From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 23:24:49 BST
> > > RICK:
> > > > Agreed. There is no "final truth".
> >
> > PLATT
> > > Is that your and Pirsig's final truth?
> >
> > RICK
> > No. It's not a 'final truth'. It's an observation.
>
>An observation that, as stated, refutes itself.
So, doesn't it prove itself, then? An endless loop is either final, or it
isn't, depending on how much idealistic patience you have, or how much
pragmatism you have.
>
> > One which you
> > could easily refute by citing just one 'final truth' which we'd all
>agree
> > with.
>
>Refute by an ad populum fallacy? No thanks. Is Rorty"s 'intersubjective
>agreement" now your standard of truth? Say it isn't so.
>But, just for fun, how about this? "Truth exists." Anyone disagree?
Where? Maybe as a concept, but so do lots of things exist as concepts, like
God, for example, but that doesn't mean that God exists (or does it?). It
does make living meaningful, perhaps even possible, to believe in a concept
like truth.
> > But more to the point, in the MoQ 'truth' is based on the properties
>of
> > intellectual patterns (ie. their logical consistency, agreement with
> > experience and economy of explanation). What could 'final truth' even
>mean
> > in this context?
>
>Final truth in that context means "truth is based on the properties . . .
>."
>
> > Is it really coherent to say some given assertion is the
> > 'final logical consistency', the 'final agreement with experience' or
>the
> > 'final economical explanation'? It sounds like nonsense to me.
>
>Me too.
>
> > However,
> > it is coherent to think of an assertion as the 'most logically
>consistent',
> > the 'most in agreement with experience' or the 'most economical in
> > explanation'. The catch is that when you change from 'final' to 'most'
>you
> > have to leave room for the possibility of your explanation eventually
>being
> > trumped by one in which those qualities are even stronger.
>
>Is that a final truth? Or one to be trumped later?
>
>Platt
Didn't you and I agree that there was exactly one final truth (and its
derivitives): that of never being able to know everything? Did Matt and
Rick agree that this was a truth or not, I can't remember. I think post
modernism can survive quite nicely with there being one truth considered
absolute and final, as long as it doesn't assert anything more than our own
ignorance, or everlasting wonder. So "leaving room to possibly be trumped
later" is not necessary with regard to that one truth, to answer Platt's
question, it is final.
JM
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Fri Apr 04 2003 - 23:25:13 BST