Hi dmb,
> Steve said to dmb: > My understanding was that empiricism prevents James from being a relativist > while the fact that Rorty does not claim to be an empiricist makes him a > relativist. You insisted in the past that empiricism makes a big difference > when it comes to the issue of relativism. Now you seem to be saying that it > makes no difference since you agree with me that "pure experience can't > settle any ethical or factual truth claims." What gives? > > dmb says: > I'm still saying that empiricism makes a big difference. Steve: For what purposes or for what practices does it make a difference? I agree tat it is good for addressing sense data empiricism, but what else is it good for? dmb: ...Pure experience can't settle claims because it has nothing to do with the pragmatic theory of truth. James never said it was supposed to play that kind of role. I don't even see how it's possible but, like I said, you're confusing pragmatism with mysticism. Steve: I don't think pragmatism has anything to do with mysticism or radical empiricism other than that James invented radical empricism and was also a pragmatist. Pirsig said that James saw his pragmatism as separate from his radical empiricism. I never thought one had to do with the other. As I said, my understanding was that you were saying that Rorty is a relativist because he does not embrace radical empiricism and that James avoids relativism because of subscribing to radical empiricism. > Steve said: > ...You can say truth is "what works," but that does not in itself give us any > standards for what counts as adequate justification. As I quoted Rorty > previously, "The way in which the properly-programmed speaker cannot help > believing that the patch before him is red has no analogy for the more > interesting and controversial beliefs which which provoke epistemological > reflection." The distinction between "works" and "doesn't work" is not a > given for any non-trivial questions. It is something worked out among a > community of inquirers who seek to justify their beliefs to one another. > By offering "what works" as not just a description of what beliefs will be > held as true but as a "theory of truth," you haven't given us anything we > didn't already have before adopting any theory of truth. > > > > dmb says: > > By offering a theory of truth I haven't given you anything you didn't already > have? So what you're saying, after all these explanations, is that the > pragmatic theory of truth just isn't anything. Steve: Isn't anything I am saying that it doesn't do anything to aid in any of the purposes for which anyone would pursue a theory of truth. The same goes for all theories of truth. dmb: Wow. You've shown nothing but confusion about that theory and yet you're willing to declare dismiss it as nothing. Seigfried calls James's work "a radical reconstruction of philosophy", Whitehead said James effected a copernican revolution, Richardson said pragmatism and radical empiricism were fused in "an explosion of creativity" and Pirsig says that James had not only nailed "truth" as a species of the good and rightly identified subjects and objects as secondary, he also hit upon exactly the same terms of the MOQ, namely static and dynamic. Steve: I never said that James wasn't a good philosopher. I just said that the pragmatic theory of truth is better thought as advice to not bother with theories about truth. dmb: > Seriously, dude. To use Rorty's arguments against James or Pirsig is to > confuse entire schools of philosophy, separate camps in philosophy. Steve: I am not using anything to argue against James or Pirsig. I am arguing against your claim that Rorty is a relativist. I am still waiting to hear what you ever mean by the term. Can you please define it for me? Again, I think you will have a difficult time giving a definition that condemns Rorty but does not apply equally to James. Best, Steve 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
