[MD] Pirsig's theory of truth

[MarshaV]

Hi Ron,   

I don't mean to upset you, but:  Bravo!  Bravo!!  Bravo!!! 


Love, Marsha







On May 17, 2010, at 11:00 PM, X Acto wrote:

> "to begin with,Quality that is independant of experience doesent exist"
> 
> "Quality, on which there is complete agreement, is a universal source of things. The objects
> about which people disagree are merely transitory"
> -RMP
> 
> Ron:
> I think it helps to remember another quote, that the true is a species of the good.
> That truth is what people disagree about, but the Good, that there is complete agreement on
> is the universal source of those truths. 
> I take that to mean that the good, or Quality, is not relative but truth is. But truth does spring
> from the Good.
> I takes James to be saying the same.
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 2:56:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Pirsig's theory of truth
> 
> 
> dmb said:
> ... 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 replied:
> 
> 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 says:
> 
> Firstly, yes, he does argue that. The Stanford article on Rorty says the same thing and you can find corroboration in many, many other places.
> 
> Secondly, it's not just someone from Wiki saying that justification is relative to an audience for Rorty. You have someone from Wiki reporting that many commentators think that Rorty's views add up to relativism. Since I've read some of these commentators, I can testify to that fact. Rorty himself was perfectly aware of this common accusation.
> 
> Thirdly, there are lots of different kinds of relativism but this little Wiki is very specific. It defines relativism as the view that justification is relative to the group and it describes Rorty's position as exactly that. You have both a definition and the reason for thinking Rorty fits that definition. I think this is about as clear as it can be.
> 
> Fourthly, the idea that everything is related to everything else simply isn't what we mean by relativism. To say that justification is "relative" to the group is not to say it is "related" to the group. That would not really be incorrect so much as empty and obvious. It means that the standards of justification depend entirely on the group and will therefore differ from group to group. We see this in the position that Rorty himself calls "ethnocentrism". 
> 
> 
> 
>                         
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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


 
___