[lit-ideas] Re: Try a Logic Problem
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 14:29:04 -0230
Quoting Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Finally, how is a correspondence between a linguistic phenomenon,
> the 'statement', and a presumably non-linguistic entity, the 'fact',
> possible? I would suggest that this is not a helpful approach to a
> "theory of truth".
I think Phil's question is a very astute one. I wish I had an answer. Or:
perhaps I shouldn't wish for an answer since there is not, and cannot be, an
answer. (Note that philosopers are much more interested in in the latter sort
of claim than in the former.) Perhaps the only way to show that a belief or
statement is true is through its relation(s) to other beliefs or statements.
This is of course Richard Rorty's position. (I'm not clear on whether Habermas
would concur, however, regarding rightness claims.) Is it construction, not
discovery, all the way down? And is it true that Mike Geary is a Russian
Orthodox priest? (Imagine someone were to say: "Well, let us examine the facts,
here." As if, "Russian Orthodox priest" were a mind- and language- independent
fact. One cannot be a Russian Orthodox priest, unless one understood oneself as
being that (Heidegger, *So Much Being, So Little Time*). We cannot exist as we
are independently of our understanding of who/what we are.
Perplexed,
WCO
MUN
P.S. What do you get when you cross a philosopher with somebody who watches over
sheep? (Would that be a suitable name for what Habermas refers to as a
"guardian of rationality"?) Off to see Deutschland vs. the Bad Guys. Oy!
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
