Steve said to dmb:
My point is just that it [the pragmatic theory of truth] doesn't do what you
are claiming it does in geting something over on Rorty. You can't do anything
that he can't do without claiming that theory.
dmb says:
But Steve, since you don't understand the theory, you cannot even begin to make
such a claim? It's not a claim about the theory. It's merely a confession of
your own lack of understanding. You're only saying that it doesn't do anything
for YOU.
There was a survey not too long ago showing that FOX news watchers were very
poorly informed compared to those who got their news from National Public
Radio. That's not very surprising, right? A more recent survey showed that FOX
news viewers were very poorly informed even compared to those who consume no
news at all. In other words, the people who know nothing are still better
informed than people who watch FOX news. While Rortyism is a heck of a lot more
respectable than FOX, you're are similarly afflicted. By analogy, the people
who know nothing about the MOQ are still better informed than you. At least
they know that they don't know but you are looking at the MOQ thru a
neo-pragmatic filter that distorts everything so that you can't see how much
you don't know. And you're not even going to try to understand the theory
because you think you already do. But as I tried to show already, you can't
even distinguish this truth theory from mysticism. This level of comprehension i
s less than zero, Steve. We're talking negative numbers.
dmb said:
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.
Steve replied:
You are missing the point. The point is that to whatever extent pragmatism is a
method of testing, it is not something ruled out as "non-conversational
constraints on inquiry." It is just a description of some of the usual ways we
go about inquiring.
dmb says:
Yep, this is one of those cases where you seem to know less than nothing. You'd
really be better off approaching the question from a naive, unphilosophical
perspective, one where the concepts aren't all tangled up in Rortyisms. If you
could only put some fresh eyes on the matter, you'd see that your "point" is
completely implausible. Just look at what you are saying...
James's pragmatism says ideas are made true (or not) in experience, which means
there are empirical constraints.
Rorty's pragmatism says conversation is the only constraint on inquiry, which
means there are no such empirical constraints.
Therefore,
Rorty's denial of all non-conversational constraints does not deny James's
empirical, non-conversational constraints?!? Such a conclusion violates common
sense and basic logic and common sense, not to mention basic logic and common
sense.
You really don't see how bogus that is? You really can't how empirical
constraints differ from conversational constraints? If the conversational
constraints are the only kind, then where does that leave empirical
constraints? Saying they haven't been ruled out is a violation of basic logic
and common sense and basic logic.
Experience is everything to my pragmatists and words are everything to yours.
This difference is epic and by trying to compare Rortyism with the MOQ, you
(and Matt) just end up cutting the heart out of the MOQ. Every part of it gets
all whacked out of shape, not just the big stuff like mysticism and morality
but even little things like the free will resolution and the theory of truth.
There is no room in your cup because it's full of Rortyism. Like a FOX viewer,
your cup full of the wrong stuff. You'd be better off with an empty cup.
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
