Yea, that's exactly what I've learned to expect from Marsha.
Insult and evade, insult and evade. You'll do anything to avoid the evidence,
no matter how rude, unfair or irrational.
Like I said, the evidence should speak for itself and reasonable people respect
the evidence. Obviously, the evidence is not altered by the fact that you have
no respect for me personally and it's not altered by my opinion of you either.
It comports with your interpretation or it doesn't. It supports my view or it
doesn't. If the evidence does not inform your view, how can your view be good
or right or true? Do you even care about what's good or right or true?
I asked one simple and direct question. Again, BASED ON THIS EVIDENCE, does
James sound like an epistemological relativist to you? If so, please explain.
>From "Pragmatism's Conception of Truth", pages 588-9:
"It is quite evident that our obligation to acknowledge truth, so far from
being unconditional, is tremendously conditioned. Truth with a big T, and in
the singular, claims abstractly to be recognized, of course; but concrete
truths in the plural need be recognized only when their recognition is
expedient. A truth must always be preferred to a falsehood when both relate to
the situation; but when neither does, truth is as little of a duty as
falsehood. If you ask me what o’clock it is and I tell you that I live at 95
Irving Street, my answer may indeed be true, but you don’t see why it is my
duty to give it. A false address would be as much to the purpose. With this
admission that there are conditions that limit the application of the abstract
imperative, THE PRAGMATISTIC TREATMENT OF TRUTH SWEEPS BACK UPON US IN ITS
FULNESS. Our duty to agree with reality is seen to be grounded in a perfect
jungle of concrete expediencies. When Berkeley had explained what people meant
by matter, people thought that he denied matter’s existence. When Messrs.
Schiller and Dewey now explain what people mean by truth, they are accused of
denying ITS existence. These pragmatists destroy all objective standards,
critics say, and put foolishness and wisdom on one level. A favorite formula
for describing Mr. Schiller’s doctrines and mine is that we are persons who
think that by saying whatever you find it pleasant to say and calling it truth
you fulfil every pragmatistic requirement. I leave it to you to judge whether
this be not an impudent slander. Pent in, as the pragmatist more than anyone
else sees himself to be, between the whole body of funded truths squeezed from
the past and the coercions of the world of sense about him, who so well as he
feels the immense pressure of objective control under which our minds perform
their operations? If anyone imagines that this law is lax, let him keep its
commandment one day, says Emerson. We have heard much of late of the uses of
the imagination in science. It is high time to urge the use of a little
imagination in philosophy. The unwillingness of some of our critics to read any
but the silliest of possible meanings into our statements is as discreditable
to their imaginations as anything I know in recent philosophic history.
Schiller says the true is that which ‘works.’ Thereupon he is treated as one
who limits verification to the lowest material utilities. Dewey says truth is
what gives ‘satisfaction.’ He is treated as one who believes in calling
everything true which, if it were true, would be pleasant. Our critics
certainly need more imagination of realities." (Emphasis is James's in the
original.)
How does your view compare to that "favorite formula" of pragmatism's critics,
the one that James describes here as an "impudent slander"? Do you think you
might be an impudent slanderer in the same sort of way? I think so. Also,
please notice that I DID NOT ASK HOW MUCH YOU RESPECT ME because that's not
relevant to the question. It's not about me. These questions are about your
view and its relation to James's text.
"A favorite formula for describing Mr. Schiller’s doctrines and mine is that we
are persons who think that by saying whatever you find it pleasant to say and
calling it truth you fulfil every pragmatistic requirement."
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
