Matt, Thats the damnedness of forms eh? in order to have a fuller evolving sense of unserstanding, some sort of limit must be imposed on the senses. In fact I'd say that any understanding is a theory of truth, the power of explaination lies in how one uses the word "justifies", what types of experience are truth claims based apon? having said that, a theory about the best sorts of experience to base truth claims on , how and why in terms of practicality and usefullness in contextual practices would have the utmost value would'nt you think? For a person that values the pursuit of truth (genre for many) the crafting of those truths and how one pursues them seems to be the most import.
You seem to be saying that the pursuit of and theory of truth is meaningless and futile I tend to think that it's the defining value of being. It fills our bellies and slakes our thirst, finds shelter and create offspring. Matt: Because ultimately Steve's point has been that what Dewey in that essay refers to as the "truth-experience" is justification, warranted assertibility; and that saying that justification makes up the outlines of the genre of "all cases of Trues" _does not_ save you from the possible experience of humiliation when you learn that--based on an antithetical claim's more suddenly more powerful justification--one particular "case of True" was in fact false, thus leading a philosopher to say that while justification/warranted assertibility/intersubjective agreement/good-in-the-way-of-belief is a necessary condition for truth, it is not sufficient. Hence, a continued distinction between justification and truth (rather than collapsing them as Dave seems to want to do). Ron: Where Dave and you and Steve seem to differ is on an either/or explaination of "truth"(s). I may have you wrong but it seems that your side is that no type of justification may be collapsed, there always is a distinction between truth and justification which basically boils down to "truths are justifications" because you assert that truths are ultimately everchanging making some sort of theory about their consistancy in certain contexts as then yielded meaningless. But there are contexts in which a theory of truth is meaningful particularly in the recognition of those truths that DO change to untruths. Matt: What additional condition is there for truth? Claim-X being true, in addition to justified. But since justification is our only route to truth, it does in a sense make justification sufficient: justification is _experientially_ sufficient for a claim of truth. But since new experience will never end, no claim is ever assured eternal sufficiency. Which is why justification cannot be theoretically sufficient, even if it is practically. Because as long as shit keeps popping in and out of the little circumscribed bubble called the "genre of 'all cases of Trues,'" we know the circle isn't practically helpful. Hence Steve siding with Rorty in saying that there's not too much point in having a theory of truth. Ron: Exactly why isn't it helpful? why must eternal sufficiency be met? I think this is where Dave's criticism is leveled. Your assertation that any claim of truth, on the basis that it can not be eternally sufficed, is'nt practically helpful is a criticism based on the notion of having to meet some sort of eternal sufficiency. That circle you speak of IS the eternal sufficiency, the eternal sufficieny of what is meant by the justification. The simple recognition of shit popping in and out of it defines it's form. The good. Value. The true is a species of the good. The good is not a strictly verbal lingual enterprise. there are biological goods or truths that must exist in some sort of "eternal" or consistant pattern that justifies it as giving the meaning of the word "eternal" to "justify the collapse of justification and truth. Else there is no change that can be distinguished. The sheer fact you make the distinction confirms that you think there is something that changes, to assert change one must be able to make distinctions of what does and what does not qualify as true. The act of value is the form of truth. Therefore any theory of truth is theory on how we live our lives, and if there is not much point in that then why delve into philosophy at all? _________________________________________________________________ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
