Truth, Realism and Anti / Post Realism

[DJP]

Just enjoyed watching this video featuring John Searle and Hilary Lawson so thought would share.

http://iai.tv/video/after-the-end-of-truth

There are follow up comments by some of the speakers here

http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/objectivity-and-truth-auid-548

http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/after-the-end-of-truth-part-2-auid-552

Relevant to some of the discussions of materialism and truth.

You have to sign up for a user account to watch the video in full but it's free and well worth it.

[LBird]

Perhaps to oversimplify, but two views of 'truth' can be seen as:1. 'Truth' (note capital letter for emphasis, also 'The Truth') is a reflection of 'reality', 'out there', 'external world', as it is;2. 'truth' (note lower case for de-emphasis, also 'truths') is a relationship between 'the observer' and 'out there', etc. as it is produced.In the former, there is no need to examine 'the observer', because a method is said to exist which can be used to 'tell it as it is'.In the latter, there is a need to examine 'the observer', because the method is a relational method, which by its relational nature produces an 'is' that can change, due to variations in the relationship.It's possible to have a civilised discussion about this, but I don't hold out much hope, because of the ideological and political beliefs involved.Shit! I just realised, the former insists that 'there are no ideological beliefs in its method!', and it sees anyone who says otherwise as 'a relativist loony, out to destroy civilisation as we know it!'.Oh, well… welcome to 2016. Same old.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

1. 'Truth' (note capital letter for emphasis, also 'The Truth') is a reflection of 'reality', 'out there', 'external world', as it is;2. 'truth' (note lower case for de-emphasis, also 'truths') is a relationship between 'the observer' and 'out there', etc. as it is produced.

But what is truth? What kind of things can be true and what is the criteria for them being so?If I say "the cat is on the mat" what conditions need to be met for the sentence to be true?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

But what is truth?

I already explained this, DJP.There are two theories that I've already outlined, but just for you I'll repeat myself:1. 'Truth' is a reflection; or2. 'truth' is a relation.Once you have had a think about these two, and tell us which one you adhere to, we can continue with your other questions.To give you some indication of where Marx and I stand, we adhere to 2. This shouldn't come as any surprise to those who look to Marx, who was always bangin' on about 'relationships'.We can then proceed to outline both theories' views about things, criteria and sentences.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

But what is truth?

I already explained this, DJP.There are two theories that I've already outlined, but just for you I'll repeat myself:1. 'Truth' is a reflection; or2. 'truth' is a relation.

This looks more like a description of direct and indirect realism than an explanation of what "truth" is. It doesn't answer the questions: What kind of things can be true and what is the criteria for them being so?If I say "the cat is on the mat" what conditions need to be met for the sentence to be true?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

But what is truth?

I already explained this, DJP.There are two theories that I've already outlined, but just for you I'll repeat myself:1. 'Truth' is a reflection; or2. 'truth' is a relation.

This looks more like a description of direct and indirect realism than an explanation of what "truth" is. It doesn't answer the questions: What kind of things can be true and what is the criteria for them being so?If I say "the cat is on the mat" what conditions need to be met for the sentence to be true?

What's happening here is precisely what I predicted in my first post.If one believes 'truth is a reflection', then one can sidestep the issue of 'theories of truth', which are clearly ideas held by people.You are doing precisely this: off-the-cuff dismissal of the fundamental issue of conceptual definition, and straight into 'the real world' of 'things'.Thus, I can conclude that you are employing a 'reflection theory of truth', and that, either you are lying about knowing this, or that you are ignorant of holding this belief.Since I've openly said that I follow Marx's relational approach to our world, I believe that 'truth is a relationship', so I'm neither hiding anything from other comrades, nor ignorant of my own conceptual starting point.Why won't you be so open, DJP?Do you, like the Leninists, have something to hide from your fellow workers? Why not discuss our respective 'theories of truth'?PS. Your response is like someone asking about 'the worth of money' and being told about Marx's concept of 'value', and simply responding that you don't want to talk about 'value' or any concepts, but simply want to look at a £10 note and simply conclude that its 'worth £10'.You want to simply 'live in the real world'. After all, simply everybody knows what a £10 note is worth! £10 or two fivers! It's there in the writing on the bloody note! And bollocks to the theorising of Commie bastards like Marx.

[DJP]

OK. So, truth is a relationship between what?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

OK. So, truth is a relationship between what?

From which perspective?From the perspective of the 'reflection theory of truth', it isn't a relationship. End of.From the perspective of the 'relational theory of truth', it's a relation between 'theory' and 'practice'.The latter, of course, refers to social groups, like classes, and their creation over time of their 'object'. Thus, their 'truth' is a socio-historical creation, which changes between societies and through history.If you don't hold with the latter 'relational theory of truth', DJP, that's fine by me, but why not tell everyone else that you hold to the 'reflection theory of truth', which by its nature is not socio-historical, but argues for a one-off discovery of 'Truth', which, once discovered by any elite human, is 'True'.For those reading and wishing to get ahead of the game and prepare questions, ask yourself which 'theory of truth' would benefit a ruling class that wishes to 'eternalise' its rule. I know it's a toughie, but that's the trouble with trying to think critically: difficult problems. 'Truth' (forevermore), or 'truths' (produced by human societies, like various 'modes of production'…)?Hmmm… bit of bias there, I think… if only education could be 'objective', eh?

[DJP]

I've come back to my senses and realised that we spent ages going around in circles with this years ago. I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you again.FWIW in the talk in the original post I think it is John Searle who is right, but he can't really be classified under your two categories – I don't think anyone really can…

[Anonymous]

What would you know about truth DJP. yuo ar full of bollocks/7 Some years ago I came upon the account @worldsocialism.com . It was and is completely unused. I thought at the time that this has great potential and I was willing to spend my time and energy on it to spread the case for socialism. I have been trying to get hold of this account ever since. I have even gone thro my branch which is not very active. There are reasons why Poyten and others may hold grudg but they are standing in the way of our progress. All I ask is to be given this job on behalf of our movement WHY should 'comrades' stop me working?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I've come back to my senses and realised that we spent ages going around in circles with this years ago. I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you again.FWIW in the talk in the original post I think it is John Searle who is right, but he can't really be classified under your two categories – I don't think anyone really can…

But you've not 'come back to your senses', DJP, but fallen back upon your faith.Back to 'hide the category', and pretend that you have a method to reveal unvarnished 'Truth'.I predicted this outcome in my initial post.Religious Materialism is so predictable, and so 19th century.Nothing for workers to look towards, for socio-historical answers to their questions. Just The Bourgeois Eternal Truth.A ruling class category.

[Author]

Posts