From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Nov 13 2003 - 20:12:58 GMT
Platt,
I'm sorry to everyone who wants me to continue on in my explanation of the redescription of the subject/object polarity into intersubjective agreement. I thought my most recent explication was bordering on pretty good, I'm quite happy with it, but Platt just doesn't seem to get it. Which is fine, but it doesn't really make me want to continue in trying to explain it to Platt when I doubt the fact that he will ever get it. If somebody else wants to pick up the conversation, I'd be willing to answer other people's questions and interjections, but I don't see the point with Platt. I've been around the pole so many times with this one person, that I just don't see the point.
Platt said:
Not sure what you mean by "muddle." If I see for myself that it's true that's it's raining -- justification of truth by direct sensation -- what's the "muddle?"
Matt:
"Muddle" means not anyone of the three is a trump card and how much you weigh one of the three is going to be different depending on circumstance.
And no, as I said later, direct sensation does not provide justification. "Justification" has to do with reasoning, not showing.
Platt said:
Seems here that Rorty accepts justification of truth by direct sensation. At least he "respects" it, whatever that means.
Matt:
No justification of truth by direct sensation--only change in belief. "Respect" refers to the "muddle" of triangulation.
Matt said:
For Rorty, there are three ways to change your beliefs: inference, metaphor, and perception.
Platt said:
Does this mean there are three ways to establish truth? And, what happened to "balance?"
Matt:
Anybody see me say anything about truth? There are three ways to _change_ _beliefs_. The "establishment" of truth is something else, i.e. triangulation and "balance". You may have perceived a pink bunny when you were high on acid, but that don't mean there was really a pink bunny in front of you.
Platt said:
Your premise is that "to justify" truth or belief involves other persons. But not necessarily. I can justify my belief to myself by perceiving other evidence for my belief. In fact, in any field of study, the justification for one's own belief often depends of a number of direct perceptions without dependence others. To take an obvious example, Newton worked alone and justified his beliefs to himself before the world knew or cared what he was up to. Many giant leaps forward happen like that.
Matt:
This is a good comment. No, you are right, justification isn't just between persons. You have to justify things to yourself also. The point of justification is that justification involves reasons, it involves to point to other beliefs, it is a process of inference. Your use of "perceptions" is confusing because I doubt you are using it the way I'm using it, so I'm not sure what page you are on.
Platt said:
Agree that showing and reasoning are two separate avenues to truth. I'm happy to see Rorty allowing for other ways to establish truth besides "intersubjective agreement."
Matt:
Not truth, beliefs. Truth will always be a muddle. The metaphor of an "avenue to truth" is a remenant of Kantianism. Pragmatist's follow James in thinking that truth is something that happens, not an object. Kinda' like Pirsig thinks that Quality is something that happens, not an object.
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 Nov 13 2003 - 20:14:30 GMT