[MD] Rorty and the End of Philosophy

[Steven Peterson]

 Hi Marsha,


On 11/28/11, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> Since patterns (truths) have no independent existence, I might agree that
> there is no basis on which to call anything true.  Good or bad?  Sure, from
> a static perspective, but not true.
>
> This might add something interesting to the discussion.  It's an interesting
> lecture by, a philosopher, a Professor Cahoone:
>
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sg-SGofRFo&feature=related

Steve:
You say that there is no basis to call anything true. What sort of a
basis ought something have to warrant being called true? Why does
"true" have to mean anything more than that a claim has held up
against all objections that have been raised and that we have hope it
will continue to stand up to objections raised in the future? How can
a claim to truth be more adequate than to stand up to such scrutiny?
To what else should such a claim need to be adequate other than our
own human needs and interests? What non-human power could demand that
our claims be thought of as something more than tools for human use?

Best,
Steve