Hi Scott:
You asked:
> But how does the individual "determine truth"?
I agree with Pirsig's answer. I suspect you do, too.
"Then one doesn't seek the absolute 'Truth." One seeks instead the
highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that
if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken
provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can
then examine intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings
in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the "real"
painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value."
> Rorty does not deny that we
> all have the potential to disagree with the various "groupthinks" around
> us, and would certainly applaud an honest attempt on the part of the
> individual to come up with better alternatives if the existing ones don't
> work well. What he (Rorty) objects to is the notion that there is some
> absolute criterion according to which the better alternatives can be
> discerned. Indeed, if there were, and we knew them, there couldn't be any
> creativity.
I wonder what criterion Rorty relies on to suggest his philosophy (and
objection) is better than the alternatives. I also wonder how he would
define "work well." If this means pragmatism, it's a social value in MOQ
terms.
> I reject both beliefs. The "out there" because nothing of value is added to
> "I am looking at the stars" by the phrase "I am looking at the stars which
> exist in space and time independently of my looking at them".
What is added is a denial of the belief that nothing exists unless I
observe it.
> I reject the claim that nothing exists unless I observe it, since
> Quality exists with or without me in this human shape. Also, because the
> pattern "I observe X" is also contingent: it is S/O dualism.
Now you say Quality, unlike stars, does exist independent of your
observation. How come Quality can exist without observers, but stars
cannot?
> In sum, I think unless we reject both, we are not rejecting SOM.
Like Pirsig, I don't reject SOM. It has value. It is necessary for survival in
"adopt or die" reality--the reality of tigers, bears, icebergs and radical
Islam.
> I don't know much about Foucault, and my acquaintenance with Derrida is
> mostly secondhand -- in particular I don't know what his political beliefs
> are, so I'll stick with Rorty. Rorty thinks that liberal democracy is
> superior to totalitarianism, because not only does it result in a better
> standard of living, but also it provides more opportunity for individuals
> and groups to be creative in finding new ways to deal with the environment
> (inorganic, biological, and social, though he may not cut it up that way),
> and it provides more scope for individuals to work on developing their
> "authentic selves". What more do you ask for?
My acquaintance with Rorty is second hand so would appreciate the
reference where he said liberal democracy is superior to totalitarianism.
Unlike some other postmodernists, it would seem he does have some
"absolute criteria" on which better alternatives can be discerned.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:20 BST