From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gis.net>
Subject: Re: BHA: truth again
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:00:34 -0400


Hi Mervyn--

>Why so, when the text which announced and elaborated the concept (DPF)
>makes it abundantly clear that 'alethia' is a species of the genus
>'truth', such that the adjective 'alethic' can be used meaningfully to
>qualify 'truth' in the concept of 'alethic truth'?

Perhaps I should repeat that I'm basically playing the Devil's advocate, by
working up an argument that I don't necessarily agree with but at least
grasp fairly clearly, in order to understand an argument that I think I
agree with but don't satisfactorily grasp.

That said, the central issue for me has been what you seem to take as a
given: that the concept of "truth" can (indeed should) have the multiple
meanings that you and Bhaskar accord it, rather than possessing the strictly
propositional sense that (it seems to me) Heikki and Ruth have been working
with.  I have no objection in principle to multiple meanings, but in light
of the obvious importance that a concept of truth must possess, conceptual
coherence would seem mandatory.  "Coherence" does not mean univocality, at
least in my view, but I like having some notion of how alethia fits as a
subtype of truth.  Under the propositional concept of truth, this would
appear either impossible or a category error.  So am asking someone to
replace the propositional concept of truth.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-gis.net
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---