Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GepardenK t1_jc1xwc3 wrote

Reply to comment by 357Magnum in Why There Is No Absolute Ground For Truth: A Review of Criticisms Against Strong Foundationalism by throwaway853994

>Ok, but this article relies on the exact sorts of "truth" the author is seeking to dismiss in order to argue the "truth" of its own assertions.

Yes, maybe it's just where I hang but I've seen so many of these pseudo-deconstructions lately and it's getting pretty boring. If you argue against a framework then don't keep standing on that same framework - just abandon it.

For example, if I make a deconstructive argument against God, or gods, then I'm not gonna end with: "... and hence that it why it is God's will that God does not exist".

In the same vein, don't make truth claims about the nonexistence of truth. If it does not exist then you should not need to rely on it.

4

357Magnum t1_jc205pe wrote

Yeah, but I don't think that you can even make an argument against truth without assuming some truth at least. Argumentation itself relies on Truth as a foundation

1

GepardenK t1_jc248bv wrote

Well of course you can't. If you want to make a truth claim then by definition your position must be that truth claims can be made. The best you can do is to make a distinction where you say that some things can be said to be true (which then would include your own position, lucky break I guess), while most other things can't be said to be true.

1

XiphosAletheria t1_jcbypxf wrote

I think most people who reject the notion of "truth" replace it with "utility". That is, rather than insist that X is true or false, they'd evaluate it on whether or not is useful to believe. That avoids the contradiction you mentioned.

1

GepardenK t1_jcc4c4z wrote

It doesn't avoid the contradiction. Because whether or not something is useful is a truth statement in itself. Without truth usefulness is undefined.

2

XiphosAletheria t1_jcc6wsn wrote

But only if you're still hung up on trying to decide whether or not things are true in the first place. Something being useful doesn't have to be a truth statement. I might find something very useful that you find utterly useless. That is, utility is subjective in a way that truth isn't, which is the best reason for thinking in terms of utility rather than truth. Because most things people believe they believe because they are useful in some way. And recognizing that makes it easierto accept people holding beliefs you personally disagree with. Mostly fighting over whether something is true or not is pointless, especially because when it comes to things like controversial political beliefs, most are rooted in subjective values anyway.

1

GepardenK t1_jccjktk wrote

No, all of this is truth statements. You seem to be selective about what true things you consider "truth", so that you can argue against truth while still keeping your own non-truth "true". Subjectivity itself relies on truth, since for something to be subjective it must be true that it is not objective - and so on.

2

XiphosAletheria t1_jcf46ea wrote

But my point is that that doesn't matter. It is perfectly possible to think that something is subjective because you view seeing it that way as more useful than not seeing it that way. You don't need to worry about its truthfulness at all.

1

GepardenK t1_jcf55l6 wrote

That's fine, so long as you keep it to yourself, but then you don't get to make statements about what is and isn't useful. Because if you make assertions, that is to say you impose yourself on others, while also maintaining that truth isn't something to be worried about - then that's just a rhetorical way of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

1