Ian said to Steve:
No, I think I do get DMB, he said exactly what I said he'd say ... ie he "does 
NOT say truth is "whatever we feel justified in believing"." His emphasis not 
mine.

Steve said:
DMB of course disagrees. ... Everything he says about truth ought to be said 
about justification instead. We are better off leaving truth to semantics to 
avoid all the "true for you, not for me" and "true then, false now" sort of 
nonsense.



dmb says:

There you go again. Instead of dealing with my case honestly, you put quotes 
around silly, trivial distortions of what you wish I'd said. The nonsense, sir, 
is all yours. I mean, really Steve. It looks like you're constructing straw men 
to avoid case I actually made. You insist that justification has to be distinct 
from truth and yet you can't even say what that precious concept means. This is 
the part you can't deal with, or explain. This is what makes your position so 
incoherent. How can truth transcend justification? You're turning an abstract 
concept into something by which to judge the actual concrete reality from which 
it was abstracted in the first place. It's just a generalization, not a god we 
aspire to. Truths are made by humans. Period. James is saying truth can't mean 
anything more than that.

Again, the emphasis is James's.... 

"The pragmatist thesis ...is that the relation called 'truth' is thus 
concretely DEFINABLE. Ours is the only articulate attempt to say positively 
what truth actually CONSISTS OF. Our denouncers have literally nothing to 
oppose to it as an alternative. For them, when an idea is true, it IS true, and 
there the matter terminates, the word 'true' being indefinable."


"X is true" iff X is true. "The cat is on the Matt" iff snow is white. YAWN! 
Boring. Trival. Purely formal. Who cares? That's what James is talking about. 
His denouncers (Steve) oppose James's concretely definable and positive notion 
of truth with "literally nothing". In this case, for reasons of Rortyian 
nature, but it's still literally nothing. 


It's true if and only if it's true? Sounds like a lullaby for little baby 
logicians.


Somehow, that's less than nothing.


 


                                          
_________________________________________________________________
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

Reply via email to