Re: MD Two theories of truth

From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 05:24:50 GMT

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?"

    Andy,

    DMB said:
    Rorty's truth is an adjective, Pirsig's is a noun.

    Matt:
    Andy is right about pretty much everything else in
    his post, but this is a specific criticism and a
    significant point of departure between Rorty and
    Pirsig that I have adressed and discussed in the
    past. Pirsig, at the end of Lila, says that Good is
    a noun, not an adjective as we in the West have
    treated it (actually, most philosophers in the West,
    following Plato's footsteps, have treated Good as a
    noun, too, its just the logical positivists and
    laypeople who consider Good to be an adjective).
    Vicariously, this can be construed to mean that
    Truth is also a noun. Afterall, since "the Good" is
    basically the same thing as Pirsig's central term,
    Quality, Pirsig is saying that Quality is a noun.
    Since Quality is everything, that means everything
    is a noun. This is how Pirsig gives the same
    "concrete" existence to everything, from emotions to
    rocks (what concrete pans out to mean is different,
    depending on the levels and such).

    This is one of those places where I agree with DMB,
    where he has actually pointed out a point of
    divergence, but reply that this has continually been
    a point of criticism for me: I've never denied that
    it was a point of divergence. The criticism comes
    from the fact that Rorty suggests that if we think
    of morality and knowledge (and their operative terms
    "good" and "truth") as nouns, we will be much more
    likely to think that they should be objects of
    inquiry. To do that is to think that we be more
    moral and more truthful we need to inquire into "the
    Good" and "the Truth". This leads to a
    correspodence theory of truth.

    One caveat for all attentive philosophers: that was
    not an argument. It was a very, very brief
    summation of what I've been arguing for over a year.

    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 : Tue Nov 04 2003 - 05:25:56 GMT