[MD] Relativism

[skutvik at online.no]

Ron: 

19 May you said to Steve:

> Dave has provided several quotes over the course of this arguement.
> Which stated that Rorty felt that any epistomologial theory of truth is
> meaningless, Dave points out that this is true if one is speaking to the
> context of objective truth in an ontological way. Objective truth is
> culturally derrived. Pirsig and James remark how truth is a species of
> the good. Connecting truth and experience, that is why everyone can
> agree to "the good" but disagree over the truth.
> Which is one good reason Bo's SOL fails to explain how DQ/SQ has
> greater explanitory power.

What is one good reason ... etc? Can't fin any. About Rorty's about the 
impossibility of a theory of truth is straight along SOL's lines. Truth or 
absolute are all "O" fall-outs of SOM's S/O aggregate and like it they 
owe their existence to  their "S" counterparts in a reciprocal manner. 
Truth needs illusion and absolute needs relative and vice versa. 

Then "...Objective truth is culturally derived" which is NOT true, you 
possibly mean (f.ex) that Muslims hold Allah to be true, Christians hold 
God and Jews Javeh ...etc, but this has nothing to do with SOL's 
"intellect=S/O" thesis. Intellect's objectivity rejects all social "truths" as 
subjective  nonsense. About "...Pirsig and James remarking how truth 
is a species of Good .."  Yes,  and the SOL says that Truth is a static 
intellectual "species" and that this level is the VALUE of all these S/O- 
derivatives. Straight into SOL's hands. 

It's easy to utter these negative words Ron, but it's worse to back them 
up, or it's plain impossible, the SOL is unassailable.

Bodvar 



      





















  
> Hi DMB,
> 
> Steve said:
> 
> ... It is easy to see how an SOMer would call Rorty and James
> relativists since they deny ontological objectivity, but I can't see
> how you can give a pragmatic account of relativism that condemns Rorty
> and not James and Pirsig.
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> I doubt that Rorty denies that there is an objective reality. He just
> thinks we can't have access to it.
> 
> 
> Steve:
> I suppose it wouldn't even matter if I provided 10 Rorty quotes that
> contradict this claim. You'll just keep saying it.
> 
> 
> DMB:
> That's why, for Rorty, justification strictly discursive and has
> nothing to do with experience per se. But that doesn't matter because
> the pragmatic theory of truth rejects the idea of objective reality
> WITHOUT also rejecting the epistemic value of experience. It is
> empiricism without SOM. So, if you understand what empirical
> restraints are and you understand what conversational restraints are
> then you should be able to understand how James and Pirsig differ from
> Rorty.
> 
> 
> Steve:
> I don't think you've added anything to conversational constraints on
> knowledge by talking about "the epistemic value of experience." It's
> not like Rorty can't justify a belief by saying talking about his
> experience. Experience is included in "conversational constraints."
> Its just that talk about experience when providing a rationale for a
> belief is still talk. It's not that Rorty "rejects the epistemic value
> of experience," it's just that he gets all that we can get from
> experience in justifying beliefs by talking about conversation.
> 
> If there really is something that Rorty is missing as far as
> epistemology, then you should be able to tell me the sort of argument
> that James and Pirsig could use to justify a belief that Rorty is
> unable to use. You never have offered such an argument, and I don't
> think you ever will because I don't think you can. Go ahead. Prove me
> wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Steve said:
> > Is his position against slavery somehow on shakier ground than
> > yours? I can't see how.
> >
> > dmb says:
> >
> > He tells us that his position against slavery, fundamentalism and
> > Nazism has no ground whatsoever. It would be a significant
> > improvement for Rorty to be a shaky ground.
> 
> 
> Steve:
> Well that's just it. If you are looking for a foundation for claiming
> that slavery is bad and are unsatisfied with really good arguments
> that slavery is bad, then you might start talking about
> absolutism/relativism. But if you are then you aren't doing
> pragmatism. You, Dave, are a closet foundationalist, and you think
> radical empiricism can give you an empirical foundation. Pirsig never
> thought it could. He appeals to his hierarchy of value patterns rather
> than radical empiricism to make moral arguments and says that James's
> radical empiricism and pragmatism alone could be used by the Nazis to
> defend their beliefs.
> 
> Below Pirsig talks about the epistemology and says that the harmony
> between our reasonings and those of others is the only basis for
> claims to objectivity. He knows of no "empirical constraints" on our
> reasoning beyond our communications with other humans. It is  such
> communication--such conversational constraints--that are the only
> basis for knowledge claims.
> 
> ZAMM: "What guarantees the objectivity of the world in which we live
> is that this world is common to us with other thinking beings. Through
> the communications that we have with other men we receive from them
> ready-made harmonious reasonings. We know that these reasonings do not
> come from us and at the same time we recognize in them, because of
> their harmony, the work of reasonable beings like ourselves. And as
> these reasonings appear to fit the world of our sensations, we think
> we may infer that these reasonable beings have seen the same thing as
> we; thus it is that we know we haven't been dreaming. It is this
> harmony, this quality if you will, that is the sole basis for the only
> reality we can ever know."
> 
> Best,
> Steve
> 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
> 
>