Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.
bohm Rorty seems to argue that truth is whatever a community agrees is true. So if society says property works a certain way then it's true for them. If someone disagrees then he has to convince the others to see things his way in order to make it true.
Other philosophers made fun of Rorty's view in this way: well we don't agree with your view that truth is about agreement Rorty, therefore our disagreement with you makes your view of truth untrue, according to your version of truth. Ha!
SBF: Useful to who?
So if it is useful to me that you owe me a million, and it is useful to you that you don't, is that really all that can be said on the matter in your mind?
SBF: But the reason community agrees is because the community define truth by some sort of common-sense agreement to what has happened in the real world so I do not think it is reasonable to draw to much on what the community says. I am talking about how Rorty establishes what is true in his world-view, if we are on Rorty island, how would the police go about solving a crime for instance?
Wow, this Rorty guy sounds like a genuine idiot
Would they just gather up a jury and asked them:
"This man is accused of a crime. Go to a room and make up your mind if he did it or not. Then it becomes true for us"
or would he *perhaps* fall back to some sort of evidentialism where evidence played a role?
Just because laws can be subjective doesn't mean that truth is subjective. Just because people can agree on the consequences to a certain behavior doesn't make those consequences "true".
Laws, in the criminal sense, can only ever be imposed. They're never true. It can be true that certain laws exist. But the laws themselves aren't true.
Let me try to make the distinction very clear:
If we ask simply as a matter of definition, "what things are true on Rorty island?", and the answer is: "those things that people agrees upon are true for them", I think there might be a chance of some circularity but I don't really find that all too disagreeable as a working definition.
The central issue is how they figure out what is true on Rorty island or rather, how they ought to find out what is true.
For instance you could say: "They have decided as a matter of practice to hold courts where evidence is brought before the jury and then the jury goes to a room and decide what is true", then I think this is evidentialism in a poor disguise.
If on the other hand you answer that there can be no "how they ought to find out what is true" on Rorty island because this is too much like evidentialism, then whatever practice is held before or during a trial on Rorty island is arbitrary, so is it just as rational (or irrational) to hold proper trials, present evidence which is real (as opposed to fabricated), etc.
I don't think Rorty holds that view but I don't know..
The reason a community agrees something is true is because it is in their common interest to do so. Rorty is the best philosopher ever.
It's hard to find people who agree with him however. Here's a somewhat fair representation of what he thought (Rorty died in 2007) by someone who is not totally convinced.
Strange I read that article a few minutes ago, and now it says subscribers only. So I don't know if you can access it.
Sbf: okay so that might be the psychology of why they believe something, i am interested in why they ought believe something on your view.
is that also common interest and if so how do they determine what is their common interest?
Will check link later