dmb said to Steve:
You're asking the question in response to my answer to the question. Wouldn't
it make a lot more sense to ask about the answer rather than ask the same
question again? Is there something unclear about the answer I already gave or
do you love it so much that you want another serving? Anyway, to repeat the
answer already given, the criticism is "about the consequences of thinking that
conversation is the only constraint on truth. That's what his critics balk
at...".
Steve replied:
You've told me that you and others balk at a particular statement, but that
doesn't answer my question. You haven't defined what relativism is. If you
define relativism to mean saying the words "there are no non-conversational
constraints on inquiry" then no doubt Rorty is a relativist by your lights. But
I suspect you must have something more general in mind for what a relativist
is. Please make that definition explicit so we can see how Rorty fits the bill
of a dangerous relativist while James doesn't.
dmb says:
Oh, dude. You're doing it again. I answered this already. I supplied the answer
directly to you, in detail, in this same thread, connecting my use of
"relativism" with Pirsig's use of the term. This was all asked and answered
about a week ago. It seems pretty clear to me and I was trying to be careful.
If you want any FURTHER clarification on the answer already given, go ahead and
ask. That might represent something like progress, might result in something
other than going around in circles.
Steve:
Is it _Rorty_ or you who is exhibiting the all or nothingism? It seems to me
that it is Rorty who is saying what we can't have (a metaphysical foundation)
and it is you who is insisting that we are therefore left with nothing.
dmb says:
Oh, dude. You are so frustrating. If I'm saying pragmatism is a theory of truth
that rejects prevents one from being a relativist, then how in the world can
you conclude that I'm insisting on nothing? I'm complaining about relativism
and in the same breath comparing the pragmatic theory of truth with the fact
that Rorty has given up on truth theories. It should also be obvious that the
all-or-nothingism complaints are about exactly that. It is this view that
foundational, Platonic truth (all) is the only possible kind and since we can't
have that, Rorty thinks, we can't have any (nothing) theory of truth. And every
time I say we can have something, namely the pragmatic theory, you assume it
must be Platonism and you start equating pure experience with objective
reality. And then we're right back at the beginning again. And here you've
shown me that you thought I was advocating the very thing I was complaining
about. How could possibly be any more mistaken? It makes me want to
pull my hair out.
To top it off, you persist with this direct inversion even though you just
acknowledged it's backwardness, saying "to you [dmb] and your
all-or-nothing-ism that means we have nothing. To him [Rorty] that just means
we'll keep on muddling through as we always have." But this muddling through is
exactly what I mean by Rorty's nothingism. I'm saying there is an option
between those extremes. I'm saying pragmatism offers NEITHER foundational
certainty NOR ad hoc muddling through. I'm saying pragmatism is NOT
all-or-nothingism. As I tried to explain, this is a fake dilemma. LIKE I
ALREADY EXPLAINED, Rorty thinks "conversation is the only constraint because we
just can't have "the voice of God", "the indubitable", "the apriori structure
of any possible inquiry", "permanent non-human constraints" or any other such
"metaphysical comfort". That is what I mean by "all-or-nothingism".
Steve said:
The conversational sort is the only sort of constraint ON INQUIRY. And what is
inquiry? ...inquiry is concerned with assuaging doubts and doubts are things
that are held and raised by human beings who need to justify beliefs to
themselves and others in their communities. ..What is absent from this picture
that concerns the sort of people who like to accuse others of relativism is
"the world" as a term that are beliefs are to be true _of_. But that is
presumably not your concern. Instead, what you find missing is "experience."
Beliefs are not thought of as true _of_ experience where a proper
correspondence would be in question, but tested in the course of our daily
activities nevertheless. But still, unless you can make something of how
testing functions, you haven't specified anything of the "I have something that
you don't have" nature that Rorty is missing.
dmb says:
I don't know how to make it any clearer, Steve. Pragmatism IS the method of
testing. It is a method for settling disputes between rival metaphysical
visions. It is a method for separating real debates from mere verbal disputes.
Rorty came to the picnic from a walk in the woods to find his friends in a
heated dispute about a squirrel. Go for it, he said. Conversation is the only
constraint on inquiry, he told them. And you know what? They are still down at
the park arguing about whether or not the squirrel ever got around that man.
They've been arguing for well over a century now.
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
