On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Alan C. Hudson wrote:
> OK then, true =A31, and truth =A32.
>=20
> I was interested in John's explanation as I have never really heard a
> decent refutation of the idea that denying that there is truth involves a
> performative contradiction.
>=20
> Although I found John's post interesting and helpful I am still left with
> the question of, what then does true =A31 mean?
>=20
> Does it mean reasonable to say?
>=20
> Does it mean useful to say in the circumstances?
>=20
> Does it mean persuasive?
>=20
> or what?
>=20
> cheers,
> alan
I will try an answer, though I wouldn't be surprised if it was
unsatisfactory.=20
I like all three of the alternatives above, but I also like the notion
that truth #1 is true.
Now, was it always true that it is true that there no such thing as truth?=
=20
In my opinion, no. The whole relativistic imbroglio was produced by human
history and human thought. In the notebooks titled _Will to Power_,
Nietzsche presents a version of this history. In the Preface to that text,
N asserts that nihilism is the ultimate logical conclusion of our great
values and ideals (Kaufmann English translation, p. 4). In the very first
section of these notes, N asserts that the sense of truthfulness, itself
developed by Christianity, turned back on Christianity and undermined it.
See also Section 5 of the _WTP_ on this point. The Church was so convinced
that it had the Truth on its side, that it actually funded and encouraged
the research and thinking that ultimately undermined its claim to possess
the truth. This process, however, took a long time!
Before that process was more or less complete, was it true that there was
no such thing as truth? Again, my view is, No. This kind of claim only
seems self-contradictory, I think, if we insist on seeing truth as
something that is external to us and non-profane, non-worldly, and
ultimately non-human. The Nicene "credo" ("I believe in one God, the
Father, the Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen
and unseen," etc.) wasn't just somebody's opinion. It was the truth! It
was the truth in the only way that word has any significance: it ordered
our lives, moulded our being, determined our conduct, provided us with a
cognitive map--however you want to put it.
I think truth is irreducibly subjective. Remember that old line about
truth from the correspondence theory, that truth is *adaequatio rei et
intellectus* ("Truth is the adequation of things and the intellect")? To
me that means that the intellect is a *sine qua non* partner in the
production of truth. No intellect, no truth! Do I believe it is true that
the moon is up there in the sky tonight? No doubt about it. But if
tomorrow we were hit with an asteroid and all human beings were killed,
and if there were no other beings of our kind in the universe to see it,
would it still be "true" that the moon is up there in the sky? No, it
wouldn't be "true" because truth is something that human beings, and as
far as I know only human beings, perceive and experience.
Instead of the asteroid hitting and destroying all humans think of
a profound and long-brewing cultural and intellectual shift that
progressively turns us away from the kind of truth represented by the
Credo. And not only turns us away from the truth of and belief in the
Credo, but away from truth itself, and Man (and then History, the
Proletariat, etc.). At a certain point it becomes true that there is no
such thing as truth -- though this truth (that there is no such thing as
truth) is itself time-bound, historically produced, relative to our
position and history *and yet still true* in a very hard, inescapable,
factual kind of way.
Finally, I think we can link all this to the Transgression essay, which
both malgosia and Estellita-Lins have pointed us to. The third selection I
reproduced, from p. 30 of _language, counter-memory, practice_, runs as
follows:
Perhaps we could say that [sexuality] has become the only
division possible in a world now emptied of objects, beings, and spaces to
desecrate. Not that it proffers any new content for our age-old acts;
rather, it permits a profanation without object, a profanation that is
empty and turned inward upon itself and whose instruments are brought to
bear on nothing but each other. Profanation in a world which no longer
recognizes any positive meaning in the sacred--is this not more or less
what we may call transgression? [end Foucault "transgression" quotation]
--John
>=20
> *************************************************************************=
****
> =09=09=09 Dr. Alan C. Hudson
> =09=09=09University Assistant Lecturer
> =09=09=09=09 and
> =09=09 IB Director of Studies at Fitzwilliam College
>=20
> Department of Geography, and =09 =09Fitzwilliam College,
> University of Cambridge,=09=09 =09 =09Cambridge,
> CB2 3EN,=09=09=09=09=09=09CB3 0DG,
> United Kingdom.=09=09=09=09=09=09United Kingdom.
>=20
> Tel: =09+ 44 (0) 1223 333349 (Department - Direct line)
> Tel:=09+ 44 (0) 1223 333399 (Department - General Office)
> Fax: =09+ 44 (0) 1223 333392 (Department)
> E-Mail: ach1005@xxxxxxxxx
> Website: http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/achhome.htm
> (Currently, a very dull, slow (not my fault!), but functional, website!)
> *************************************************************************=
****
>=20
>=20
> OK then, true =A31, and truth =A32.
>=20
> I was interested in John's explanation as I have never really heard a
> decent refutation of the idea that denying that there is truth involves a
> performative contradiction.
>=20
> Although I found John's post interesting and helpful I am still left with
> the question of, what then does true =A31 mean?
>=20
> Does it mean reasonable to say?
>=20
> Does it mean useful to say in the circumstances?
>=20
> Does it mean persuasive?
>=20
> or what?
>=20
> cheers,
> alan
I will try an answer, though I wouldn't be surprised if it was
unsatisfactory.=20
I like all three of the alternatives above, but I also like the notion
that truth #1 is true.
Now, was it always true that it is true that there no such thing as truth?=
=20
In my opinion, no. The whole relativistic imbroglio was produced by human
history and human thought. In the notebooks titled _Will to Power_,
Nietzsche presents a version of this history. In the Preface to that text,
N asserts that nihilism is the ultimate logical conclusion of our great
values and ideals (Kaufmann English translation, p. 4). In the very first
section of these notes, N asserts that the sense of truthfulness, itself
developed by Christianity, turned back on Christianity and undermined it.
See also Section 5 of the _WTP_ on this point. The Church was so convinced
that it had the Truth on its side, that it actually funded and encouraged
the research and thinking that ultimately undermined its claim to possess
the truth. This process, however, took a long time!
Before that process was more or less complete, was it true that there was
no such thing as truth? Again, my view is, No. This kind of claim only
seems self-contradictory, I think, if we insist on seeing truth as
something that is external to us and non-profane, non-worldly, and
ultimately non-human. The Nicene "credo" ("I believe in one God, the
Father, the Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen
and unseen," etc.) wasn't just somebody's opinion. It was the truth! It
was the truth in the only way that word has any significance: it ordered
our lives, moulded our being, determined our conduct, provided us with a
cognitive map--however you want to put it.
I think truth is irreducibly subjective. Remember that old line about
truth from the correspondence theory, that truth is *adaequatio rei et
intellectus* ("Truth is the adequation of things and the intellect")? To
me that means that the intellect is a *sine qua non* partner in the
production of truth. No intellect, no truth! Do I believe it is true that
the moon is up there in the sky tonight? No doubt about it. But if
tomorrow we were hit with an asteroid and all human beings were killed,
and if there were no other beings of our kind in the universe to see it,
would it still be "true" that the moon is up there in the sky? No, it
wouldn't be "true" because truth is something that human beings, and as
far as I know only human beings, perceive and experience.
Instead of the asteroid hitting and destroying all humans think of
a profound and long-brewing cultural and intellectual shift that
progressively turns us away from the kind of truth represented by the
Credo. And not only turns us away from the truth of and belief in the
Credo, but away from truth itself, and Man (and then History, the
Proletariat, etc.). At a certain point it becomes true that there is no
such thing as truth -- though this truth (that there is no such thing as
truth) is itself time-bound, historically produced, relative to our
position and history *and yet still true* in a very hard, inescapable,
factual kind of way.
Finally, I think we can link all this to the Transgression essay, which
both malgosia and Estellita-Lins have pointed us to. The third selection I
reproduced, from p. 30 of _language, counter-memory, practice_, runs as
follows:
Perhaps we could say that [sexuality] has become the only
division possible in a world now emptied of objects, beings, and spaces to
desecrate. Not that it proffers any new content for our age-old acts;
rather, it permits a profanation without object, a profanation that is
empty and turned inward upon itself and whose instruments are brought to
bear on nothing but each other. Profanation in a world which no longer
recognizes any positive meaning in the sacred--is this not more or less
what we may call transgression? [end Foucault "transgression" quotation]
--John
>=20
> *************************************************************************=
****
> =09=09=09 Dr. Alan C. Hudson
> =09=09=09University Assistant Lecturer
> =09=09=09=09 and
> =09=09 IB Director of Studies at Fitzwilliam College
>=20
> Department of Geography, and =09 =09Fitzwilliam College,
> University of Cambridge,=09=09 =09 =09Cambridge,
> CB2 3EN,=09=09=09=09=09=09CB3 0DG,
> United Kingdom.=09=09=09=09=09=09United Kingdom.
>=20
> Tel: =09+ 44 (0) 1223 333349 (Department - Direct line)
> Tel:=09+ 44 (0) 1223 333399 (Department - General Office)
> Fax: =09+ 44 (0) 1223 333392 (Department)
> E-Mail: ach1005@xxxxxxxxx
> Website: http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/achhome.htm
> (Currently, a very dull, slow (not my fault!), but functional, website!)
> *************************************************************************=
****
>=20
>=20