From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Aug 18 2003 - 00:13:50 BST
Andy, Matt Steve and all MOQers:
Let me try it this way. I'm still not sure what this "truth tribunal" is all
about. Maybe an answer to a more basic question will help me get oriented,
because its still not clear what the problem is. Andy's most recent attempt
didn't help at all, just as he suspected. For example Rorty says, "Only
descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own
-unaided by the describing activities of human beings - cannot." I don't
mean to be rude, but isn't that extremely obvious? Of course the world on
its own can't be true or false. Again I would ask who ever said otherwise. I
don't see how such a claim could have ever made sense. "The world is true.
The world is false." These are meaningless statements, no? I can only assume
that there is much, much more to it than is being said here. But let us
return to that more basic question, the answer to which might be helpful in
getting at my question about the truth tribunal.
Rorty says:
"But, given a Darwinian picture of the world, there can be no such tribunal.
For such a tribunal would have to envisage all the alternatives to a given
belief, and know everything that was relevant to criticism of every such
alternative. Such a tribunal would have to have what Putnam calls a 'God's
eye view'...If Darwin is right, we can no more make sense of the idea of
such a tribunal than we can make sense of the idea that biological evolution
has an aim. Biological evolution produces ever new species, and cultural
evolution produces ever new audiences, but there is no such thing as the
species which evolution has in view, nor any such thing as the 'aim of
inquiry.'"
dmb asks:
How does a Darwinian picture of the world kill this truth tribunal? How is
aimless evolution and aimless inquiry even related to it? I don't see the
connection. It would also be helpful to know something about Putman's "god's
eye view". And don't forget that the point here is to understand what Rorty
is refering to with the phrase, "truth tribuanl". At this point it doesn't
help to say its a metaphor for a thing that is seen everywhere. That is WAY
too vague. Andy pointed to Descartes' deductions as an example of it, but
that seems lightyears away from any kind all-knowing judge of truth. Its
only a kind of logic, not some imaginary divine entity. Like all
philosophers, he may have used it to reach some particular conclusions, but
is that really the same as claiming to know the absolute or final "Truth" of
anything? I don't think so. The whole thing seems like a wild-eyed
exaggeration at best.
And please, just for a moment, pretend these are good questions. It might
take some time and energy to provide a clear explanation, but think how fun
it'll be when I am finally forced to admit that I'm all wrong about this.
Think of it as your big chance to cut Mr. Know-it-all down to size. Oh,
happy day! :-)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 18 2003 - 00:14:55 BST