From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sat Jan 31 2004 - 10:35:21 GMT
Matt
Paul previously said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but, because you don't do metaphysics, in
neo-pragmatism ontology is collapsed into epistemology and reduced to
the continuum of more or less useful knowledge? The MOQ grounds both
ontology and epistemology in value. I think this is why we sometimes
talk past each other a little.
Matt said:
I'm not really sure what the above says, and I think that has a lot to
do with why we sometimes talk past each other. The conversations that
we are generally engaged in (roughly, metaphysical for you,
antimetaphysical for me) don't use the same language, so we have to
translate back and forth. In the pragmatist conversation, we have
neither ontology or epistemology and there's not grounding for either.
I have no idea what grounding epistemology and ontology in value is
supposed to mean if it doesn't mean something pragmatic (which is how I
typically translate such things).
Paul:
What it means is contained in this sentence from Lila:
"Value, the pragmatic test of truth, is also primary empirical
experience." [p.418]
Matt said:
But I will say this in an effort to bridge the gap between our
conversations: pragmatists take epistemology to be attempting to answer
the question, "How do we know what we have is knowledge?"
Paul:
The MOQ answer: by its value.
Matt said:
Pragmatists think that question pointless, which is why its dissolved
into more and less useful knowledge. This continuum isn't
epistemological in our terminology. I can see how it might be in yours
if you take epistemology to be something like, "Talk about knowledge."
The same goes for ontology. I've always taken ontology to be moreorless
synonymous with metaphysics, them both being the attempt to answer the
question, "What is real?"
Paul:
The MOQ answer: value
Matt said:
When you cease attempting to answer that question, you cease having an
ontology, though you continue to have rocks and texts and differences
between them. I can see how pragmatists might continue to have an
ontology in your terminology if ontology is something like, "Talk about
the differences between things (like rocks and ideas)."
Paul:
You pragmatists seem to spend more time telling everyone what you aren't
doing than what you are. If describing epistemology and ontology this
way makes them less upsetting for you then fair enough. :-)
Paul
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 : Sat Jan 31 2004 - 10:54:07 GMT