Re: true vs truth

Angel M.Y. Lin (mylin who-is-at oise.on.ca)
Tue, 16 Jan 1996 00:24:34 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, Gary Shank wrote:
>
> If we collapse 1 and 1a, we can talk about 'true' where the concept
> of truth per se is held only as a hypothetical, and any actual
> version of 'truth' we have via content is subject to the ongoing
> and collective experience of correction via inquiry. This is what
> Angel and others mean, I think, when they say we use theories etc
> to get at the truth, and that we need to consider many other things
> such as culture and history, when we try to specify what the truth
> content of a particular claim might be.

Dear Gary,
Thanks for doing more clarification... hm... but I didn't say "we use
theories" to "get at the truth", as if these theories are working models
or versions of "the truth"... this view can be useful, esp. in
natural and physical scientifi inquires perhaps. However, what I meant
was there is no "truth" independent of the person to whom something is
"truth"; there's no "truth-in-itself", but truth-for-whom... however,
there's a difference between this view and relativism... I'll go on with
this some time later... still trying to pack my stuff and to transport my
life back to HK... perhaps, other xmca'ers can continue with the discussion!

>
All the best,
Angel