Philosophy Now Forum

Is truth about the way the world is, or is it about what is convenient for society? Les Reid takes a look at a modern pragmatist and asks: Who’s Afraid of Richard Rorty?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/30/Truth_and_Progress_by_Richard_Rorty

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:16 pm

One motif of the book which I must admit I found irritating was Rorty’s repeated appeal to Donald Davidson’s dictum that most of our beliefs, most of anybody’s beliefs, must be true

It depends what is meant by 'true'.

Most if not all of a person's beliefs will be believed to be true. Otherwise they would not retain them as beliefs, and instead merely discard them.

Obviously Rorty's attachment to secularism and the diversity of belief that the Great Beast expresses define truth.

He would oppose Plato's distinction between opinions and knowledge and believe that Simone Weil was a poor misguided woman unable to become one of the crowd and just argue opinions.


Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.

Can you imagine if someone like Rorty had read this when she was alive. He would have suggested a psychologist to make her a normal secularist and forget the need to rise above opinions and experience the knowledge of truth.

Looks like Simone died just in time.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:14 am It depends what is meant by 'true'.

Which puts you in a conundrum. Since we have like 20 different conceptions/definitions of "Truth". A lot like we have religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

And as atheists like to argue against theists: How do you know your religion (truth) is the correct one?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:14 am Most if not all of a person's beliefs will be believed to be true. Otherwise they would not retain them as beliefs, and instead merely discard them.

1. Which definition of 'truth' are YOU using when you said the above?
2. This is precisely Rorty's point. Beliefs are not retained for their truth-value. They are retained for their pragmatic/utility value to the holder.

Belief-in-belief: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZ ... -in-belief

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:47 am Can you imagine if someone like Rorty had read this when she was alive. He would have suggested a psychologist to make her a normal secularist and forget the need to rise above opinions and experience the knowledge of truth.

That is a somewhat cynical interpretation of Rorty. He was a humanist first and foremost. https://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/cours ... manism.pdf

In fact, I think that is the reason he was a pragmatist, although I might be projecting my own reasons.
The moment you put Truth-seeking before human well-being it becomes an ideology. A harmful religion like every other.

And it is in such occasions where I am perfectly happy to reject your deity (Truth) and declare myself an Atruist!

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:41 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:14 am It depends what is meant by 'true'.

Which puts you in a conundrum. Since we have like 20 different conceptions/definitions of "Truth". A lot like we have religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

It doesn't put me in a conundrum at all, (yet again you are wrong in your refutation of my posts) I have a perfectly good conception of truth which works fine for me.

PS I generally don't follow links and in your case I have not made an exception.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:42 am It doesn't put me in a conundrum at all, (yet again you are wrong in your refutation of my posts) I have a perfectly good conception of truth which works fine for me.

PS I generally don't follow links and in your case I have not made an exception.

Yes. You have your truth, I have my truth. I am not refuting anything. Just pointing out that the word Truth means exactly the same thing in 2018 as the word God meant 2000 years ago.

Which is an argument for the coherence theory of truth (and against the correspondence theory). Broadly - you are on the same page as Rorty.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:07 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:42 am It doesn't put me in a conundrum at all, (yet again you are wrong in your refutation of my posts) I have a perfectly good conception of truth which works fine for me.

PS I generally don't follow links and in your case I have not made an exception.

Yes. You have your truth, I have my truth. I am not refuting anything. Just pointing out that the word Truth means exactly the same thing in 2018 as the word God meant 2000 years ago.

Which is an argument for the coherence theory of truth (and against the correspondence theory). Broadly - you are on the same page as Rorty.

No, we all have our own opinions but as Socrates demonstrated, we do not experience truth or the Good. That is why the Oracle called him wise. He realized that he knew nothing about objective truth but was limited to his opinions developed from his unique blend of partial truths. Human evolutionary potential may be to experience truth but as of now we proudly engage in the war of opinions and call it truth.