Praggrammatology? - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

0 posted 2002-05-28 09:39 PM

The term is a synthesis of Derrida's term Grammatology (a term he used before Deconstruction became the more popular) and Pragmatism. It's Derrida's word.

Habermas, a German thinker, has also given credit to the American Pragmatists for coming up with a way of looking at the world that makes sense.

One wonders what many of those infatuated with French thinkers today (and I'm one of them, aren't I?) might think when they realize that their thinking was based on reading an American homegrown philosophy?

Think the British invasion in the 60's.

"She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah . . ."

Jamie
Member Elite

since 2000-06-26

Posts 3168
Blue Heaven

1 posted 2002-05-30 11:58 PM

Well, I am happy Habermas found a way to make sense of it. Now, how something for the rest of us? heh

I guess it goes without saying you have read Rorty's 'Consequences of Pragmatism' doesn't it?

J

Phaedrus
Member

since 2002-01-26

Posts 180

2 posted 2002-06-03 01:56 PM

quote:
Man makes the word, and the word means nothing which the man has not made it mean, and that only to some other man. But since man can think only by means of words or other external symbols, these might turn around and say: You mean nothing which we have not taught you, and then only so far as you address some word as the interpretant of your thought. . . . . . . the word or sign which man uses is the man himself Thus my language is the sum-total of myself; for the man is the thought. (Peirce)

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

3 posted 2002-06-05 01:22 AM

Ha! Pretty much have read everything Rorty wrote but only part of that one.

Actually, I'm a little bored with him these days as I can pretty much predict where he's going to go.

The Pierce quote is great (and reminds that I have to read more of him).

Phaedrus
Member

since 2002-01-26

Posts 180

4 posted 2002-06-05 06:33 PM

You should have said you like quotes Brad.

quote:
Is language simply a vehicle or tool of reference by which an autonomous truth is defined and described or does truth exist solely as a by-product of language?

Some argue that truth is whatever happens to be useful at any particular time (pragmatism). There are also claims that language is simply unsuitable to express truth in any manner that is legitimate or verifiable, given that the formulation of such truth, even by thought, involves reference to language itself and so is, by definition, unimpeachable yet possibly flawed. The first premise would seem to require the existence of an entity that would find truth useful, does that mean that without such an entity truth would not exist? The second premise would seem to assert that truth as we know it is flawed and simply a product and belief created by language, does that mean that truth does not exist or simply that it exists but cannot be described using language?

I’m not sure I like pragmatism, when I get a few minutes I’ll try to put the reasons into words that make at least a little sense.

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

5 posted 2002-06-05 11:46 PM

But from a pragmatic point of view, the above quote is simply asking the wrong question; it implicitly always already values truth.

But the fact (

) remains that we can never know what the truth is on an epistemological level. This isn't a big deal actually unless you bring the question of truth to the forefront. If you do that, you have to simply assert that the truth is the truth.

It's funny if you think about it. Pragmatists are sometimes accused of reducing everything to power politics, but what they actually say is that asserting the truth is a way of practicing power politics.

Can't wait to hear your objections.

Phaedrus
Member

since 2002-01-26

Posts 180

6 posted 2002-06-06 06:35 PM

Brad

One objection, if that’s what it is, is that I believe truth by correspondence is anchored firmly by its interrelationship with fact yet pragmatism seems to allow a truth to exist based upon simple belief or usefulness. (I may be completely wrong in this assumption, my knowledge in this subject as in most others is sadly lacking). Surely the ability of a truth to exist based purely on belief or usefulness allows disbelief and leads to a violation of the law of non-contradiction (bivalence by any other name).

God exists = true if the belief is useful
God does not exist = true if the belief is useful

Could the connection of truth to usefulness without correspondence to facts also cause a pragmatic truth that is blatantly false.

The holocaust never happened – may be judged under these circumstances to be true by dint of usefulness to certain people.

Is it not possible that pragmatism could, in the name of usefulness, allow a belief to become a truth and vice versa.

Does God exist because everybody believes it is useful that he exists or because he actually exists?

I believe God exists if and only if god exists, it may be true that people believe God exists but that belief does not in itself affirm the existence of God.

PS

I’m not sure if God exists btw, of that truth I’m sure

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.