[MD] Pirsig's theory of truth

[Ian Glendinning]

Weird Steve, you clearly do have an agenda with DMB ...

When I jumped into this thread I said (explicitly) because it was
"interesting" (if degenerate) - ie having value, but sinking fast.

I (explicitly) referred to Matt, Bo & Paul (Turner).
It was you that brought DMB into your response to me.

I have no doubt whatsoever that DMB holds a pragmatic view of truth
here something like your sample statement "'X' is true if the belief
that 'X' is true can be ridden to successful action." or your variant
"We are justified in believing 'X' if the belief that 'X' is true can
be ridden to successful action."

Do I think Pirsig would agree with "'X' is true iff X is true." ?

Symbology check first. In the two statements above, all the
occurrences of 'X' have the single quote marks.
In this statement the first 'X' does, but the second is just plain X.
Is it that X is X, and 'X' is the assertion of X (or are you not being
that subtle).

Assuming you mean this distinction, this latter statement relies
(again) on the concept of "X being true" (in some fundamental
objective way) ... I'd be happy to agree with your iff statement - as
in yes but so what - since it means nothing of any value or interest,
and as I indicated I expect Pisrig with his sense of humour in place
could do the same.

Assuming you didn't, we have pure tautology surely - again, yes, for a
laugh, but so what ?
Isn't this the angels on the head of a pin / deck-chairs on the
titanic that gives philosophy a bad name ?

If I find anything "interesting" I may butt in again, but definitions
of truth (definitions of anything) don't interest me. If I find the
conflation of justification with belief anywhere other than that
definitional / semantic argument, I might also find it interesting,
but don't hold your breath.

Don't let me stop you arguing with DMB.
Ian

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> Ian:
>> No, I think I do get DMB, he said exactly what I said he'd say ...
>> ie he "does NOT say truth is "whatever we feel justified in believing"."
>> His emphasis not mine.
>
>
> Steve:
> He doesn't put it that way, but