[MD] Rorty's Relativism

[X Acto]

Matt, Ian,

I think the arguement btween Dave and Steve is one of interpretation, for ex.
wiki on Rorty:

Main article: Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
In Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), Rorty 
argues that the central problems of modern epistemology 
depend upon a picture of the mind as trying to faithfully 
represent (or "mirror") a mind-independent, external 
reality. If we give up this metaphor, then the entire 
enterprise of foundationalist epistemology is misguided. 
A foundationalist believes that in order to avoid the 
regress inherent in claiming that all beliefs are 
justified by other beliefs, some beliefs must be 
self-justifying and form the foundations to all knowledge. 
There were two senses of "foundationalism" criticized in 
Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. In the philosophical 
sense, Rorty criticized the attempt to justify knowledge 
claims by tracing them to a set of foundations; more 
broadly, he criticized the claim of philosophy to 
function foundationally within a culture.

Ron:
His criticism was of philosphical foundationalism
within a culture. In other words, truth as defined syllogistically
not in terms of belief verfied in expereince. That there always will be
a descrepancy between truth in knowledge verified in experience
 and truth in statement of that knowledge.
the problem of arguement from the particular expereince to the 
universal understanding.
Not that truth statements can not be verified in expereince but 
universal foundational claims of statements that are true
in every circumstance of human experiential verification are impossible
simply because they rely on cultural contexts.

To answer Steve, MoQ does not provide universal statements of truth
but it DOES provide a universal context in which truth may be understood
contextually.

-Ron




----- Original Message ----
From: Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:04:02 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Rorty's Relativism


Hi Ian,

Ian said:
I see violent agreement on the middle ground that MoQ 
provides. Any need to "attack" (or defend) Rorty just 
seems spurious ?

Matt:
I'm sorry, Ian, while on the one hand your constant, 
long-standing effort to find middle ground and the like is 
commendable, on the other hand, it is starting to sound 
edgy and nullifying.  As if you're going to start arguing that 
people should stop arguing.

There's certainly a balancing act in all this (arguments, 
debates, conversations, etc.), but agreements, or what 
have you, can only be reached _through_ the conversations 
being had by motivated participants, not by fiat from 
someone that wants the conversations to stop.

In other words, "spurious" is not the word you're looking for.  
You seem to have floated so high into the ether that 
everything's turned grey.  _That's_ relativism.  Relativism is 
pure Objectivism, pure Omniscience, just as the Blue Dude in 
Watchmen displayed so well.  The more he knew, the less 
humanity he had.

There's nothing _spurious_ about attacking or defending Rorty, 
or any other set of opinions (unless, of course, one's take a 
God/Buddha's-eye view of the world)--there are only good and 
bad attacks or defenses, good or bad opinions.

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you.
http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/