[MD] Truth as a word of caution

[118]

Hi Steve,

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
>> Mark:
>> If I may jump in, I believe what MoQ is suggesting is that the "search
>> for the Good" is more relevant to our daily actions than the "search
>> for the Truth".  The search for the Truth implies looking for a thing
>> that exists out there that needs to be found.  The search for the Good
>> implies a personal action that is part of becoming.  We do not uncover
>> Truth, we create it.  If it is Good, it remains.  "Thou shalt not
>> kill" is an example of such a truth.  The Good should be emphasized
>> more than the Truth, it is much less dogmatic.
>
> Steve:
> Like Pirsig, pragmatists also see true as a type of good in the sense
> that the truth of a claim is always evaluated relative to the human
> needs and interests that claim was made to support. Claims are not
> "objectively" true or false which is to say that truth and falsity are
> not properties of objects. Claims are neither good nor bad in and of
> themselves (true or false _of_ something) but rather good or bad _for_
> something. As Rorty put it, "On James’s view, “true” resembles “good”
> or “rational” in being a normative notion, a compliment paid to
> sentences that seem to be paying their way and that fit in with other
> sentences which are doing so." So I agree with you of course that
> truth isn't "out there." It is the word we use to describe sentences
> that we think people ought to believe for some human purposes and for
> some good reasons.
>
> James wanted to equate the advisability of asserting S with the truth
> of S, and for most purposes there is no pragmatic difference. But
> sometimes it is good to hold our _reasons_ for believing S is true
> independent from whether the _belief itself_ is true. A justified
> belief belief may not be true, and we may have some true beliefs that
> are not as of yet well-justified. Saying so is just to acknowledge
> that we have sometimes been wrong in the past and may be wrong even
> now.  Saying so is not to hold Truth as some objective thing that
> exists "out there." It is just to say that some of our beliefs that
> guided us to successful action in the past ended up failing us in the
> long run and were replaced by better beliefs.
>
> In doing so, we avoid violating such common sense notions as that the
> world was always roundish even before anyone was justified in
> believing that it is--that the earth didn't change shape when beliefs
> about the world changed. Again, this is not a metaphysical claim about
> the objectivity of "the truth about the world" but rather just one of
> our every-day justified beliefs that either earns its keep or not,
> specifically, our belief that believing something about the shape of
> the world does not have a causal impact on the shape of the world.
>
> Best,
> Steve

[Mark]
I think I understand what you are presenting.  As typical, I will
respond without using much philosophical history or contemporary
philosophy, although I can do that too.  Yes, Truth and Good can be
synonymous if they represent a personal interpretation of the cosmos.
When Truth and Good are equated for coercive means, such as the
presentation of the "truth" to do things for the "greater good", this
is where both truth and good are no longer valid.  This is a case
where Truth and Good are objectified rather than experienced.

I fully agree, that we did not make the world round, if "round" is
used in its absolute sense.  I believe what the argument is, for the
subjective creation of things, is that the concept of roundness is a
human creation.  We objectify absolute roundness so that we can
converse about it.  By objectifying something, we give it a life apart
from the absolute sense.  This is where the disconnect occurs.

There are many "theories" of truth, such as the correspondence method
used by the Greeks.  There is also ontological truth as used by Thomas
Aquinas.  Ontological Truth is, I believe, what MoQ is against.
Therefore, the premise that Gravity did not exist until we created its
concept, is one directed to the disconnect between the concept and
what it represents.

Regards,
Mark

 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