[MD] Pirsig's theory of truth

[Steven Peterson]

Hi DMB,

> Steve said to dmb:
> ... Can you please, please, please define relativism with respect to truth, so I can know what you mean when you say (pace Ant) that Pirsig can't rightly be called a relativist with respect to truth?
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Pragmatic truth is empirical. I would have thought it would be completely obvious that empiricism is incompatible with relativism. They're not exactly opposite terms, but I can't think of a way to be both an empiricist and a relativist at the same time. So I'm quite baffled by your objections to that answer. I also pointed out that truth can be plural and provisional without giving up these empirical standards.
>
> As for Rorty's part, it's like the Wiki article said: "Thus his position, in the view of many commentators, adds up to relativism." As you so often do, Steve, you're asking for an answer that I already supplied. You're asking in response to the post in which I supplied it. Are you playing some kind of game?

Steve:
A game? Me??? I just asked you for a concise definition of relativism
with respect to truth, and not only did you not do so but you also
accused me of asking a question you already answered. All you are able
to come up with is to say as a definition of relativism is that it is
incompatible with empiricism. How is that an answer? Come on. What is
relativism if not merely what Rorty says it is in the quote you
provided?




DMB:
> Again, the Wikipedia article on RELATIVISM has a section on RORTY:
...
>
> Let me repeat the salient point. "He also argues ...that justification is RELATIVE; justification is justification to an audience, for Rorty. Thus his position, in the view of MANY COMMENTATORS,  adds up to RELATIVISM."

Steve:
Does he argue that? You have someone from wiki saying that Rorty's
argument that justification is relative to an audience amounts to
relativism, but you still haven't said what relativism is. Just
because something is relative to something else doesn't amount to
relativism. Does it? Isn't everything relative to everything else in
lots and lots of ways?  What is something that is in no way related to
anything else?


DMB:
> That is my "unusual" idea of what relativism is, specifically in relation to Rorty's position. Is there something unclear about this? How is it that an encyclopedia article on Rorty's relativism goes unrecognized as the answer to your question about relativism?


Steve:
Because you still haven't said what relativism is as a definition that
applies to Rorty and not to James. You quoted Rorty giving a
definition of relativism that applies to Rorty AND James as well as
you, me, and RMP.

>
> Steve said:
> I have no idea what they or you could mean by relativism because you have refused to define it.
>
>
> dmb says:
> Again, the Wiki article explains why Rorty is seen as a relativist. "Thus his position,.. adds up to relativism." You deleted the Wiki quote and now you're accusing me of refusing to define it? Kinda slap-stick sloppy, don't you think?

Steve:
This is just unbelievable. You really think you gave me a definition
of relativism when you quote wiki saying "Thus his position,.. adds up
to relativism"?????

DMB:
AND you claim that you have no idea what it could mean, despite that
fact that you JUST READ a description of Rorty's relativism in the
Wiki quote I supplied? This conversation is looking like a bad comedy
sketch, a comedy or errors. "his position, in the view of many
commentators, adds up to relativism."

Steve:
So I'm supposed to just accept "the view of many commentators"? That's
all you have? Why not say what relativism is so we can see if Rorty
fits the bill?


> Steve said:
> I am still very interested to read a concise definition of relativism from you where Rorty qualifies but James does not.
>

Steve:
and I'm still waiting...

Best,
Steve