RE: MD Two theories of truth

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 21:57:31 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Two theories of truth"

    David M said:
    Rorty's theory of truth is closely linked, what is true for us will depend
    on what we value. Don't see why a MOQer would have a problem with this.
    Value holds everything together it seems, not so flimsy. Truth depends on
    language and value. Rorty and Pirsig agree. ..The status of truth has to be
    similar to the status of Newton's laws of physics as discussed in ZMM.

    dmb says:
    Again, you're not making an argument, just a series of unsupported and vague
    assertions. And I think its a huge mistake to extract a theory of truth from
    ZAMM, where intellectual static patterns had not yet been coined. Since
    Pirsig asserts that truth is a high quality intellectual description, we
    can't rightly turn to ZAMM for that theory.

    David M continued:
    The 'truth' concept is a cultural phenomenon, and subject to
    the quality of cultural phenomenon as Rorty discusses. Can't
    see why a Pirsig reader would lose any sleep over what Rorty says.
    When people here start to complain about Rorty they are always talking
    about stuff that Rorty does not write about or arguing with a position
    he does not take.

    dmb says:
    Always talking about stuff that Rorty does not write?! How can you say that?
    How many more times must I post the quote where Rorty decribes his theory of
    truth, the one we are presently discussing? You're being very unfair here.
    And the rest is so vague that it means nothing at all to me. Truth is a
    cultural phenomenon. OK. So what? By this standard we'd hardly be able to
    distinquish any two theories of truth. I mean, to say that both the Arabs
    and the Jews agree that the sky is blue is not to say they have no
    disagreements. Look again at these contrasting quotes...

    Pirsig:
    "To reify means to regard an abstraction as if it had a concrete or material
    existence. You don't lose the value of quality by treating it as if it had a
    concrete or material existence. You lose the value of quality by treating
    it as if it had only an abstract existence. That is the fundamental point
    of the MOQ."
     
    Richard Rorty:
    "For pragmatists, "truth" is just the name of a property which all true
    statements share. ...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 praiseworthy
    actions... 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."

    For Rorty, the good and the true are adjectives, modifiers, while Pirsig
    treats them as nouns. See?

    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 Nov 02 2003 - 21:59:59 GMT