So Platt, Matt,
If we're agreeing no-one has the final word, no one of us can speak
any absolute truth, what are you doing capitalizing "Truth" Platt,
(and rubbishing Pragmatists & PoMo's who point out this fact.)
Seriously, if you're agreeing with Matt using the statement you used
.... what do you (Platt) signify by the "T" in Truth ?
We've actually debated this "axiom that there are no axioms" paradox
many a time before "the truth that there is no truth" .... can be no
more Truth than truth; "a truth" than "the Truth" .... but I'm
guessing what you meant by "T" ...
Ian
On 5/7/08, Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {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/
>
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/
