Steve said to dmb:
For a more concrete example, "the cat is on the mat" is true if and only if the
cat is on the mat. In Rorty's view "the cat is on the mat" is not made true by
being able to justify it as you and James say. It is true if the cat really is
on the mat whether we can justify it or not.
dmb says:
Sorry, but I still don't understand. How can we say it is true in the absence
of justification? This doesn't make any sense unless...
Oh, wait. Are you saying that a propositional sentence (The cat is on the mat)
is true if it corresponds to an objective reality? This can't be right. He
rejects objectivity, no? He couldn't use that definition of "true" without
contradicting himself in a major way.
In any case, I don't see how "true" can mean anything at all in this
formulation. If you can't provide some kind of reason, some kind of
justification then what basis do you have for saying it is true? Do you think
we can make truth claims about cats on mats that exist somewhere outside of our
experience?
You see what I'm asking?
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/
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/
