Late again, but here's my view.
--- Valence <valence10@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To the 'MD Jury',
> Platt has suggested we go to the 'MD Jury' and see
> what you all think. I
> know that many have already chimed in on the side of
> provisional truth
> (Horse, Andrea, Erin, etc.). But everyone's
> viewpoint would be
> appreciated.....
>
I see no added value to ascribing "absolute truth" to
a statement of fact. Such a statement can be called
true if my actions are consistent with its being true.
Part of that acting is to criticize/condemn someone
who denies it, if I think it is harmful,
intellectually or socially, for people to think it not
true, and to act accordingly. So my question to the
absolutists is: what difference does the concept
"absolute truth" make that is not accounted for in
this pragmatic approach?
On the other hand, if one does add the concept
"absolute truth" to statements of fact, one is adding
a metaphysical level, which does not add to the
original statement's value, but does require
unnecessary qualifications. So that the full statement
is "It is true that X, provided that solipsism isn't
true, that the many-words interpretation of quantum
mechanics isn't true, that God didn't rearrange the
universe ten minutes ago, etc.".
As for metaphysical statements, I think they should be
considered as being prefixed by "I invite you to think
that..." rather than "it is true that..." since there
is no method to determine their utility other than it
somehow adds value to one's intellectual activity.
- Scott
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:54 BST