Does it help if I mention that all three are valid:
The hermenutical view is about What there is, the analytical view is
about How it is and the pragmatic view is about the Use of it.
Let them all be there together to get a complete picture; real energy,
objective pattern and subjective value instead of rivalising.
Jan-Anders
[email protected] wrote 2011-01-03 16.27:
Ian said to dmb:
... For reasons like these I fail to see (again) why there is any disagreement between
say Matt and DMB and Marsha, other than an attitude / will to disagree. Life's a
"metaphorical mosaic" old chum, But don't forget (reify) the metaphor please!
dmb says:
Ah, the great equivocator strikes again!
Hopefully, Matt and Steve will see the distinctions that you've failed to see
(again). Are you willing to dismiss Laura Weed's paper as the product of mere
attitude/will too? I mean, the post you're responding to is an extension of her
main thesis. Let me repeat that main thesis for you:
Laura Weed argues, "that the DEFLATIONIST VIEW of truth in contemporary ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY
CAN NOT CAPTURE the meaning of truth because it has cut its material too thin in restricting
considerations related to truth to very narrowly conceived logical considerations concerning
propositions, and by shutting itself off from experience of the emotional and intentional aspects
of a lived life. And I have argued," Weed says, "that the socio-historical view of truth
expoused by Foucault, RORTY AND OTHER HERMENEUTICAL PHILOSOPHERS CANNOT CAPTURE the meaning of
truth because they do not consider the roles of A) stable functions of consciousness, and B)
practical interactions with a recalcitrantly existent environment, in their considerations of the
nature of truth." (Weed, page 14)
The distinctions at issue in my conversation with Matt and Steve are between
three views of truth; the analytical, the hermeneutical and the pragmatic.
Those are the three views discussed in Weed's paper, which defends James's
theory against the other two views. To suggest that these differences are
unreal or unimportant and to dismiss the debate as mere attitude is annoying
and unhelpful, to say the least. I think your failure to see why there is a
disagreement is just that; your failure. This is not to say that I'm done
explaining it or that my efforts so far haven't raised questions but the basic
lines have been drawn pretty clearly. There are lots of papers and books about
these rival theories so you certainly don't have to take it from me or Weed.
You should do some investigations for yourself, Ian. Then come back and
apologize. I'll be holding my breath. :^+
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
