Dan said to dmb and everybody:
I take it then that these articles concerning Pragmatic Truth are wrong? Or am
I misreading them somehow? And if so, how?
dmb says:
There is one slightly misleading line in these quotes but otherwise they seem
quite right to me. The description of pragmatism as "a synthesis of
correspondence theory of truth and coherence theory of truth" would be okay as
way to introduce the basic idea but it's really much more subtle than that.
James's thinks our truths must "agree with experience" but this really isn't
the same as correspondence to reality. Likewise with "coherence". James thinks
our truths have to fit into the conceptual order (the mythos) but this really
isn't the same as coherence theory.
We can also see this in Pirsig's description of James's radical empiricism,
wherein they are both rejecting the basic ontological premise of the
correspondence theory. Once you reject subject object metaphysics, it no longer
makes sense to construe truth as the correspondence between objective reality
and the subject's ideas. In Pirsig's book, this rejection of SOM immediately
follows the description of James's pragmatism, wherein Pirsig says, "That was
right on. That was EXACTLY what is meant by the MOQ. Truth is a static
intellectual pattern WITHIN a larger entity called Quality."
There are different kinds of pragmatism but, I think, we want to know about
James's version in particular because of the way Pirsig puts him to use in
explaining the MOQ's theory of truth. I mean, my main point is to say that
Pirsig is not opposed to James on this point. The are not enemies on this.
Quite the opposite. He says James's truth theory is "EXACTLY what is meant by
the MOQ".
Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing here...
Wiki on the Correspondence Theory:
"The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a
statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it
accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. The theory is opposed
to the coherence theory of truth which holds that the truth or falsity of a
statement is determined by its relations to other statements rather than its
relation to the world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and
true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory
attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand,
and things or facts on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at
least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and
Aristotle. This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a
representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by
whether it accurately describes that reality."
Wiki on the correspondence theory's relation to ontology:
"Historically, most advocates of correspondence theories have been ontological
realists; that is, they believe that there is a world external to the minds of
all humans. This is in contrast to metaphysical idealists who hold that
everything that exists is, in the end, just an idea in some mind. However, it
is not strictly necessary that a correspondence theory be married to
ontological realism. It is possible to hold, for example, that the facts of the
world determine which statements are true and to also hold that the world (and
its facts) is but a collection of ideas in the mind of some supreme being."
> "William James's version of the pragmatic theory is often summarized by his
> statement that "the 'true' is only the expedient in our way of thinking,
> just as the 'right' is only the expedient in our way of behaving." By this,
> James meant that truth is a quality the value of which is confirmed by its
> effectiveness when applying concepts to actual practice (thus,
> "pragmatic"). James's pragmatic theory is a synthesis of correspondence
> theory of truth and coherence theory of truth, with an added dimension."
>
> "Ideas … become true just in so far as they help us to get into
> satisfactory relations with other parts of our experience. (1907: 34)
> [William James]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth]
>
> "Any idea upon which we can ride …; any idea that will carry us
> prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other part, linking
> things satisfactorily, working securely, saving labor; is true for just so
> much, true in so far forth, *true instrumentally*. (1907: 34)" [William
> James] [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/#PraTheTru]
> "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who
> investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in
> this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality. (EP1:
> 139)" [Charles Peirce] [
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/#PraTheTru]
>
> Dan comments:
> I take it then that these articles concerning Pragmatic Truth are wrong? Or
> am I misreading them somehow? And if so, how?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:04 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > Dan said:
> >
> >
> > ...Moving on, from what I understand of the pragmatic theory of truth, it
> > is typical of correspondence theories in that value is found in the
> > relationships between symbolic representations and objective states of
> > reality. The MOQ sees truth as high quality intellectual patterns of value.
> > It is a good idea to believe these intellectual patterns correspond to
> > reality but it is only an idea. I think this is a stumbling stone for many
> > folk when it comes to the MOQ.
> > They tend to liken intellectual patterns to corresponding objective
> > realities rather than to the idea of those realities being beyond our
> > purview.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ron responded:
> >
> >
> > Typically the Pragmatic theory of truth is understood as a reaction
> > against correspondence theory, value is found as a result of a process of
> > inquiry rather than relationships between symbolic representations and
> > objective states of reality. It is a means of clarifying thoughts. If
> > anything, this has also been a stumbling block for many when they confuse
> > the two and apply MoQ's attack on corresponence theory as an attack on all
> > theories of truth.
> >
> >
> >
> > dmb says:
> >
> > The pragmatic theory of truth is a rejection of the correspondence and,
> > according to Pirsig, James's pragmatic theory is "right on" and "exactly
> > what is meant by the MOQ".
> >
> > "James said, 'Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually
> > supposed, a category distinct from good, and coordinate with it.' He said,
> > 'The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of
> > belief.' TRUTH IS A SPECIES OF GOOD. That was right on. That was EXACTLY
> > what is meant by the MOQ. Truth is a static intellectual pattern WITHIN a
> > larger entity called Quality." (LILA, p. 363-4. Emphasis is Pirsig's.)
> >
> > Likewise, here is the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article on
> > Pragmatism:
> >
> > "Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that began in the United States
> > around 1870. Pragmatism is a rejection of the idea that the function of
> > thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality [that's
> > correspondence]. Instead, pragmatists develop their philosophy around the
> > idea that the function of thought is as a instrument or tool for
> > prediction, action, and problem solving. Pragmatists contend that most
> > philosophical topics--such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts,
> > meaning, belief, and science--are all best viewed in terms of their
> > practical uses and successes rather than in terms of representative
> > accuracy [that's another way to describe correspondence].
> >
> >
> > The sub-section dealing with "Metaphysics" starts in a way that is very
> > friendly to the MOQ:
> >
> > "James and Dewey were empirical thinkers in the most straightforward
> > fashion: experience is the ultimate test and experience is what needs to be
> > explained. They were dissatisfied with ordinary empiricism because in the
> > tradition dating from Hume, empiricists had a tendency to think of
> > experience as nothing more than individual sensations. To the pragmatists,
> > this went against the spirit of empiricism: we should try to explain all
> > that is given in experience including connections and meaning, instead of
> > explaining them away and positing sense data as the ultimate reality.
> > Radical empiricism, or Immediate Empiricism in Dewey's words, wants to give
> > a place to meaning and value instead of explaining them away as subjective
> > additions to a world of whizzing atoms."
> >
> >
> > Isn't that pretty much what Pirsig says about his brand of expanded
> > empiricism? I think so.
> >
> >
> > “The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is called empiricism. It
> > claims that all LEGITIMATE KNOWLEDGE arises from the senses or by THINKING
> > about what the senses provided. Most empiricists deny that validity of any
> > knowledge gained through imagination, authority tradition, or purely
> > theoretical reasoning. They regard fields such as art, morality, religion,
> > and metaphysics as unverifiable. The Metaphysics of Quality varies from
> > this by saying that the values of art and morality and even religious
> > mysticism are verifiable, and that in the past they have been excluded for
> > metaphysical reasons, not empirical reasons.” (LILA 99).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.danglover.com
> 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
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
