Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 00:02:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> Subject: RE: BHA: truth Hi Doug, and all, Doug, you wrote: >Although I can no longer find where, my old mentor, Joe Margolis, makes a >distinction that seems close to the one Wallace cites from Devitt and which >I find helpful. He says that correspondence with reality cannot be the >_criterion_ of truth for the reason Louis mentions (no independent access >to reality) but it can (and, presumably, should) still be the _meaning_ of >truth. I like this. Does he flesh this out somewhere I could take a look at? [And speaking of references, I see Wally posted the RB article. I didn't end up finding it all that useful, but I'd be curious to hear what you and others think.] But back to alethia. You wrote: >Without intelligent beings to formulate beliefs and propositions, there >would be no truth, but there still would be many truths -- the existence of >water and its molecular structure, for example. If I understand Colin >correctly, this truth about water is what RB means by alethia. If that is what >RB means by alethia, I don't think I have a problem with it. It simply affirms >that certain realities are ontologically independent of us. Two things. First, I am inclined to agree that this is what Bhaskar's usage achieves, but isn't such an affirmation an ontological, or metaphysical matter, rather than the matter -- construed narrowly for the moment -- of a proper understanding of the concept of truth? Second, I know I raised this before, but I'm still bothered by it: on this account of truth, what exactly is the difference between the concept of "truth" and the concept of "cause"? They seem to come awfully close together. I for one am continuing to find this discussion really, really helpful, and my offer for pizza still holds! Warmly, R. --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005