Re: true vs truth
Gary Shank (P30GDS1 who-is-at MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU)
Tue, 16 Jan 96 11:12 CST
Dear Angel --
This is my last response for now -- you need to get your
packing done :-) I assumed that when you described theories
as tools, you meant that they were tools for explicating the
truth. Sorry about that presumption....
When you say that there is no 'truth-in-itself' but only
'truth for whom' I think you are partially right and partially
wrong. If you mean by 'truth for whom' that there are no truth
claims except those that are supported by grounds, and that those
grounds are grounds that are assumed or developed by human beings,
then I agree with you. If you extend that to saying that because
truth claims have to be based on grounds that are held by human
beings, and that truth claims are the only way we can describe or
model the truths of nature/world/reality etc, then it follows that
there can be no truth without truth claims.... then I think you
are taking the argument too far. If you rule out the notion that
there are truths that have not yet been put into truth claim form,
then you make the claim that all truths are constructed, and no
truths are discovered. As an example, was it true that Jupiter had
moons before Galileo looked at these 'dots' through his telescope
and decided to call them moons? In other words, did Galileo
construct the moons of Jupiter, or did he discover them?
Sorting out the relation of truth claims and their grounds
from potentially discoverable truths about reality is just the
sort of version of truth that I think you are looking for -- where
we support the role of meaning and culture in the enterprise of
seeking truth, without reducing truth seeking to truth making in
a relativistic way.
Hope your life and career in Hong Kong is wonderful, and dont be
a stranger!
yours,
gary shank
gshank who-is-at niu.edu