tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post988899299986785835..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Epistemology and truthLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-55203410198905514482007-06-17T14:25:00.000-06:002007-06-17T14:25:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-66002838561778325952007-06-17T11:06:00.000-06:002007-06-17T11:06:00.000-06:00Technical analytic philosophy is, while more or le...Technical analytic philosophy is, while more or less within my competence, outside my area of primary interest.<BR/><BR/>I focus here on the value of philosophy to the daily life of ordinary people such as myself.<BR/><BR/>It's useful to note that while the notion <B>Suppose we have a proposition, 'X'. This proposition represents some state of affairs: x. "Truth" is whatever relation 'X' bears to x such that 'X' is true: 'X'_R_x.</B> has some interesting effects in constructing and evaluating self-referential paradoxes, it's completely without value in determining whether any particular relation R actually does make some X true, or that some particular R is The Right Relation.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that we cannot evaluate whether 'X'_R_x is true without knowing x. But if we know x, then 'X'_R_ is pretty much irrelevant; Our task in the first place was to determine x by virtue of 'X' and R.<BR/><BR/>All we can do is define some R and say that its relationship to 'X' <I>defines</I> x as truth.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-51938220745260370492007-06-17T10:49:00.000-06:002007-06-17T10:49:00.000-06:00I only have a minor technical quibble with your po...I only have a minor technical quibble with your post: epistemology isn't in the business of investigating the nature of truth. That job has primarily been passed along to philosophers of language, such as Davidson, Tarski and Frege.<BR/><BR/>Suppose we have a proposition, 'X'. This proposition represents some state of affairs: x. "Truth" is whatever relation 'X' bears to x such that 'X' is true: 'X'_R_x.<BR/><BR/>Philosophy of language investigates the relation R. Epistemology investigates how we come to know or believe the proposition 'X' such that we are justified in claiming that 'X' is true. Just like a scientific investigation, we can only tweak one variable at a time, so epistemologists have to assume that 'X' bears the right relation; so you are, in a sense, correct when you say:<BR/><BR/>"Assuming our epistemology is doing the job of establishing truth, how well does it do that job? But we're simply assuming that our epistemology does the job we're asking of it."<BR/><BR/>But the assumption is like a ceteris paribus clause, not an implicit definition of truth. The guys who are investigating the nature of truth have to make a similar methodological assumption that we are capable of knowing true things. They are in the same boat in terms of justification.<BR/><BR/>BUT -- as in all investigations, we are allowed to wonder about the pernicious impacts of ceteris paribus clauses. I think there are often hidden circles and question-begging moves somewhere in that seemingly innocuous assumption.dpoyesachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03620097496471735686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-26806418039959615322007-06-17T10:36:00.000-06:002007-06-17T10:36:00.000-06:00LOL! (yes, I literally did laugh out loud) I was r...LOL! (yes, I literally did laugh out loud) I was really wondering there for a minute.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-92014863243379578382007-06-17T10:34:00.000-06:002007-06-17T10:34:00.000-06:00Sorry about that — I apparently had a previous 'bl...Sorry about that — I apparently had a previous 'blogger' comment saved as a web form. The above comment has NOTHING to do with the associated post, and deserves to be deleted.<BR/><BR/>I'll post my REAL comment below.dpoyesachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03620097496471735686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-89322090831192569702007-06-17T10:32:00.000-06:002007-06-17T10:32:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.dpoyesachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03620097496471735686noreply@blogger.com