[MD] Rorty's Relativism

[X Acto]

> Ant McWatt comments:

> Finally, why is Pirsig correct in his thinking and Plato wrong (about the
> priority of the Good over the Truth)? 


Ron:
After reading Symposium, Phaedrus, Sophist and now Republic,
In the style of the socratic method, the koan, the case study,
I would argue if Plato indeed does assert truth over the good.

In each of these works, those that contend for the "truth"
do so through reducing by dividing general concepts into relative
contextual meaning, not really arriving at a statement of truth
but a context of understanding via relationships.

In these works also, it would seem that "truth" is a matter of sincerety toward honosty
and how to make the distinction between rhetoric intended to decieve
from that which is intended to promote virtue.

Most of these works, I have found, take an ironic stance in regard to those
who seek THE "truth". Parmenides seems to take much of the heat
regarding the forms and expounding systematic doctrine.

Aristotle seemed to have taken Plato quite literally and originated the practice
of doing so as was common in that age, most of the philosphers wrote systematically
as a god speaking wisdom from a mountain top to an unwashed mass.
Plato depicts these types in his discourses, where ultimately their absolute
contentions are found to be contextual provisional "truths" as in many truths
tied together via relational contexts. that what we mean by the "truth" is a collection
of interwoven values of context.

"Sophist" has a quote, about the sophist that they hold beliefs toward knowledge
and not knowledge itself 
That a sophist mimicks the wise, for the wise, think themselves so and hold
a certain knowledge or "truth" while the sophist contends that they do not "know"
or have expertise of knowledge about anything whatsoever.

Therefore to quote Plato as stating any dogma as "truth"
or even to quote in this manner at all is not taking the work
as a contextual piece of socratic method designed to promote
inquirey.

Ant:
 I’ll leave this question to Dr
> Christoph Bartneck (of Eindhoven University) and the following paragraph taken
> from his recent academic paper about the MOQ:


> 
> “While one could use dialectic reason to discuss if the good is absolute or
> 
> relative, it cannot be used to justify the superiority of truth above
> 
> the good. Plato’s premise that dialectic (or reason) “comes before
> 
> everything else” is clearly erroneous. Dialectic presupposes knowledge
> 
> of what is valuable and good, else why choose dialectic as a method and
> 
> not the tossing of a die [25].

Ron:
Platos works contend that one must empty their cup via sophist dialectic before
they are truly able to set to a path of learning.
In this way dialectic does come before knowledge. that the good is an excercise of inquirey
into contextual truth statements.

Bartneck:
 Scientists sometimes refuse to target
> 
> their science towards utilitarian goals and demand that science should
> 
> be conducted out of pure curiosity. Science should be aimed at the
> 
> understanding of the world and free of values. But following Plato’s
> 
> error this is impossible. Preferring to know about the world is already
> 
> a value judgment.”
> 
>

Ron:
A value judgement of virtue, of excellence, of Quality. the highest good.
the inquirey into contextual truths.

How may one make errors if all they provide in their work
is examples of the excercise of discovering meaning in terms?


> 
> www.bartneck.de/publications/2009/designScienceMetaphysicsQuality
> 
>