Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Friedrich · Oct 2, 2004, 11:39 am

Bishop:

Thanks for the comments. There are some issues to ponder however:

"i.e. a quest for universal truth taking into account the historical variations in the perception of truth. since it has changed numerous times, is changing and will continue to change, this eliminates the possibility of having a solid definition of truth as far as rorty's concerned."

This is to state a universal and unchanging (the two concepts are different) concept of truth: "Truth is change." It is to postulate that: 1) there is a truth, namely that concepts of truth change over time; and 2) that we can know this as truth, universally and unchangingly. Hence, it is not a denial of truth and would be IN OPPOSITION to Rorty's position.

"as much as i prefer to accept a variety of definitions of truth, from plato to hobbes to machiavelli, rorty does make a solid point: since it has changed so many times, any attempt to define it will most likely add to the diverse definitions that exist, rather than become the definitive definition."

This is to suggest that the definite definition of truth is that it is "undefinable" and "historically contingent." This a self-contradictory definition, for the question then is whether this definition itself is unchanging and variable. As Larry said to Curley, "If it is, it ain't."

"also, i think his refusal to accept the notion of universal moral concern is based on his analysis of the failure of communism, and flaws of socialism. in each case, neither has amounted in reality to what they were intended to be in theory. it is a pragmatic approach, but it does not mean that he is not concerned, quite the contrary."

I agree with you that Rorty is "concerned." He is also, I am sure, a deeply moral person. This critique of Communism or any form of socialism as "failures" itself makes a tacit appeal to moral principles -- i.e., those systems are "bad." Such an appeal assumes the validity of a morality or of some value, while denying that there are universally valid morals.

Morality is a much more pervasive feature of human life, rather like language, than most people realize. It is not so easy to leave behind. Some people manage to do it, but they often find that what they have left behind in doing so, is their very humanity.

Oct 2, 2004, 11:39 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Friedrich Molten Ash Posts: 40	Bishop: Thanks for the comments. There are some issues to ponder however: "i.e. a quest for universal truth taking into account the historical variations in the perception of truth. since it has changed numerous times, is changing and will continue to change, this eliminates the possibility of having a solid definition of truth as far as rorty's concerned." This is to state a universal and unchanging (the two concepts are different) concept of truth: "Truth is change." It is to postulate that: 1) there is a truth, namely that concepts of truth change over time; and 2) that we can know this as truth, universally and unchangingly. Hence, it is not a denial of truth and would be IN OPPOSITION to Rorty's position. "as much as i prefer to accept a variety of definitions of truth, from plato to hobbes to machiavelli, rorty does make a solid point: since it has changed so many times, any attempt to define it will most likely add to the diverse definitions that exist, rather than become the definitive definition." This is to suggest that the definite definition of truth is that it is "undefinable" and "historically contingent." This a self-contradictory definition, for the question then is whether this definition itself is unchanging and variable. As Larry said to Curley, "If it is, it ain't." "also, i think his refusal to accept the notion of universal moral concern is based on his analysis of the failure of communism, and flaws of socialism. in each case, neither has amounted in reality to what they were intended to be in theory. it is a pragmatic approach, but it does not mean that he is not concerned, quite the contrary." I agree with you that Rorty is "concerned." He is also, I am sure, a deeply moral person. This critique of Communism or any form of socialism as "failures" itself makes a tacit appeal to moral principles -- i.e., those systems are "bad." Such an appeal assumes the validity of a morality or of some value, while denying that there are universally valid morals. Morality is a much more pervasive feature of human life, rather like language, than most people realize. It is not so easy to leave behind. Some people manage to do it, but they often find that what they have left behind in doing so, is their very humanity.