> it would be best to cut it loose from your philosophical language, thus
> trimming your own philosophical language and not letting it get away from
> you with pointless jargonizing."
>
> If not, we can have a new conversation. If you _do_, well, then ... I don't
> know. Back off, I guess. Because I don't think anyone here is suggesting
> anything except basically something that agrees in spirit with the above.
> At the very least, I know Ian and Arlo aren't.
>
> But for everyone else, if Platt does agree again, I suggest using the above
> as a reference point if Platt gets out of hand, a reminder of a point of
> agreement. One of the reasons the MD often seems like an experiment set to
> prove Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence is because we have bad memories
> and because points of agreement are rare (often because points of mutual
> understanding are rare). There isn't a good record of the points when they
> happen, things that can be built off of, like, "Hey, no, I'm just talking
> about that thing we agreed on last week." If there were more mutual
> reference points, that would shut down conversational paths that have
> already been walked down so that people could spend their time exploring
> other lanes.
>
> So--what's up Platt? What's it going to be?
Matt,
Like I said at the time, I have no argument with your "explication of
truth" wherein you explained why, according to postmodernists, "we should
stop talking about it." After reading it again, I would say the same,
especially agreeing with, "Rorty conceded that truth is an absolute
concept."
I guess the reason why I'm still talking about it is the denial on the part
of some here of Rorty's statement that truth is an absolute. I point out
the Truth of such self-contradictions as: "It's true there is no truth."
As for citing others like Caldwell about postmodernism, you need not take
him seriously. But in my opinion his credentials and the publication in
which his article appeared speak to the authenticity of his views.
Finally, I'm sure you'll agree that in philosophical matters no one has the
final word. Perhaps postmodernists would like to say about truth, "Case
closed." But in my book it's better to say, "Keep the conversation going."
Platt
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/
