[MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn

[Heather Perella]

> Matt:
> Yeah, most of my qualms about this were laid out in
> response to SA's similar, though softer view.  You say
> your philosophical views shape your values, and enunciate
> the view that if one's philosophical views don't
> lead to action (and vice versa) than you are, basically, a
> kind of hypocrite.  Personally, I think the relationship
> between philosophical views and action is too complex and
> subtle for easy movement.  Sometimes we think we are
> enunciating what we've articulated as our belief. 
> Oftentimes we are, I've found (and I think history
> bears out), wrong.  And sometimes, it is unclear what the
> correct action corresponds to a belief (after all, what
> action is stipulated by our understanding of formal
> logic?).
> I have a very narrow definition of what counts as a
> "philosophical view," and I do that because I
> think cultural evolution has produced a situation in which
> the inferential relationship between beliefs and actions is
> far more complex than when Socrates said that one cannot
> knowingly do the wrong thing.  2500 years ago, I think it
> was easy to think the philosophy led directly to action
> (like in Plato's Republic).  Now, I think it is good
> that it doesn't.
> These are minority views here, but I tend to think that the
> very idea of "reflection" that Plato and Aristotle
> were parroting were designed exactly to postpone action,
> rather more than the Greeks who condemned Socrates to
> death.


SA:  This isn't to contest anything, but this came to mind after reading this:
     This softer view, I would say, can't be avoided.  Can we truly go through life without identifying something about anything?  I would say we each have ways about ourselves.  Everything does.  This is how rocks can be analogies.  Analogies about what.  Protons maybe, for one.  Science looks into leaves to find out something about them, to find their ways.  Their ways are their philosophy.  I don't think this trivializes humans philosophizing.  For we know what kind of or the ways of human philosophy in comparison to rocks and their ways.  We do have a sense of the comparison.  Sure they are very different analogies of dq.
     As to action, this isn't probably on the same thread, so to speak, of how you two are referring to action, but some thoughts on why we philosophize in the first place.  I would say one is for freedom.  Others have their ways and so we define our own way.  Why some human derived philosophies are more elaborate than others could be to engineer more barriers to block and divide other philosophies away from ours (which could become something kin to a maze), and/or a lovely place for our own unique self to play amidst that provides a sense of beauty and comfortability.  These are not the only two ways, I'm just throwin' this out there for kicks.  Another way similar to the philosophic maze we may build, not only trapping ourselves in and keeping others away, but a reiteration of a philosophical view by a person over and over again seems to be to further establish or to provide clear ways about ourselves and we may do this in different ways each time in
 order to make sure the message gets across in numerous ways for the numerous philosophies that bombard each one of us daily.  Each of these bombarding philosophies come in at angles that take a different angle by us to face it down, to show each of these bombarding ways who we are.  Those philosophies that contrast with our own may, at times, have each of us cultivate more and more elaborate ways to show our own philosophy.  This elaboration can develop into clutter and to much clutter may mean our elaboration isn't working very well, so, instead of adding on to our philosophies, we tear them down from time to time, we clean house on our own, and make something else.  Art.


art,
SA