From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 15:52:38 BST
Matt,
> Platt said:
> I'm also frustrated because in your own words your are "flexible about
> definitions." Your Humpty Dumpty approach of "When I use a word it means
> just what I choose it to mean" isn't useful to mutual understanding.
>
> Matt:
> You're begging for this one.
>
> "I simply have no use for Rorty's truisms, like, people need people to
> define a word."
When you say "I" are you speaking for Rorty? Note in the first case I'm
talking about you, in the second, about Rorty. I assume there's a
difference, but now I wonder.
> Okay, I've tried to put my cards on the table. I've tried to be clear.
> By clarity, here, I mean that in the course of a post or a series of
> posts on a single subject, I try, like most people, to stick to a single
> definition of a key word. If I don't, then I'm being ambiguous and
> vague and people are free to ask me to clarify.
So, there are definitions of words? I thought you were anti-
definitions.
> So, when I say "flexible" I mean that I don't think the dictionary
> somehow gets a word correct. (Hell, the dictionary doesn't even think
> it gets words correct, otherwise why would there be more then one entry
> per word?)
That dictionaries show more than one meaning for a word has nothing to
do with correctness of the definitions.
> Mutual understanding involves people getting together and
> agreeing on definitions of words, or translations of words, or whatever.
Which is exactly what dictionaries report--mutual understanding of what
a word means in common use.
> In other words, when aiming at mutual understanding, "people need
> people to define a word". When I say, "When I use a word it means just
> what I choose it to mean," I'm not saying that I never agree to aide in
> mutual understanding, I'm saying that when people perform tricky-dick
> sleight-of-hand by substituting their own personal definition of a key
> word for mine, and then criticizing me for getting something all wrong,
> I think it poor form. That's just poor argumentation.
Examples please.
> Platt said:
> In my view, undefineable things have the most depth and greatest value.
> Matt:
> I would certainly figure as much because you are an essentialist. That
> means that things like "Good", "Truth", and "Beauty" are objects of
> inquiry that, once we find out what they really are, we can snap out at
> people when they get those objects wrong. You have a lot of company
> with this view of things: Plato, Descartes, Kant, maybe Pirsig. Rorty,
> however, is performing a reinterpretation, a transvaluation. He's
> saying that once you make the turn to antiessentialism, "good", "truth",
> and "beauty" cease to have any argumentative force.
Yes, I've noticed Rorty purports not to care about truth, goodness and beauty.
If you don't care about truth, then you don't care about lying. If you don't care
about goodness, you don't care about vileness. If you don't care about
beauty, you don't care about depravity.
> The real work done
> are by more complex, thicker terms like "democracy", "capitalism", and
> "Jesus". These terms are more valuable in the sense that the way we
> define them matters. It doesn't matter how you define "good", "truth",
> and "beauty" because, well, they're undefinable.
Please define democracy, capitalism and Jesus for us.
> Platt said:
> That which pleases a person is very useful? That's a new one on me.
>
> Matt:
> Well, it should be. I openly acknowledged that I was stretching utility
> out to include stuff that usually isn't included. What I'm trying (and
> apparently failing) to get you to see is that it isn't an impossible
> stretch. Think of it this way: Do you relax very well when you are in a
> sewer? The two key terms are "relax" and "sewer". I'm banking on the
> fact that being in a sewer is not pleasurable and that it is difficult
> for people to relax in unpleasurable contexts. The second thing I'm
> banking on is that it is useful for people to relax. Relaxation allows
> people to replenish their gumption, to make the connection explicit to
> Pirsig. And I think Pirsig makes the point clearly that it is quite
> useful to have a healthy supply of gumption in order to do anything
> well, to make Quality decisions.
Boiled down, you seem to find pleasure, satisfaction and relaxation to
be the principles on which morality should be based. True? Sounds to me
like an invitation to get drunk.
> Platt said:
> Yes, I know. You've made your Humpty Dumpty philosophy of language
> clear.
>
> Matt:
> So...you're openly acknowledging the fact that you are contradicting
> yourself simply for the sake of defaming me...?
No. First, if you're sticking to Rorty's view, there are no facts.
Second, how can I contradict myself when I'm merely reporting what
Rorty believes (intersubjective agreement) and what you say? Third, why
would I want, even if I could, to "defame" you? What reputation am I
supposedly attacking?
> I've done a lot of writing in the hopes of being clear, but from you I
> get one-line epithets. I'm trying to persuade people by spilling ink,
> you're trying to persuade people by ramming me into tiny boxes that you
> hope people will believe I fit into. So, who isn't helping mutual
> understanding?
Most of my one liners are questions that you never quite get around to
answering in simple, plain, direct, common English.
> Platt said:
> Too bad coherence doesn't seem to matter when it is comes to the meaning
> of words.
>
> Matt:
> Its lucky for anybody else reading that I try and pull arguments out of
> your one-liners, otherwise everybody else would be as bored as I'm
> quickly becoming.
Neither you nor I can help how other people feel about our exchanges.
No one has to read anything.
> Platt said:
> What assumption does Rorty change that makes self-referential paradoxes
> meaningless?
>
> Matt:
> Well, I never said that self-referential paradoxes are meaningless.
> They have meaning. It means that your beliefs are a tad incoherent and
> that you should maybe change them to get rid of that annoying little
> buzz.
So, if Rorty states as truth, "There is no such thing as truth," he is
incoherent? I think so, too.
> As for the specific assumption I'm thinking of, um, let's see. I think
> for the...86th time, it involves making the contingent turn. I
> should've said "assumptions", however, because I think there are a
> number of them that get changed, all in collusion with each other.
I'd appreciate your listing a half dozen or more of your basic
assumptions.
> Platt said:
> Are you denying there is such a true condition as being "naked."
>
> Matt:
> Last time I noticed, I was talking about the analogy, not the literal
> example.
>
> As tediuous as this will be for me, and pointless given the amount that
> Platt's so far understood of Rorty, I will go further than simply point
> out the ocular metaphor in the analogy that makes it one that
> pragmatists don't see the point in. Once we take out the ocular
> metaphor, once we say with pragmatists that the true is "justified
> belief", rather than "justified true belief", the example is interpreted
> like this: nobody would believe that the emperor was wearing clothes
> because everybody would be able to plainly see, using their eyes, that
> the emperor was not wearing any clothes. In other words, the belief
> simply would not be justified by a stranger who was not trying to pull
> the wool over the emperor's eyes, so to speak.
>
> When I say that the analogy hinges on an ocular metaphor, I mean that
> the representationalist takes the example and creates the existence of a
> metaphysical Eye, that recognizes Truth when it sees it, as analoguous
> to the physical eye we sense things with. That's why
> representationalists say the truth is "justified _true_ belief": they
> think that our special Eye tells us when a belief is true and not just
> justified. Pragmatists have no idea how this is done. They don't
> accept the analogy between a sensory eye and a metaphysical Eye.
When you see the tiger charging at you, I hope you recognize the Truth
both with your "metaphysical eye" and your physical eye and run like
hell. Perhaps you could explain this metaphysical eye a bit more. Is it
the eye that sees the truth of 2+2=4? Is it the eye that sees truths in
"Hamlet." Is it the eye that sees the truth of Self?
> Platt said:
> Quality as a consensus of evaluations? Really? I thought Quality was
> direct experience.
>
> Matt:
> Well, Pirsig does offer a lot of different "definitions" of Quality,
> now, doesn't he?
>
> Does somebody have a copy of Lila's Child who can look up which note the
> quote I'm referring to appears in? I don't have Lila's Child and I
> don't have the time to look up the post from long ago that I got it
> from.
So far, no takers.
> Platt said:
> My "angle" is to try to figure out what your and Rorty mean. You perhaps
> can understand my problem when words mean whatever you want them to
> mean. If you would stick to common meanings and not "shrug off"
> questions put to you as irrelevant, it would help.
>
> Matt:
> You used to try harder on trying to figure out what Rorty and I mean.
> In fact, I would be very hard pressed to even count this lastest round
> of discussion as an attempt by you. Or any of the last 6 months.
No one should be asked "try hard" to figure out what someone means.
> And I will not stick to common meanings.
Above you say, "Mutual understanding involves people getting together
and agreeing on definitions of words, or translations of words, or
whatever." Excuse me while I point out a self-contradiction.
> I've fought this battle with
> you, too. Common meanings are created, they aren't sitting out there
> waiting for people to use. The only way I can interpret this criticism
> is that you wish I would stick to your meanings. And as for "shrugging
> off" questions, I recall a certain literary and philosophical icon who
> does the same thing when he was asked the question, "Is Quality a
> subject or an object?" He replied "mu". He then tried to explain why
> he replied with "mu" and some people bought it and some people didn't.
Where did Pirsig say this? Not in Lila as far as I can see.
> Platt said:
> Good. Stay playful. Higher quality. :-)
>
> Matt:
> I always new there was a kernel of agreement somwhere.
Once I figure where you don't agree with Rorty, I'm sure there'll be
more kernels of agreement.
Platt
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 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 15:51:03 BST