From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 00:45:22 BST
Johnny,
Johnny said:
I'd like to see what Matt says about these.
Matt:
Actually, the unpacked version of the one-liner I already threw out is
pretty much as you've said. As you say, "[post-modernists] are making the
point that it is all to be found in the context," though I think following
that with, "you can't know what would be true if that context were
different," is a misleading way of saying "none of these facts are safe
from redefinition," redescription, and recontextualization (three ways of
saying the same thing). We can know what would be true if a context is
different because, as we change the context, which beliefs and facts count
as true change. What we can't do is make a contextless claim for Truth or
Facts, a transcendental move enthroning certain truths, beliefs, or facts
as ahistorical. In a post-modern context, the transcendental move beyond
all contexts is ruled as being out of court.
So, I think you've said everything I would say about Platt's list. And as
you can see, it doesn't say anything about the facts themselves. That's
because, as Stanley Fish points out, the post-modern metaphilosopher isn't
making a claim about the particular facts themselves, when opining in this
fashion, but a claim about the assumptions and context undergirding those
facts. When I look at one of Platt's facts and I agree with it, that
doesn't mean I agree that there are transcendental, ahistorical truths, it
means that the part of my web of beliefs I'm looking at is sufficiently
similar to that pertinent part of Platt's web of beliefs. Its why we can
agree on some, and disagree on others. Agreeing on one certainly doesn't
establish the others, let alone the background assumption of
ahistoricity. What you've added, Johnny, is another excellent formulation
(particularly with the self-referential bit) of what Sam and I (mainly
Sam), with the help of Wittgenstein, have argued for the past several weeks
in the several threads that have touched on "what is a fact?". Its mainly
been Sam, I simply added my agreement from time to time.
Matt
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 : Thu Apr 10 2003 - 00:48:09 BST