[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[david buchanan]

Adrie said to Marsha:
So, concluding, I agree with Dave's remarks on the quote you are always offering  from the moq textbook, ...and that is that Ant has chosen 1 or 2 words a bit uncarefully. (i do not have to quote it back.)


dmb says:
Thanks Adrie. But I don't think Ant was being careless and I do not disagree with what he's saying. I just think Marsha is reading it badly. She's resting her case on Ant's use of the term "relative" in describing the provisionality of truth. To say that truth is relative to a particular historical context simply means that truth is not eternal, that it evolves, that it is never final. But that doesn't mean that truth is JUST a matter of perspective. Provisional truths are still constrained by empirical reality. They still have to agree with experience and function as the best possible explanation as we move into further experience. 
As James puts it, the pragmatist is "pent in" more than anyone. Pragmatic truths exist "between the whole body of funded truths squeezed from the past", he says, "and the coercions of the world of sense". In other words, the truth is constrained by the mythos in which it's stated AND by the empirical reality in which it's used. This empirical reality is not conceived as a material reality but it is still a very strong form of empiricism. And that is very different from relativism.
Richard Rorty, for example, is accused of relativism because he denies the possibility of empiricism - or any kind of epistemology. He thinks truth is not something philosophers should even discuss. And since Rorty is the main reviver of pragmatism, James and Dewey scholars have been defending the classical pragmatists against charges or relativism all over again. Defending against this charge has literally been going on for a hundred years. As we can see in James's complaints about pragmatism's "impudent slanderers", defense against this charge began while the thing was still being invented.


Adrie said to Marsha:
... * on the point of authority of DMB, i agree there is no one to have the full authority here. I never take his word for it, I check things out before I act, and when ever the moment comes that he will make statements making no sense, or statements that are in conflict with the scientifical evidence, i will put a spoon up his nose.


dmb says:
Exactly. We're supposed to be persuaded by the arguments and the evidence and this is CONTRASTED with arguments from authority. Arguments from authority are based on the assumption that "Thee Truth" is the sole property of some thing or other. If you believe the bible is the written word of God, for example, there is no way to argue against that no matter what the evidence is.

Marsha and others seem to be confused about the difference between traditional forms of social and political "authority" and intellectual "authority". The latter simply refers to a competent or reliable source of information. That kind of authority is based on a very reasonable belief, namely that we like to rely on people who know what they're talking about. I do not think this kind of authority is any cause for alarm. Nobody should feel persecuted or oppressed by an encyclopedia entry or a quote from the text we're discussing. Frankly, I think that kind of reaction is completely ridiculous. What kind of mind resents the use of openly shared meanings and handy public resources?  


What do you call a group of solipsists? Herd? Pack? Flock? I think I like "clutch". I can't say exactly why but the term seems to express an inward tension that works. A clutch of solipsists scuttled by today. Yea, that works.


Just having fun. Don't mind me.