If you can show a coherent way to ground the practical values that are meant to ground truth, then the appeal to come over to the instrumentalism hut will be persuasive.
You are, of course, absolutely right. I wrote this post more to try and motivate the inquiry into instrumentalism (by showing that there was something unsatisfying about the hut you're in) than to actually convince anybody that it was a good idea. My intention is to write more posts in the future looking into some of the problems with instrumentalism, but now to have something to point back at to when people say "But why are you trying to save instrumentalism anyway? It's stupid!"
I can only value certain things
I think this is a question that needs to be answered empirically. But my impression of people's capacity to value is that they often confuse what is instrumentally valuable with what is intrinsically valuable. Or, rather, whatever capacity we have to value doesn't always keep track of which things were valuable first. It turns into a big tangled mess of valuation...which isn't necessarily such a bad thing at all:
criticism of particular values has to start from within our system of values, so the ones closest to the 'centre' of the 'web of values'
I'm glad you brought this up, because this is precisely the kind of thing which I think can save instrumentalism. Rather than having a set of grounding, foundational values, a web of values might be able to ground each other in a coherent but radically revisable way.
I wrote this post more to try and motivate the inquiry into instrumentalism Oh right. Jolly good then. It makes sense when seen in that light.
I think this is a question that needs to be answered empirically. I think it's a question that needs a combination of empirical and phenomenological investigation. But that's probably beside the point.
It turns into a big tangled mess of valuation Certainly. So it is incumbent upon philosophers, presumably, to try to untangle it.
Rather than having a set of grounding, foundational values, a web of values might be able to ground each other in a coherent but radically revisable way. I suppose so, although I'm sceptical about whether truth can be removed from that web. But that's more a question for your future posts.
Well, no, I'm just saying it's what this post itself seems to be about. Or something. With truth. Being valuable. Or somehow related to value of some sort.
You are, of course, absolutely right. I wrote this post more to try and motivate the inquiry into instrumentalism (by showing that there was something unsatisfying about the hut you're in) than to actually convince anybody that it was a good idea. My intention is to write more posts in the future looking into some of the problems with instrumentalism, but now to have something to point back at to when people say "But why are you trying to save instrumentalism anyway? It's stupid!"
I can only value certain things
I think this is a question that needs to be answered empirically. But my impression of people's capacity to value is that they often confuse what is instrumentally valuable with what is intrinsically valuable. Or, rather, whatever capacity we have to value doesn't always keep track of which things were valuable first. It turns into a big tangled mess of valuation...which isn't necessarily such a bad thing at all:
criticism of particular values has to start from within our system of values, so the ones closest to the 'centre' of the 'web of values'
I'm glad you brought this up, because this is precisely the kind of thing which I think can save instrumentalism. Rather than having a set of grounding, foundational values, a web of values might be able to ground each other in a coherent but radically revisable way.
Or something like that.
Reply
Oh right. Jolly good then. It makes sense when seen in that light.
I think this is a question that needs to be answered empirically.
I think it's a question that needs a combination of empirical and phenomenological investigation. But that's probably beside the point.
It turns into a big tangled mess of valuation
Certainly. So it is incumbent upon philosophers, presumably, to try to untangle it.
Rather than having a set of grounding, foundational values, a web of values might be able to ground each other in a coherent but radically revisable way.
I suppose so, although I'm sceptical about whether truth can be removed from that web. But that's more a question for your future posts.
Reply
Do you think it needs to be for the project to work?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment