Matt said to dmb:
Dave, you said.., "I'm simply saying that one can deny correspondence AND the
slogan." That's, perhaps, where you are breeding misunderstanding. Because if
the slogan's purpose is to deny correspondence, then to deny the slogan is
misleading. The properties of substitution create this meaning: "I deny the
slogan (which denies correspondence)". It's a double negative. I'm not trying
to be legalistic, but we have to be precise because it is each other's
intentions that are obscure to each other. What would be less misleading is to
say that you don't want to use the slogan (because there are other ways to deny
correspondence).
dmb says:
I honestly don't know what the difference is between denying the slogan and
refusing to use the slogan. I have the same problem understanding what you mean
when you say "we don't want to deny radical empiricism, we just don't want to
use it." I do not see any difference. Please explain.
But I like precision - I think it's necessary in this case - and your question
definitely gets at my concerns.
As I said to Steve yesterday, I think this slogan is at the center of Rorty's
vision. His most famous positions - there are no standards except the
conventional ones that we create, we shouldn't talk about truth theories or the
fundamental nature of reality, and we shouldn't be doing epistemology either -
all grow out of this linguistic critique of empiricism. But those famous
positions are more like conclusions he draws from this linguistic critique of
empiricism. Basically, he comes to the conclusion that empiricism is dead and
we have to move on to something else. And so that slogan ends up precluding
radical empiricism. The slogan is not aimed at radical empiricism but the one
of its consequences within Rortyism is to rule out an alternative form of
empiricism, which is exactly what Pirsig and James are offering. He takes the
slogan to mean that we ought not have truth theories at all but Pirsig and
James use the critique as their starting point in re-conceptualizaing the
meaning of truth in the development of an alternative to the correspondence
theory of truth.
The properties of substitution would mean that denying the denial of
correspondence would lead to back to correspondence. But that's what I mean in
calling this a false dilemma. I don't reject the slogan BECAUSE it denies
correspondence or even because of the WAY it demolishes sensory empiricism. I
object to the slogan on grounds that Rorty probably never seriously considered,
grounds that have nothing to do with re-affirming the correspondence theory or
traditional empiricism. My objection is third thing and it doesn't dispute this
denial but draws different conclusions from it and different conclusions about
how to proceed.
"Thought are true just insofar as they are valuable instruments of action.
Rorty has picked up James's criticism of thought 'as a passive mirror' but
mistakenly thinks that the alternative is some sort of conversation."
(Siegfried, 294)
"Rorty, for instance, approvingly characterizes James as engaging in 'floating,
ungrounded conversations' ..." (Siegfried, 304)
"The importance of this methodological shift ..to investigating how truth
functions in actual situations is explicitly recognized by H.S, Thayer. He
points out that for pragmatists, truth and falsity are not properties of ideas,
nor even the relation of ideas to facts, but instead are characteristics of the
performance of ideas in situations." (Siegfried, 307).
"Truths emerge from facts but also add to facts, and these fact, in turn,
create or reveal new truth. On one way of interpreting the interactive process
we can claim to be merely naming what is factually given, but on and equally
valid interpretation of the same process, we can claim to be participants in
the creation of new truth." (Siegfried, 312)
" 'Man is the measure of all things.' Yes, that’s what he is saying about
Quality. Man is not the source of all things, as the subjective idealists would
say. Nor is he the passive observer of all things, as the objective idealists
and materialists would say. The Quality which creates the world emerges as a
relationship between man and his experience. He is a participant in the
creation of all things. The measure of all things—it fits. And they taught
rhetoric—that fits."
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
