From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 04:15:52 GMT
>Erin,
>
>
>Since you're using colors, to help see the consequences of what pragmatist
>is talking about, let's take your khaki couch. You see a khaki couch. If
>100 people all came in a said that that couch was red, what would you
>think? Could be, those 100 people are insane, they are conspiring against
>you, playing a big joke, are all color blind, etc. But you begin to notice
>that what you called "khaki pants" everybody else calls "red pants." You
>notice that khaki shirts are called by everyone else "red shirts." What
>would you think then?
I understand there is no way to know the true color of
the couch. You also can't be sure that all those 100
see the same shade because they could all just agree to call the
shade they see as red. So we all have opinions on what shade we see.
Okay so saying the shade of the couch can't be known
is okay to me but saying my experience isn't knowledge because I am not in the
statistically majority does not.
Also saying you can't know the shade is not the same as
as whether you believe there is shade.
>>After we take "truth" to be a property of sentences, the differences
>between two languages strikes up the fact that, though the causal pressures
>we feel may be from the same world, what marks and noises we call true are
>different, depending on what set of marks and noises you are using. To
>call a couch "khaki" as opposed to "[Japanese word]" seems arbitrary, but
>that is only if you don't identify with any community. If you indentify
>with an English-speaking community, "khaki" is part of your language
>tradition and so calling your couch khaki is just what everyone in your
>language community happens to call it.
>
>Matt
But its a matter of a concept, I'm just using the English
word to represent that concept.
Truth is not relative to a particular language of course...
concepts underlying the languages i'm less sure.
There is a play I can't remember what its called dammit...
okay I am going to screw this up because its pretty vague
but will try it anways.
There was a horse that ran through town
1 townmember: it's a horse
2 townmember: it's a horse
3 townmember: it's a horse
4 townmember: it's a rhino
next day horse runs through town
1 townmember: it's a horse
2 townmember: it's a horse
3 townmember: it's a rhino
4 townmember: it's a rhino
okay keeps going until all four say it's a rhino
It's not useful to say knowledge is a consensus of
opinion because the trend in this instance is away
from knowledge.
I'm with you on knowledge is an opinion but
saying knowledge = consensus of opinion
is promoting an approach to this entity of
looking at the statistic of what others say
rather then looking at the thing yourself.
The terms "horse" and "rhino" are arbitrary but
is the concept of horse arbitry from the concept
of a rhino? There is no point to ANY communication pragmatic or otherwise
without the belief that the entity is a particular essence.
Our concepts are personal essences of that essence.
The terms we use to describe our concepts we can share
with others but that doesn't mean our concepts are the same.
We can recognize the possibility that some people concepts can be closer
approximations to that essence even though there is no
way to measure whose is closer.
Erin
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 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 04:08:49 GMT