[lbo-talk] Baby thoughts

[Alan Rudy]

Actually, what he said was that one appeals to objective truth whenever one
uses the term ideology, which implies that one who uses the term at least
has a strong sense of objective truth... And if reality is independent of
our knowledge of it but we can only have the knowledge we have of it, how is
this claim not effectively useless as anything other than an unfounded and
unfoundable but nevertheless foundational position?
Look, I'm a materialist not a realist or idealist.  The world IS out there
but any and all constructions and engagements with it are necessarily
material semiotic, there is no utility whatsoever in insisting that there is
a real material world and semiotic/scientific constructions of it... such a
position gains us nothing.

*********************************************************
Alan P. Rudy
Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
Central Michigan University
124 Anspach Hall
Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
517-881-6319

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:


>
> I think James is wrong about a lot of stuff ;) , but he didn't say that
> anybody could _know_ objective, unsituated truth. He said that reality is
> independent of your knowledge (or beliefs, or interpretations) of it.
>
>
>