the pragmatist’s argument regarding truth – as that which is ‘good for us to believe’
is not an argument against objectivism as such – for the question ‘what is good for us to believe?’ is an objective question
Rorty’s argument of solidarity is just the objectivist argument restated in a particular form
it is to say that one’s community – whatever this amounts to – is the objective category
the idea of being ‘solid’ with a community strikes me as being fanciful and a little strange
one has membership of a community in so far as one participates in its practises
communities are fluid things – and this is the basis of their true value
you can’t be solid with a community - the community is not solid and for the matter of that – neither are you – sorry
the real question is not objectivity or solidity – but solidity or fluidity?
the best communities are characterized by their lack of pretence – and their lack of ‘solidarity’ –
they are communities in which ideas and their bearers – flow
solidity is the end of it – it is when things get stuck – when they stop
that is when the freedom that is essential to good community gets halted by the ‘solidity’ of its denial -
and this happens in those communities where power takes over from freedom
a power base is what is solid or ties to be – it is also the end of genuine community
solidity is more a desire than a reality – a desire for the conscious world – the social world to be what it is not
solidity is just an illusion based on denial
anyway even if you accept Rorty’s overall idea you still have to define community – that is there is still an objective question
now in practise of course we simply make a decision – and say yes – this is how I will define my community – this is community for me –
after which if you are lucky you can forget the whole notion – and get about your business
however it seems to me that if you are genuinely interested in this objective question – you would fairly soon come to the realization that the idea of community is not solid – it is amorphous
it is a concept that in experience is never fixed and never stable – so ‘solid’ is hardly the description –
and my general point is this – there is always an objective question –
which is the question – what is the nature of this or that?
we ask such a question in the hope of establishing a base for action –
a base to operate from
what I think is true is that we never strike pay dirt
we never get the definitive answer to such a question
however in the process we get ‘operative’ answers –
answers we can run with – answers we can work with
my point is the objective question is genuine and necessary – even though there is no objective answer
the question is asked not for the answer looked for – but for the answers found
what this points to is that our reality is not fixed – never essentially stable – and fundamentally unknown
the objective question keeps us in the game and enables us to proceed
and the ‘knowledge’ you operate with is based on decision –
the decision to stop the analytical or questioning process - and just to work with what you have – so long as you can – so long as it yields the results that you want
one’s objectives are never ‘objective’ – in the sense of clear and uncontroversial
true it often helps to decide to see them in such a way
but in the actual living of a life – one’s view of the world – one’s view of one’s goals and objectives - is never fixed – never solid
we have no final knowledge of reality – and therefore no guarantees along the way
but it is just this uncertainty that enables us to proceed – to get on with it – to make our way
© greg. t. charlton. 2008.
