[MD] All the way down

[MarshaV]

Hi Matt,

From where i sit now, I'm back to "It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while Quality is seen as absolute.	In consequence, the truth is defined as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time."  That's relative, not random.  I'll give your papers a try.  But I must say something about style.  A while back I read a half-dozen books on relativism.  The majority were well written and helpful.  Margolis was the only author whose style seemed affected; I thought maybe he wrote with his head up is butt.  


Marsha 




On Dec 21, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:

> 
> Not really.  I think it has something to do with assimilating 
> "knowing-that" to "verbal abstractions" and than not conceiving of 
> them as every bit of an outgrowth of DQ-direct-experience as an 
> arm or sunset.
> 
>> Hi Matt,
>> 
>> Can you tell me what dmb's objection is?  
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Matt Kundert wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Absolutely.  In Brandom's systematic expansion of the core ideas of 
>>> Sellars and Rorty, propositional knowing-that is built out of 
>>> pragmatic know-how.
>>> 
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>>> Hi Matt,
>>>> 
>>>> It sounds to me like Rorty is saying it is verbal designation all the 
>>>> all the way down, but isn't that be verbal designation built on
>>>> regularity and explanatory usefulness, as in pragmatically?   
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha

> 


 
___