Re: truth

[Ajit Sinha <ecas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:52 6/10/97 -0700, Jim wrote:
>Is it a central part of post-rational "thought" that one simply repeats
>one's point rather than defending it? (or to find jokes that aren't there?)
>
>So, I'll repeat mine: in what sense can one "show" the "arbitrariness of
>all the truth claims"? why should we believe your "demonstration" if it is
>also arbitrary? why should we listen to you if you are not making truth
>claims of some sort? (are you claiming that we should read your postings to
>pen-l because they are aesthetically pleasing?)
_______________

Where in the book of "rational thought" is it written that James Devine
determines the terms of the debates? You have implicitly made a claim to
somekind of "truth" without spelling it out, i.e. you have made an
assertion that there is something called truth and "rational" thought must
refer to such truth in its discourse. Now, the burden is on you to
establish this position. Once you do that, only then you can ask me to
expose its arbitrariness.

As far as finding jokes where there wasn't any is concerned, it only
testifies to my sense of humor and your lack of it.
____________
>
>what do you mean by "arbitrary"?
>
>The most fitting definitions in my dictionary have this word meaning "based
>on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than
>necessity or the intrinsic nature of something" or "existing or coming
>about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable
>act of will" (WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY.)
>
>If you are asserting that assertions of truth necessarily have subjective
>components, I agree.
_________

So you give the game up? By 'arbitrary' I mean propositions which are not
justified by 'reason'. They are posited, presupposed.

Rest of your post is an exercise in selfcontradiction. And I'm not in a
mood to take pleasure in pointing them out. My general sense is that you
are confusing the idea of empirical 'facts' with 'truth'. In your case
there would be as many truths as empirical facts, and your position would
degenerate into most absurd empiricism of all. Cheers, ajit sinha
____

>I don't think anyone ever can know the "absolute" or "objective" truth. So
>any assertion of such knowledge is more than merely arbitrary. It's
>ideological.

>But some propositions are more true than others; some are less ideological
>than others. Some views are more logical, fit with the actuality of the
>phenomenon being described (which unfortunately can only be understood via
>empirical evidence), or are methodologically more sound than others. Some
>are better guides to practice than others.
>
>The difficulty is that the truth about world that exists outside of our
>perceptions is that it's multidimensional, complex. So, for example, a
>proposition that's more logically coherent than another could easily be
>less consistent with known evidence.  People can choose between a variety
>of different propositions that are "equally true" following their
>subjective desires. But that does not make efforts to get a greater
>understanding of what the heck is going on "arbitrary" or futile.
>
>Assertions of truth aren't _simply_ subjective. Many of them can be knocked
>down, criticized for being illogical, not fitting the evidence, incomplete,
>etc. Some of them can't be falsified in any way. Though I reject Popperian
>hard-core falsificationism, it seems a good idea to make it explicit when a
>proposition isn't falsifiable and try to avoid relying too much on such
>propositions. The point is that there are constraints on our subjective
>choices about what we think is true or untrue.
>
>I think it's pretty well established that Elvis is dead and that the Nazis
>killed a whole lot of innocent people. My assertions of the truth of these
>propositions are not arbitrary (though perhaps my choice of which
>propositions to make was arbitrary).
>
>Paul, it's been a long time since I read Lenin's contributions on this
>stuff. I wish you or someone would summarize it for pen-l.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>in pen-l solidarity,
>
>Jim Devine   jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
>Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
>7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
>310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
>"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
>and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
>
>