there can be no universal definition of ‘true’ – for the reason that no-one is in the position to see how the term is used in all circumstance – by all users – in space / time regions
that is there is no sub specie aeternitatis – or any one to have such a point of view
there is no god’s eye view as Putman calls it
very well –
what then of truth?
well from the ‘objectivist’ point of view if that is the term – we don’t know
now Rorty does not realise I think that – while we can see that the objectivist program of epistemology and ontology as dead in the water – the objectivist question has enormous heuristic and epistemological value
what it leads us to in a positive sense is the realization that we don’t know – that is it leads to scepticism – what I call positive scepticism
so if we don’t know in an objectivist sense –
how is it that we do know?
what meaning can we give to epistemological claims?
well the only meaning that we can give is the meaning that we do give
the term ‘true’ does not change its syntax when used by me or you – and used to mean different things
objectivity I will say is an illusion of syntax
and I would suspect - a necessary illusion –
necessary in what you might call an evolutionary sense
so what 'x' means when he uses the term ‘true’ – is a study all in itself
if we are to be intellectually thorough and honest – there is no quick answer
and there may be no determinate answer –
we may never know
and if for some reason we have to come up with an answer –
well we take our best shot
now because I think the ‘base’ is scepticism – I can entertain that the use of the term ‘true’ – can be genuinely analysed in different ways – i.e. a representationalist analysis – a realist analysis – a relativist analysis – a pragmatist analysis or whatever
that is people can use the term in these ways
and of course I can do as a philosopher does argue one against the other
and if I am good at what I do – and caring – the result may be that the person I am ‘arguing’ with will be educated in the theories of truth and their use
and in a genuine discussion and exchange of ideas I should be educated too
and who is to say what the results of this will be?
I am suggesting a philosophical usage and method even – that is primarily embracing
as distinct from one that is confrontationalist
this is not to be seen as just a pedagogical method
my point is that it is possible given the epistemological base of positive scepticism
Rorty’s idea that pragmatism operates without epistemology –
is I think in its full implications – a dangerous thing
it suggests that there is point of view – that by its nature is not open to criticism or evaluation
such a view is hard core objectivistism
pragmatism is an operating theory
it’s what I call a second order philosophical theory
by first order I mean one’s response to the objectivist question
my view is that the value of the objectivist question is that it leads us to scepticism – to the realization that every second order theory is an attempt – a genuine attempt to make sense of the unknown
I describe my self as a pragmatist
I think ‘true’ is a mark for ‘what enables’ – and ‘false’ for ‘what does not enable’
more on that later –
however I would like to think – just because finally I don’t know
that while I operate in a pragmatic manner – or with pragmatic theory
I don’t hold to this with any sense of certainty –
that it is possible that I would modify or change my view – or even overthrow it
I don’t know what would lead to the latter possibility – but then that is just the point
the value of the objectivist framework or perspective is that it leaves the question open
another way of putting it is to say - it is a given of the animal – of the human being - to reflect –
and this is perhaps all that objectivism finally amount to – reflection
and as to this ‘capacity’ to reflect -
I don’t have any particular characterization of it
there are various theories that come at it in different ways
I don’t know what it is to reflect – I just do it
© greg. t. charlton. 2008.
