2002 11:56:47 -0500
>
>Justin wrote"
>
> >> But you're then just using "true" to mean "work"
> >
> > No I'm not. I use "true" to mean "true," as understood, for less, by
>Tarksi.
> > For each sentence "p" in a scientific theory, "P" is true if and only if
>p.
>
>So how does the pragmatism enter? Does the fact that a scientific theory
>"works" constitute independent evidence that it's "true" in this sense? Is
>this pragmatism itself "true" in this sense?
My pragmatism is a theory of knowledge and a philosophical methodology, not
a theory of truth. It is consistent with various theories of truth. As I
explained to Ian, I'm not stuck on Tarski as naturalized by Davidson.
>
>I don't know enough about Tarski to know if this identification of the
>"truth" of a scientific theory with the truth of each member of a set of
>sentences makes ontological assumptions.
It's not supposed to make any such assumptions. It's semantics, not metaphysics.
>Is it applicable to Marx's theory?
Sure, why not? The sentence "Capitalists exploit workers" is true if and only if capitalist exploit workers.
>
>Consequently, the history of the development of rational
>self-consciousness can't be represented by reasoning that assumes that the
>"identity," in this sense, of individual self-consciousness remains
>unchanged in the face of changes in relations.
>
You build a lot more into Marx than I do. I don't dounbt that of of it is there. But it doesn't have to be to justify a move from capitalsim to socialism.
>Does Tarski's critierion allow the "language" in which the claims of the
>theory are made to embody Marx's ontological premises?
Sure. The sentences emboding those premises are true ion the Tarski sence
just in case you can take away the quotation marks.
>
Both the
>atomism and the concept of rationality are inconsistent with Marx.
>
Maybe, and ifs o maybe Maerx is wrong.
>This means, by the way, that your belief that Hayek demonstrated that
>markets will be not only consistent with but necessary in "communism" is
>mistaken.
I'm not a communist. I'm a market socialist. But I don't arrive at this in a rounndabout way from fundamental premises. I'm not a c-ist because I don't think a nonmarket economy can be efficient enough to support a rich society, for the reasons Hayek argued. I am a M-S because i do not think that Hayak has an argument against public ownership.
You can't demonstrate that Marx's premises are mistaken
>by showing that Marx's conclusions don't follow from premises Marx doesn't
>make.
Oh yes you can. Marx thought that communism required the abolition of scarcity. He argued that it would unleasre the productive forcesl. He was wrong. Anyway, you can get to this point from Marx's own premises, as Stanley Moore has shown in Marx vs. the Market. Marx argues (correctly) that under historical materialsim, it is markets that drive the development of the productive forces. So when you geyt rid of them . . .
>Unlike Hayek, Marx assumes that the content of a "good" life is objective
>and knowable.
You are wandering here. I agree with Marx, but like Hayek I am also a liberal, so I would not impose my conception of the good life on others who disagreed, even if I thought they were wrong.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx