[MD] Rorty and the End of Philosophy

[MarshaV]

On Nov 28, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Steven Peterson wrote:

> 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?

None.  As I think I've mentioned before, it is said the best way to approach the Ultimate Truth is by discovering what is false.  That there is no truth is a big bubble to burst.  


> 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?

We hope the best ones hold up into the future.  


> How can a claim to truth be more adequate than to stand up to such scrutiny?

It should be said it, a claim, stands up under scrutiny.  


> To what else should such a claim need to be adequate other than our
> own human needs and interests?

And understanding of the interconnectedness of all needs and interests.


> What non-human power could demand that our claims be thought of
> as something more than tools for human use?

None.   


Marsha 


 
___