[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[Steven Peterson]

Hi DMB,


> Steve said:
> ... He [Rorty] is saying that reality doesn't hand us criteria. Where do you think criteria come from if they don't arise out of the course of human practices of inquiry?
>
> dmb says:
> Again, this is a false dilemma. Again, you say all standards of knowledge are conventional or such standards are simply handed to us by nature. Again, I'm saying those are not the only options.


> Steve said:
> Asking about the practical consequences is a great idea, but it is a practice that arose out of other human practices for inquiry rather than handed to us by nature. It is not basic in the sense of "given."
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> Again, this is another reiteration of the same false dilemma. Again, you saying all standards of knowledge are conventional or they are simply handed to us by nature. Again, I'm saying those are not the only options. I'm not buying this all-or-nothingism any more than I buy the idea that one is either an absolutist or a relativist. In all these cases, I'm saying there are more than just two stark options. I'm saying that experience constrains our beliefs and that experience is not created by us.
>
> Is it safe to assume that you know what "false dilemma" means? Is there some reason to reject the idea of a middle way?James and Pirsig are all about the middle way. Pragmatism was invented as a middle way between empiricism and rationalism, ZAMM is all about fusing the romantic and the classic and Lila seeks to balance DQ and sq.
>
> My point? You're presenting a false dilemma. False means fake or untrue. Dilemma means two options. I think both options are objectionable and would not choose either of them.


Steve:
You are misreading Rorty to think he is taking one of these options.
You say "conventional" as if if he means something like "arbitrary."
It doesn't. That is not at all what Rorty means. For Rorty it means
"practical." It means "arising out of and supporting practice." It
means "pragmatic."

You are the one setting up the false dilemma for criteria for
justification between "randomly selected for no good reasons" and
"handed to us by nature." What Rorty (and James) is saying is that
there is no way to disentangle human and nonhuman aspects of
justificatory practices. The trail of the human serpent runs through
everything. So, no, there is no need to find a middle way between
these options. These aren't even real options. They are both bogus
notions of the practice of justification. Justification is a human
practice through and through. But it is not just arbitrary. It depends
on what humans actually want out of the practice.

Best,
Steve