[MD] DMB and Rorty

[Gareth Evans]

Quote:
Also, Rorty has never abandoned the question, "what is true?" Where
did you get the idea that he was?  Rorty, *like the rest of us, was
always very interested in trying to say true things.*
and:
*The *correspondence theory............

I did read the Rorty piece on pragmatism and agree in part. I do agree that
it is almost impossible to have a dialogue with a liar(consider
interrogating a captured spy, this would be closer to ,Wittgenstein's
concept of a "language-game").
In Basic English,"the" refers to a single subject. In my view, I go back to
Pirsig's definition of "dialectic"(originally a part of the *trivium*, and
now taken usually, by non-Marxists, to mean "logic"). Originally Pirsig said
"dialectic" meant dialogue. If this is true and if it takes two to have a
dialogue and if Socrates is correct,here:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/theatu.html
it is said:

Well, my art of midwifery is in most respects like theirs; but differs, in
that I attend men and not women; and look after their souls when they are in
labour, and not after their bodies: and the triumph of my art is in
thoroughly examining whether the thought which the mind of the young man
brings forth is a false idol or a noble and true birth. And like the
mid-wives, I am barren, and the reproach which is often made against me,
that I ask questions of others and have not the wit to answer them myself,
is very just-the reason is, that the god compels-me to be a midwife, but
does not allow me to bring forth. And therefore I am not myself at all wise,
nor have I anything to show which is the invention or birth of my own soul,
but those who converse with me profit. Some of them appear dull enough at
first, but afterwards, as our acquaintance ripens, if the god is gracious to
them, they all make astonishing progress; and this in the opinion of others
as well as in their own. * It is quite dear that they never learned anything
from me; the many fine discoveries to which they cling are of their own
making.* But to me and the god they owe their delivery. And the proof of my
words is, that many of them in their ignorance, either in their self-conceit
despising me, or falling under the influence of others, have gone away too
soon; and have not only lost the children of whom I had previously delivered
them by an ill bringing up, but have stifled whatever else they had in them
by evil communications, being fonder of lies and shams than of the truth;
and they have at last ended by seeing themselves, as others see them, to be
great fools.

there must be at least two truths(or theories of truth).

In my opinion, as the dialogue continues it is possible to better understand
the other. But for this to happen you must say what you mean and
occasionally ask(as does Socrates) if your understanding of what the other
said is what the other meant. If both participants are honest then this
would be a dynamic process. And it is why I am here(and I think I will stay
for a while).




On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:02 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> DMB said:
> "The correspondence theory is just one particular answer to the question of
> truth and knowledge but because that particular answer has failed, he
> concludes that we should abandon the questions too."
>
>
>
> Steve replied:
>
> ...before I respond to your post, it would be helpful if you explained what
> you see as "the question of truth and knowledge" that you keep referring to
> if it is not to ask about the fundamental nature of the True and the Good.
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> You already have a good idea from the debate we recently had about the
> pragmatic theory truth. In the eyes of a pragmatist, truth and knowledge are
> not eternal and they're not spelled with capital letters. We just want to
> which ideas actually work in the course of experience and which one's don't.
> We just want to know the difference between good ideas and bad ideas,
> between wishes and actualities. The question of truth is just, "What's
> true?" and not "What is the fundamental nature of truth?" or "What do all
> true sentences have in common?".
>
> The point is that you not only CAN have a theory of truth and an
> epistemology without being a Platonists, you have to have a position about
> what's true and what's real or you wouldn't be able to think or talk about
> anything. So that's where the charge of all-or-nothingism comes in. I think
> it's a mistake to search for the Platonic essence of truth or the objective
> truth but I also think it's just as big a mistake, maybe even bigger, to say
> we have no constraints on truth except conversation. As I see it, language
> and ideas come from experience. Abstractions are what allow us to apply the
> lessons of past experiences to similar situations in the future. These
> abstractions, when they successfully guide us, are made true in the course
> of experience. In that sense, ideas and language function within experience,
> not just within its own structures. That's part of the reason that truth is
> still empirical for James and Pirsig. It has to makes sense and be
> communicable of course, but t
>  ruth is agreement with experience and that's all it can ever mean.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
> inbox.
>
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2
> 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/md/archives.html
>