Nick Gall Profile picture
16 Oct, 17 tweets, 21 min read
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks Sorry to jump in late, but I think in his "Reply to Ramberg" (mentioned in your excellent recent podcast) Rorty partially recanted the sentiment expressed in "Truth is simply a compliment…": “Ramberg sets me straight here too. He tells me, in effect, that _it was a mistake /1
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks on my part_ to go from criticism of attempts to define truth as accurate representation of the intrinsic nature of reality to _a denial that true statements get things right_. What I should have done, he makes me realize, is to grant Davidson's point that _most of our beliefs /2
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks about anything_ (snow, molecules, the moral law) must be true of that thing - _must get that thing right_.” p374

In his reply, Rorty clarified what he means by "true of". He does so by more fully embracing and explicating Davidson’s triangulation: ‘Since I now want to agree /3
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks with Davidson on this point, I am going to have to stop saying, in imitation of Sellars, that _"true" and "refers" do not name word-world relations. Nor shall I any longer be able to say that all our relations to the world are causal relations._ I shall instead have to say /4
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks that _there are certain word-world relations which are neither causal nor representational_ - for instance, the relation "true of” which holds between "Snow is white" and snow, and the relation "refers to" which holds between "snow" and snow.’p374

I think it unfortunate that /5
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks Rorty still referred to “certain” relations that are neither causal nor representational as “word-world” relations, because this still categorizes such relations as binary relations. What would have been clearer would have been to categorize them as trinary relations, which is /6
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks the essential point that Davidson makes. All our relations with the world are triadic, among speaker, interpreter, and world. This is how we avoid the relativism implicit in “Truth is simply a compliment…”-type sayings.

I think Rorty’s quotation of Davidson makes clear /7
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks how seeing all relations as triadic avoids relativism: ‘The ultimate source of both objectivity and communication is the triangle that, by relating speaker, interpreter and the world, _determines the contents of thought and speech_. Given this source _there is no room for a /8
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks relativized concept of truth_.’ pp15-16

Another way of emphasizing the necessity of viewing all relations as triadic, according to Rorty, is that it is wrong to use the phrase “norms set by our peers”: ‘It was a mistake to _locate the norms at one corner of the triangle - /9
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks where my peers are_ - rather than seeing them as, so to speak, _hovering over the whole process of triangulation_. (Brandom's slogan "We have met the norms, and they are us" is acceptable only if "us" means "us as engaged in the process of triangulation.") It is not that my /10
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks peers have more to do with my obligation to say that snow is white _than the snow does_, or than I do.’

Finally, I think Rorty would largely agree with Peirce’s claim that “"[T]he objectivity of truth really consists in the fact that, in the end, every sincere inquirer will /11
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks be led to embrace it…” Rorty says roughly the same thing, but substitutes freedom for sincerity: “My claim that if we take care of freedom truth will take care of itself implies that if people can say what they believe without fear, then, just as Conant says, _the task of /12
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks justifying themselves to others and the task of getting things right will coincide_. My argument is that since we can test whether we have performed the first task, and have no further test to apply to determine whether we have performed the second, Truth as end-in-itself /13
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks drops out.”p347

Truth is not out there, but what is out there makes most of our sentences true. Truth is also not “in here”, if that means solely in the norms of a language community. Rather, normative truth “hovers” in the triangle between speaker, interpreter, and world. /14
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks Given his embrace of triangulation, Rorty proposed this less pithy aphorism about truth paying its way, which acknowledges the key insights of both pragmatism and realism: “What is true in pragmatism is that what you talk about depends not on what is real but on what it pays /15
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks you to talk about. What is true in realism is that most of what you talk about you get right". /16 END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Nick Gall

Nick Gall Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ironick

15 Jun
Prediction: The #SCOTUS ruling in #Bostock will become the central case in law school classes teaching the meaning of "but-for" causation. The entire decision comes down to applying but-for causation analysis! /1
'In the language of law, this means that Title VII’s “because of ” test incorporates the “‘simple’” and “traditional” standard of but-for causation. Nassar, 570 U. S., at 346, 360. That form of causation is established whenever a particular outcome...' /1
'...would not have happened “but for” the purported cause. See Gross, 557 U. S., at 176. In other words, a but-for test directs us to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes. If it does, we have found a but-for cause.

This can be a sweeping standard. ...' /2
Read 6 tweets
14 Nov 18
Best jargon-free description of #designthinking approach we applied at @ibmdesign … by @mjane_h at @autodesk: To advocate for investment, we don’t start by rationalizing the things we need to do. We start with a vision of what designing and making can feel like to our users. /1
That vision opens with a single, powerful statement that the business can rally around, with a few supporting points to make it visceral and visual. When we’ve done this well, business leaders see their own strategic intent in what we’ve presented. /2
The discussion turns to unpacking possibilities for what strategic intent might be like from this point of view. Only then, when leadership feels it too, do we introduce the areas of investment we request. /3
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!