Matt said:
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 replied:
Exactly why isn't it helpful? Why must eternal sufficiency be met? I think this
is where Dave's criticism is leveled. Your assertion that any claim of truth,
on the basis that it can not be eternally sufficed, isn't practically helpful
is a criticism based on the notion of having to meet some sort of eternal
sufficiency.
dmb says:
Ron sees it. Apparently, this notion of eternal sufficiency is what leads Steve
to insist that truth and justification are two different things. But I'm saying
that truth AS eternal sufficiency is a meaningless concept. That doesn't mean
there is no truth. It only means there is no eternal truth. It means truth is
provisional. It means that truth can only ever be what's justified. Anything
more than that is just an abstract ideal, a very misleading one at that. And of
course you're not going to get a such a static theory of truth from James or
Pirsig. They paint of picture of reality that is fluid, dynamic and a picture
of consciousness that is likened to a stream. You know, one of those slippery
wet things that you can never step in twice. What sense would a standard like
"eternal sufficiency" make in a world like that? None.
I'd repeat Ron's first question. How do you figure that there is no point in
knowing what is currently within the circle of truth? Why should we abandon
truth just because we no longer define it in terms of eternity? I think it is
completely ridiculous to expect anything like eternal truth and such a notion
has no business in any serious discussion of the meaning of truth. It's really
just a idealized reference to future justification anyway. But if you've
already stipulated that truth is provisional, then you're not shocked or
humiliated or even mildly surprised when new truths replace the old ones.
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
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
