Ken wrote:
>I agree with much of what Jim says. However, I really do think that some
>of the cash-value, it works type of slogans that James and others adopted
>are indeed simplistic. Something is not true because it works or leads to
>successful practice etc. or false (inoperative is the spin doctors version
>of this) because it doesn't. I have always thought that pragmatism's
>theory of truth is an incoherent version of a coherence theory of truth
>minus the idea that there is an absolute truth that relative truths approach.
I am not an expert on what the pragmatists, such as James and Dewey, say
(while I get impatient with lots of discussion about what these folks
"really" said, which luckily isn't true in Ken's message). Anyway, I
thought that the point of pragmatism to discussions of epistemology was
that the ultimate reason why we're interested in truth or falsity is
because it impacts our practice. The coherence theory of truth as I
understand it doesn't conflict with this, though I'd like an understanding
of that theory... (I probably have been advocating it all along without
knowing it.)
>The fact that hypothetical doubt has practical implications does not mean
>that the doubt is not removed from practice. Abstract thought such as that
>in theories in physics, or the development of certain types
>of alternative logics or geometries may be done for the intrinsic delight
>or interest that some persons take in doing this with no thought of
>practical implications or implications for practice.
the inherent delight isn't practical? and what's the difference between
"doubt" and "hypothetical doubt"?
>Nonetheless practical implications may be found for such theories,
>geometries etc. Although, these practical applications may be regarded as
>justifying such abstract thought or doubt, I pointed this out only to
>appeal to Jim who perhaps holds that application to practice should be the
>sole justification or at least there must be some pragmatic justification.
>Personally, I think that the enjoyment people have in pursuing
>hypothetical doubt or abstract thought is in itself sufficient
>justification without some further pragmatic applications. Indeed you
>could argue that insisting on the need for pragmatic justification of such
>thought or doubts could be counterproductive over the longer term as far
>as practical applications are concerned. This is evident surely as
>scientific research becomes more and more oriented to practical results.
>The cash value of research to parody James is in the profits it can
>provide for corporate capitalism. But I agree with Jim ultimately that
>leftists should be doing research that may help move us closer towards a
>socialist society and working to change society; indeed, as I said,
>questions about whether we can know whether we are brains in a vat are
>hardly the first order of business for anyone interested in working toward
>a socialist society.
Actually, I wasn't thinking of the pragmatic theory of motivation or ethics
or anything like that. I was thinking of a pragmatic theory of
_epistemology_. That is, we might have doubt about whether or not we're
really walking around and typing on computer terminals (when we could be
disembodied brains in MATRIX-type vats instead). But if the answer to this
question has no practical implication, i.e., if we'd do the same thing no
matter which situation is true, then the question is basically irrelevant.
"The kingdoms of Experience
In the precious wind they rot
While paupers change possessions
Each one wishing for what the other has got
And the princess and the prince
Discuss what's real and what is not
It doesn't matter inside the Gates of Eden" -- Bob Dylan ("Gates of Eden").
I'm afraid that most of us are paupers in this verse, while the discussion
of the reality of reality is only for the princesses and princes. BTW, this
is one of Dylan's most class-conscious songs, as seen by the following:
Relationships of ownership
They whisper in the wings
To those condemned to act accordingly
And wait for succeeding kings
And I try to harmonize with songs
The lonesome sparrow sings
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden
Hey, I've got this book here, does anyone want the lyrics to "Neighborhood
Bully"? ;-)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
