< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: positivism (was Re: "rise of china" and wst) by Boris Stremlin 06 March 2001 22:09 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote: > > Secondly, suppose someone tells you that their perception of reality is > > grounded on divine truth (as revealed in a particular text, experience, > > whatever). Since you don't believe in truth, on what other basis do you > > deny the validity of their experience (and wouldn't a denial take us back > > to the law of 3 stages?)? > > What do you mean by "validity"? If they had the experience, they > had it. But I would not accept any truth claim based on it, any more than > I would accept a truth claim based on natural law philosophy or > evolutionary biology, which disposes of all three of Comte's stages. The answer to this question hinges on the definition of truth, which I deal with below. > I identify with Ayer (and with Marx, for that matter), but I do > not buy into every word he wrote. In this instance, I simply prefer not > to use the term "truth," whether applied to logic or to empirical > research. For me, truth is what an omniscient creature or creator would > know, i.e., the way things really are, and were, and will be. In that > sense, Ayer would say that truth is inaccessible and any statement > purporting to represent "the" truth is cognitively meaningless. You are defining truth as an epistemological system derived from a completely unhindered view of the world (assuming that such a view is possible at all, an assumption that depends on the supposition of a perfectly objective world observed by an omniscient observer; the corollary to this definition is that since we can't have this view, anything goes. I define truth as right conduct in a universe which we participate in but don't control or even have a privileged perception of. This is precisely why ethics, and not epistemology forms the basis of philosophy (in its original sense, not in Ayer's diminished one). > > So what exactly is wrong with the > > so-called dystopians (those whose utopias you happen to find distasteful), > > especially if they come up with a way to create a consensus (by killing > > off dissenters and engaging in bioengineering, e.g.?) Won't they be > > justified before History (as they consistently claim)? How does one > > adjudicate between utopias except on the basis of force? Given the > > irreducibly complex (and ultimately inexplicable) origin of values, what > > hope is there for an evolution of consensus? > > What do you mean by "wrong"? A utopia for me is a society that is > radically better than our own according to my value judgments, which are > neither "right" or "wrong" as a matter of cognition. Since my value > judgments happen to be shared by millions of other people around the > world--we're talking about democracy, a socialist system of relations of > production, civil liberties, and more--I can hope that a global consensus > will eventually form around these preferences. But obviously consensus by > itself is not what I would call good. The Nazis had a fair amount of > consensus going for them in the German Reich of 1939, and it was a > consensus formed around preferences that I would call evil. Can I "prove" > that the Nazis were "wrong"? Of course not. What I mean by "wrong" is that there simply isn't any basis under a positivist system for interpreting qualitative statements. Your differentiation between Nazism and socialism is senseless in terms of positivist thought (Ayer would call it the "boo/hurrah theory of ethics"). The supposition that one utopia is better than another rests on the ethics of intention: what sacrifices are legitimate en route to the "better utopia" is a meaningless question, since the supposition that the end state is better than the present cannot be falsified (there's a positivist concept!) An ethics of action, on the other hand, addresses the questions of means and practicability. In my view, Wallerstein recognizes this distinction , and for this very reason proposes to replace utopia with what he calls "utopistics". > > I offer no assessment of your characterization of postmodernism, since I > > can't really claim much familiarity with its corpus. In fact, the whole > > issue is a red herring in this context: if you notice, I have not once > > cited a name belonging to the postmodern canon in my argument. Instead, I > > have cited world-systemists, Marx, Prigogine, and writers like Latour who > > are very critical of postmodernism. My understanding of positivism is > > also shaped by writers like Eric Voegelin, who is very much identified > > with pre- (rather than post-) positivist currents of thought. I don't > > think that the reduction of reality to text is superior to its reduction > > to phenomena, and I don't think irony is a terribly good principle for the > > organization of social life. > I agree that irony is a poor principle for the > organization of social life, but who is propounding irony? Not I, sir. I didn't say you were. I was just denying that my critique of positivism stemmed from a postmodern position, because I find both equally problematic (though for different reasons). > I am simply attacking the tyranny implicit in any attempt by anybody > to impose on others a vision of the good based on truth claims or based on > cognition of sensory data. So I am a moral Marxist but not a scientific > one. Since I see truth as a question of action and not not perception, I am not tyrannizing anyone with my claims. When the form under which I try to undertake that action is reduced to an epistemological dogma, THEN it becomes tyranny. The absolute prohibition against the asking of existential questions is a form of tyranny as well. -- Boris Stremlin bc70219@binghamton.edu
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |