From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 20 2003 - 19:44:05 BST
Scott
Thanks for post below. I think your case in very fair,
I really do not understand what Platt's problem is with Rorty,
in so far as I do not recognise the Rorty I have read in his posts.
I've read most of Rorty although about ten years ago, except
for the odd essay more recently.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: MD Begging the Question, Moral Intuitions, and Answering the
Nazi, Part III
> Platt,
>
> I'm not concerned with political correctness crap on college campuses or
> with Clinton's moral failings. I am concerned that you are grossly
> misrepresenting what Rorty has said. Here's the opening of Consequences of
> Pragmatism:
>
> "The essays in this book are attempts to draw consequences from a
pragmatist
> theory about truth. This theory says that truth is not the sort of thing
one
> should expect to have a philosophically interesting theory about. For
> pragmatists, "truth" is just the name of a property which all true
> statements share. It is what is common to "Bacon did not write
Shakespeare",
> "It rained yesterday," "E equals mc[squared]," "Love is better than hate,"
> "_The Allegory of Painting_ was Vermeer's best work," "2 plus 2 is 4," and
> "There are nondenumerable infinities." Pragmatists doubt that there is
much
> to be said for this common feature. They doubt this for the same reason
they
> doubt that there is much to be said about the common feature shared by
such
> morally praiseworthy actions as Susan leaving her husband, America joining
> the war against the Nazis, Roger picking up litter from the trail, and the
> suicide of the Jews at Masada. They see certain acts as good ones to
> perform, under the circumstances, but doubt that there is anything general
> and useful to say about what makes them all good."
>
> So clearly Rorty thinks that some statements are true, and that some
actions
> are better than others. I asked why you think that he thinks that "truth
> doesn't exist", and you reply with:
>
> > A quote from an article by Simon Blackburn entitled "Richard Rorty"
> > answers your inquiry: (Simon Blackburn is a professor of philosophy at
> > University of Cambridge.)
> >
> > "Non-philosophers who dip into his (Rorty's) writings may come away
> > intoxicated by the scale, but also astonished by the message. How could
> > anyone, for example, seriously hold, as Rorty has, that 'truth is what
> > your contemporaries let you get away with,' or that 'no area of
> > culture, and no period of history, gets Reality more right than any
> > other.'? Is it really possible to hold that only 'old-fashioned
> > metaphysical prigs' talk unblushingly of truth any more?"
>
> So you have indirectly found a quote that does not say that "truth doesn't
> exist" but says "truth is what your contemporaries let you get away with".
I
> don't know the context from which that quote was taken (do you?), but
let's
> consider it as given here.
>
> Two of the statements that Rorty considers true are mathematical. They are
> true because they are deducible from explicit definitions and axioms, that
> is, assumptions. One of them (that there are nondenumerable infinities)
uses
> axioms that not all philosophers of mathematics accept (they do not assume
> that the law of the excluded middle applies to infinite sets). So if
> contempory mathematicians _on the whole_ agreed with those philosophers
> (currently they do not), then that statement would no longer be something
> that is considered true.
>
> My point being that even in mathematics, "what is true" can change (the
> famous example being Euclid's fifth postulate). So what do you have in
mind
> concerning truths that have some justification beyond "what your
> contemporaries let you get away with?" And what assumptions do you bring
to
> bear to provide that justification? That is, what is your "philosophically
> interesting theory about truth"?
>
> Now if you have one, the odds are that Rorty will not find it
> philosophically interesting. In that case, when you and Rorty argue you
are
> mutually begging the question that that hypothetical theory of yours *is*
> philosophically interesting. That is all that Matt is trying to say.
>
> >
> > Incidentally, as a collector of bon mots from the MD I find the
> > following from you posted last Jan 15 to be a gem:
> >
> > "What I find disingenuous is when you (Matt) say you don't want to be
> > led back to metaphysics. What you and Rorty are doing is assuming a
> > metaphysical stance as given and making points from it, and then
> > claiming 'we don't do metaphysics.'"
>
> I disagree with Rorty (and Matt) with respect to their materialism. That's
> where arguments between me and Matt end up begging the question (which in
> this case turns out to be that we have different definitions of
> 'metaphysics', and neither of us wants to giive his up). I do not disagree
> with their pragmatism. I do criticize Rorty for sometimes confusing the
two,
> that is, for sometimes saying "pragmatists think that..." when he should
be
> saying "materialists think that..."
>
> >
> > Likewise, what I find so ludicrous in Rorty's and the postmodernists'
> > position is their determination to advance their own concepts of truth
> > while simultaneously denying there is such a thing. They assert general
> > truths while claiming in the same breath that general truths don't
> > exist. Example: "We know it to be absolutely true that truth is
> > provisional."
>
> See the initial quote. Rorty does not deny that there are true statements.
> And "Love is better than hate" sounds pretty general to me. So this claim
of
> yours that Rorty denies that he has a concept of truth is simply false,
and
> so your accusation of illogicality is bogus.
>
> Apparently you think that if one does not have a philosophically
interesting
> theory of truth, then one must think that the word "true" has no meaning.
> Since the vast majority of people have no interest in philosophy at all,
yet
> all use the word 'true', it should be obvious that one does not need such
a
> theory.
>
> >
> > I consider Rorty and his fellow travelers dangerous to a free society
> > because without confidence in the concept of truth (and it's companion,
> > logic), the public is disarmed against lies. ("I did not have sex with
> > that woman . . ." is still being defended by many as a statement of
> > fact.)
>
> Are you also one who blames Nietzsche for the Nazis? What -- in Rorty, not
> in his "fellow travellers" -- do you find illogical?
>
> >
> > Rorty wants to rid society of the idea of objective truth independent
> > of our wishes and whims, substituting the idea of communal
> > justification for belief, i.e., if everybody (defined as the power
> > elite in charge at the moment) says diversity is good, then it must be
> > true that diversity is good.
>
> Here you are rhetorically twisting what Rorty says ("Wishes and whims",
for
> example). Rorty's position is not "think whatever you like to be true",
but
> that he doubts that one can find some method for deciding in all cases
what
> is true. So does Pirsig, with respect to finding in all cases what is
moral.
> If everybody says diversity is good, then Rorty's conclusion from that is
> that everybody says diversity is good, not that it is good in some
absolute
> sense. If everybody finds diversity is bad, then everybody finds diversity
> is bad. Many people now find diversity is good. Many people now find
> diversity is bad. Do you have access to God's opinion on the matter? If
not,
> what is your method for determining whether it is good or bad -- and what
> assumptions to you bring to bear to make that determination? Can you
> distinguish between those (like Rorty) who say diversity is good in that
we
> can learn from other cultures, and hence increase the dynamic in our
lives,
> versus those (unlike Rorty) who say that all cultures are equally good?
>
> On the "power elite" business. The same people who speak political
> correctness were by and large against the war in Iraq. They were unable to
> stop the war. So how powerful are they?
>
> > Naturally the individual voice that's
> > raised against such "conventional wisdom" is pilloried.
>
> As it always has been. Used to be the individual who disagreed with
> conventional wisdom was burned at the stake, in part because the
> "conventional wisdom" was not thought to be such, but thought to be the
word
> of God. Do you find that preferable?
>
> It's no mystery
> > why college campuses today have strict, politically correct speech
> > codes. It's the predictable consequence of Rorty's "intersubjective
> > agreement" which is a simply a not-so-subtle disguise for raw, power
> > politics.
>
> A slippery-slope argument. Having strict, politically correct speech
codes
> is a form of censorship. Rorty is against censorship. You are blaming
Rorty
> for something that he is against.
>
> > To put it simply, Rorty's views are abhorrent to anyone who puts a high
> > premium on intellectual freedom and integrity.
>
> That is your opinion, it is not mine. In fact, I see Rorty as one who puts
a
> high premium on intellectual freedom and integrity, while what I see in
your
> comments is
>
> a) a case of mistaking the ideas of supposed "fellow travellers" for those
> of Rorty, and
> b) distorting Rorty's views to make spurious claims of illogicality.
>
> Do you know of some absolute standard by which one can determine whose
> opinion is closer to the truth?
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Mon Oct 20 2003 - 19:47:06 BST