måndag 8 november 2010

Pragmatism as Fallibilism without Relativism

Very interesting!!!
How do you mean that Pragmatism is Fallibilism without Relativism?
I'm not disagreeing at all. Just curious to fond out how you came to that conclusion.
Alexander/Pragmatist Zoroastrian

2010/11/7 Special Kain

Dear Parviz,

It's a shift in focus: from the observer's pursuit to precisely describe the world as it is (realism) to prope-Nietzschean ethics of self-enrichment and self-enlargement by throwing ourselves into new experiences through new narratives (instrumentalism).
Please note that pragmatism is fallibilism without relativism.


--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am So, 7.11.2010:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Practiced Pragmatism
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Sonntag, 7. November, 2010 08:48 Uhr

Dear Dino and Alex,

So essentially, what you are saying is that if the idea that the blood of Christ washing us of our original sin WORKS in making us better persons, don't argue with it and send your children to Sunday school. This is an insult to minds wanting to think by the rules of logical and scientific clarity and reason. Look carefully at what you are saying and then shout back at me that I am wrong; this is what you are saying.


--- On Sat, 11/6/10, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Practiced Pragmatism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, November 6, 2010, 2:31 PM

I agree 100%!
Such stories are not photographs, but tools. This is where pragmatism as a philosophy has greatly inspired science (and this is where positivism has gone wrong): it is not about the sacred truth as such (my theory is "truer" than yours), it is about functionality and intersubjective agreement. Think of Charles S. Peirce's imagined community of investigators and John Dewey's instrumentalist take on scientific work!


--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Sa, 6.11.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Practiced Pragmatism
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 6. November, 2010 17:51 Uhr


All that we KNOW is that Religion, Philosophy, Science are literary categories.
What else they are can only be measured in terms of their usefulness as metaphors to guide us through our lives. This is where The Story of Evolution works a lot better than The Story of Adam and Eve. Rather than pointing to a story being truer than another story, it is better to speak of its usefulness, of one story being more relevant to our lives than another story. Creationism is simply a story that has no relevance to children's education. So it should not be taught anywhere outside of the subject of Mythologies.
The big bang is a useful such story as it explains the background radiation in space and the origin of our current physical universe (better than alternative narrative we have come up with so far). Adam and Eve explains nothing more than a ceratin culture's obsession at a certain time with coming up with a mythology of the origin of the nuclear family (it does nit explain how the physical umiverse come about). However, it does not explain why the nuclear family exists in the first place (if it does outside of some fantasies). Which is why Adam & Eve belongs in a Mythologies class but not in a Science class.
The problem with Ali Jafarey's claims is that he says Zoroastrianism should be scientistic. But Science was not a narrative that existed at the time of Zarathushtra (it was not regarded as relevant yet). Which may also explain why Jafarey then goes on to believe in lots of things which are clearly incompatible with Science (such as dualism). It is all very confusing and not very fit to win hearts and minds of people. Fairytales and Science make a bad mix.

Inga kommentarer: