on 5/19/00 4:25 PM, JBCM2@xxxxxxx at JBCM2@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 05/19/2000 5:11:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> <<
> Such a reading, however, comes from a misinterpretation of what the
> statement "there is no truth" means. Rather than saying that "Truth" does
> not exist, it points out that "Truth" does not exist independent of its
> construction in terms of knowledge.
>>>
>
> maybe, but how would one know? isn't the problem the same in any event --
> that is, whether or not "truth" exists beyond the human capacity to recognize
> its structures, if in fact it's knowable in structures? doesn't this suggest
> that the statement "there is no truth" exists in the same ambiguity as "there
> is truth"? further, isn't the statement, "there is no truth" itself a
> contradiction of the premise it puts forth, that is, that it masquerades as a
> true statement?
>
> just curious...
>
> joe brennan...
No... that is the point exactly. We can recognize "Truth" in its structures,
but we've constructed those structures -- so truth is really just an
arbitrary interpretation of our surroundings that we've created.
The point that "there is no truth" means that all truth claims are
constructed -- including that one. We should(?) engage in an investigation
of those truth claims and how they implicate our actions/existence.
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Greenhill Debate Dartmouth 2004
> In a message dated 05/19/2000 5:11:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> <<
> Such a reading, however, comes from a misinterpretation of what the
> statement "there is no truth" means. Rather than saying that "Truth" does
> not exist, it points out that "Truth" does not exist independent of its
> construction in terms of knowledge.
>>>
>
> maybe, but how would one know? isn't the problem the same in any event --
> that is, whether or not "truth" exists beyond the human capacity to recognize
> its structures, if in fact it's knowable in structures? doesn't this suggest
> that the statement "there is no truth" exists in the same ambiguity as "there
> is truth"? further, isn't the statement, "there is no truth" itself a
> contradiction of the premise it puts forth, that is, that it masquerades as a
> true statement?
>
> just curious...
>
> joe brennan...
No... that is the point exactly. We can recognize "Truth" in its structures,
but we've constructed those structures -- so truth is really just an
arbitrary interpretation of our surroundings that we've created.
The point that "there is no truth" means that all truth claims are
constructed -- including that one. We should(?) engage in an investigation
of those truth claims and how they implicate our actions/existence.
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Greenhill Debate Dartmouth 2004