Kyle, what you said hits at the core of beliefs in general. Which raises the question, does belief play even a more fundamental role such as how the 'observer' has been shown to play a fundamental role in quantum mechanical systems. I've often pondered the concept that pragmatism is not only a justification theory, but a truth theory as well. That is, pragmatism doesn't just tell us support our reason for believing or acting a certain way, but in addition pragmatism as an ontology defines truth and underlies the reason why anything exists at all.

If we treat a pragmatic truth as that which fulfills a justified need (e.g., the belief that there is gold at Fort Knox is a pragmatic truth that fulfills a justified need for economic security), then a theory of truth based on pragmatism is a theory that 'needs' exist. If there are no 'needs' - there is no truth. In order to have a 'need' requires by definition that there are those who 'need'. In essence, I wonder (out loud) if a pragmatic theory of truth requires not only observers but participants.

I've felt for sometime that the 'cause' of the universe is greatly related to a valid theory of truth(s) that requires satisfaction (e.g., in a Tarskian sense). If so, then terms such as pragmatism, correspondence, and coherence (all theories of truth) might play a fundamental role. Just wondering...

• bulls eye... - sagefr0g - June 5, 2003 - 00:46 UTC