A Rare YouTube Exchange

My comment was on a lecture of Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"

I am still confused about Quine's big idea in section 6. I can avoid saying (not judging?) that the person who was to clean my apartment failed to do so after coming home to find my apartment exactly as messy as it was before only by assuming other facts: for example, someone (improbably) came into my apartment and messed it up after the cleaner had done his work. Is this a clear illustration of Quine’s idea? It seems to depend on “alternate facts” (subject to refutation as single claims), not alternate meanings or concepts. As such it is hard not to assume that there is a ‘fact of matter’ here. The terms – my apartment, clean, messy, etc. – seem to be shared, seem impossible not to share.

      'Is my friend married (a lesbian union)?' I say she is; my friend says she isn’t, because as an evangelical Christian for him a necessary condition for a union to be a marriage is that it be between a man and a woman. Now here the truth depends on the meaning of marriage, and that meaning is only intelligible in a larger web of beliefs; both my friend and I would have to make major changes in our belief webs to change our position. That example comes to mind when thinking about Quine. My problem: I have always had trouble applying Quine’s idea to factual matters since the meaning of ‘my apartment’ and ‘to clean my apartment’ can’t really mean different things without losing touch with reality altogether (e.g. believing we live in The Matrix). Of course, there is vagueness with what it means to have cleaned my apartment; but in the example, the cleaner apparently did not show up at all: either he did or he didn't. Yes, that depends on other beliefs, I guess: there is a world of objects, etc. I could believe all conscious life is a dream, and thus my belief that there is a fact of the matter here does depend on beliefs that are not even in principle testable - is that what he means?

 

I got a reply (amazing in itself):

If we change the fundamental definition of marriage the logic it’s predicated on goes out the window. With these webs of interdependent concepts, the instantiation of those concepts in reality conceptually crumble. If a marriage is not the union of a man and a woman and any children that come of that union. Then what is it? If it’s two people that love each other then why can’t two friends get married? If you say it’s two people that love each other and have sex, then are incestuous marriages wrong? If they are, why? I think there’s serious practical implications to blowing apart conceptual frameworks arbitrarily. Curious what you think.

 

The development of my view in reply:

Thanks for your reply. My examples were meant to illustrate a point of Quine as presented in the professor’s talk: the idea that all of what we take to be real or factual rests on conceptual assumptions that themselves are not factual or clearly real. So even the fact that we have two hands could be doubted if we are willing to doubt the reality of all our experience (perhaps we are brains in vats). The marriage example, the person I was thinking of would have to doubt assumptions – for him deep convictions – to change the view of marriage: that the Bible is the word of God; that it interprets itself; that homosexuality is a perversion according to the Bible. Since changing those deeper beliefs is not something he can consider, he holds on to the traditional concept of marriage even though it causes him to condemn a beloved niece. Another might feel condemning the niece would be wrong and thus force changes in their deeper web of beliefs: one can agree that homosexuality can be love-less and pornographic (as can heterosexual sex): the Bible instances portray it as such (desiring to rape the angel in Sodom!). Thus one can condemn rapacious or love-less (unnatural) sex while acknowledging the fact that homosexuals are also natural (exist in every culture) and are capable of love and commitment – I know of such cases. Thus while homosexual marriage might not be the paradigm it is still a form of marriage as long as it is based on erotic love (which is different from friendship-love but no less love) and life-long commitment. Like the paradigm apple is red, but yellow apples are still apples. Thus some Christians can embrace homosexual marriage by feeling forced to adjust their understanding of homosexuality and the Biblical references. Quine, I believe, just cares about what is logically possible. I feel the change of marriage to include the possibility of love between homosexual people reflects a deepening of the concept that has come from a confrontation with reality – like my friend’s marriage and the pain of demeaning it.

    Perhaps the best conception of marriage is the traditional vow: a promise to love, honor, and cherish one's spouse, to stand by them in good times and bad, and to be faithful for as long as they both shall live. The issue is whether it is intelligible that homosexuals can seriously speak that vow. The man I am thinking of doubts this based on pre-conceptions about homosexuality as a perversion, based on a belief that the Bible references describe the essence of homosexuality and not just an example of demeaning sex. For me it is intelligible because it is actual. It is a fact. I must thus adjust my understanding of marriage, natural, love, and other concepts to account for this. Quine – if I understand what the professor is saying – implies that no one must confront such facts as long as they are willing to freeze or change, as the case might be, their deeper concepts/beliefs. That leads straight to Trump.