<DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>I am trying my best to stay away from my office during the break, so I don't have any of the Rorty books with me to give you a direct quote.  But no, I am not paraphrasing inaccurately at all.  I usually avoid that as much as I can.  Take a look at Rorty's "Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth" for a good elucidation of his postmodern pragmatism (although Rorty's preference is pragmatism not postmodernism as a term for his philosophy).  By the way, I am mentioning Rorty only to show that your allegiance to him is not based on any solid understanding of his philosophy.  Although I find Rorty's philosophy of knowledge very useful, I am not a Rorty fan, have no patience for his ethnocentrism as a way of avoiding relativism crap.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>By the way, where is this overgeneralization about the sociologists coming from?   I don't mean to appear irritated, but these baseless generalizations are simply childish.  Could you tell me who are the sociologists who confuse the subject's beliefs with the subject itself that you mentioned in your response to Joanna?  I have no tribal loyalty to academic sociology-  sociologists have many fault, but this is not one of them.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Manjur  <BR><BR><B><I>Jon Johanning <zenner41@mac.com></I></B> wrote: </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">On Dec 31, 2004, at 12:09 PM, Manjur Karim wrote:<BR><BR>> What I am saying is that the only way we can make sense of that world <BR>> is the way we talk about it. <BR><BR>Looks pretty much like a tautology to me, so I guess I agree with you.<BR><BR>> And your friend Rorty would agree with me, every <BR>> discursive-communicative context has its own internal logic, own truth <BR>> claims.<BR><BR>I think you're paraphrasing him, and rather inaccurately, perhaps. <BR>Could you show me exactly where he says this?<BR><BR>(BTW, why the irritated tone? These are very complicated issues, and <BR>I'm sure you're aware, since you seem to have some philosophical <BR>education in your background, that such discussions go on in <BR>philosophical circles for months and years. It just takes a bit of <BR>patience.)<BR><BR>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*<BR><BR>On Dec 31, 2004, at 1:38 PM, Miles Jackson wrote:<BR><BR>> But one argument won't come along that contradicts your whole view of<BR>> the world, because you would have to give up too many other<BR>> certainties.<BR><BR>Yes, it would probably take more than one argument, or perhaps even a <BR>bunch of arguments wouldn't do it. In science, with all of the <BR>experimental discipline, and so forth, it still usually takes many <BR>experimental results of many different kinds and a long time to make a <BR>major change in theories. In philosophy, you can argue till the cows <BR>come home, if you have the patience, but somehow, in the process, you <BR>often learn something.<BR><BR>But there's no problem with giving up "certainties." People do it all <BR>the time. It's even easier than giving up smoking. :-)<BR><BR>> That's another good point LW makes: a statement is<BR>> certain because it is embedded in a totality of propositions that<BR>> are taken as obvious and true. The aggregation of the statements<BR>> you are certain about is a mutually reinforcing network. (Thus<BR>> our tendency to doggedly stick to our ideas in the face of<BR>> opposing arguments.) I'll blow a Wittgensteinian raspberry at<BR>> at anybody who claims that philosophical debates about God<BR>> or ontology do anything useful.<BR><BR>You *can,* theoretically, stick to your position forever, but often, in <BR>the face of a series of penetrating arguments, you end up looking <BR>rather foolish. For example, that's how G. E. Moore and Bertrand <BR>Russell ended the reign of idealism in British philosophical circles in <BR>the early 20th century.<BR><BR>As for Wittgenstein, I appreciate his wanting to show the fly the way <BR>out of the fly bottle, but some flies prefer to stay in it. :-)<BR><BR>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*<BR><BR>And BTW, Happy New Year to anyone who might be paying attention to this <BR>tiresome stuff!<BR><BR><BR>Jon Johanning // jjohanning@igc.org<BR>__________________________<BR>A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You <BR>should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest <BR>and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax<BR><BR><BR>___________________________________<BR>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><p> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/virus/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/protection.html">Yahoo! Mail</a> - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.