I look at the world as a biologist in terms of evolution: everything is adapting to everything else constantly rearranging. So what is true today is less true tomorrow, because the world is not the same.
A question I keep returning to reading this: does a "real" answer exist, or is every answer inherently indexed to whoever recognizes it? Every community — every person — holds their own warranted assertions. What we call truth seems to be whatever a sufficient number of us grant recognition to — a self-referential process where what a community affirms as truth becomes truth by virtue of that affirmation, which then produces more affirmation. Truth is what enough of us keep calling truth.
Dewey names the inquiry; it takes another step to name the ratification. If truth requires an audience to be truth, then Peirce's convergence, James's cash value, and Dewey's warrant all rest on a fourth term — recognition — that pragmatism itself hasn't quite worked out. The scroll and the map may share a hidden third: an audience.
1. You want to know what philosophy is. Wherever you ask, you get the same answer: love of wisdom. You ask: "But what does the lover of wisdom do?" The answer you seek is hidden from you; you do not possess the truth, and you know it and continue to seek…
Then you read Jesus, the son of Sirach: the lover of wisdom recognizes wisdom when he meets it. You examine Jesus, the son of Sirach. Is this what happens when you love: you recognize what you love as soon as you meet it? Yes. It is like a magnet.
So: If you love wisdom and listen to someone speaking, when he says something wise you will notice it.
Now, the answer you seek is no longer unconcealed; you possess the truth.
In ancient Greek, truth meant unconcealment.
2. But can you use the truth about what philosophy is? How?
If you heed the wisdom you recognize, you will become like the wise one. It affects your life.
(The philosopher who does not take into account the wisdom he recognizes becomes a bullshitter.)
It follows that philosophy is the path to wisdom.
3. Defining truth as something you use can complement the definition of truth as something unconcealed.
"Myself when young did eagerly frequentDoctor and Saint, and heard great ArgumentAbout it and About: but evermoreCame out by the same Door as in I went."
I’m taken with Monty Pythons Galaxy Song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk which is a slightly absurdist take on the question. Not unlike Stephen Jay Gould’s conclusion in Life’s Granduer. Given the relevance or lack thereof it may go to your stereotypes of Philosophers you mentioned last week.
Would love to read your expanded thoughts on "pragmatism". An attractive aspect of it is that it seems to make philosophy workable on a day-to-day level.
"Representationalism" is on the cusp. Rationalism continues the notion that the mind is a mirror of nature and that Truth is whatever corresponds to Reality. Pragmatism finds this orientation to be implicitly reductionist, and focuses instead upon the usefulness of a belief and criteria by which a belief is justified.
I find this fascinating. In have draft of a manuscript to answer a similar theme: how do we become more fully alive? As a physician, scientist with multiple patents, drugs in the market, huge but amateur interest in epidemiology- it took me 50 years to come up with this draft.
I look at the world as a biologist in terms of evolution: everything is adapting to everything else constantly rearranging. So what is true today is less true tomorrow, because the world is not the same.
A question I keep returning to reading this: does a "real" answer exist, or is every answer inherently indexed to whoever recognizes it? Every community — every person — holds their own warranted assertions. What we call truth seems to be whatever a sufficient number of us grant recognition to — a self-referential process where what a community affirms as truth becomes truth by virtue of that affirmation, which then produces more affirmation. Truth is what enough of us keep calling truth.
Dewey names the inquiry; it takes another step to name the ratification. If truth requires an audience to be truth, then Peirce's convergence, James's cash value, and Dewey's warrant all rest on a fourth term — recognition — that pragmatism itself hasn't quite worked out. The scroll and the map may share a hidden third: an audience.
Of truth and philosophy
1. You want to know what philosophy is. Wherever you ask, you get the same answer: love of wisdom. You ask: "But what does the lover of wisdom do?" The answer you seek is hidden from you; you do not possess the truth, and you know it and continue to seek…
Then you read Jesus, the son of Sirach: the lover of wisdom recognizes wisdom when he meets it. You examine Jesus, the son of Sirach. Is this what happens when you love: you recognize what you love as soon as you meet it? Yes. It is like a magnet.
So: If you love wisdom and listen to someone speaking, when he says something wise you will notice it.
Now, the answer you seek is no longer unconcealed; you possess the truth.
In ancient Greek, truth meant unconcealment.
2. But can you use the truth about what philosophy is? How?
If you heed the wisdom you recognize, you will become like the wise one. It affects your life.
(The philosopher who does not take into account the wisdom he recognizes becomes a bullshitter.)
It follows that philosophy is the path to wisdom.
3. Defining truth as something you use can complement the definition of truth as something unconcealed.
"Myself when young did eagerly frequentDoctor and Saint, and heard great ArgumentAbout it and About: but evermoreCame out by the same Door as in I went."
Omar Khayyam
I’m taken with Monty Pythons Galaxy Song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk which is a slightly absurdist take on the question. Not unlike Stephen Jay Gould’s conclusion in Life’s Granduer. Given the relevance or lack thereof it may go to your stereotypes of Philosophers you mentioned last week.
Would love to read your expanded thoughts on "pragmatism". An attractive aspect of it is that it seems to make philosophy workable on a day-to-day level.
Unwarranted. Religions are still serviceable within certain cultures but not an accurate universal answer.
"Representationalism" is on the cusp. Rationalism continues the notion that the mind is a mirror of nature and that Truth is whatever corresponds to Reality. Pragmatism finds this orientation to be implicitly reductionist, and focuses instead upon the usefulness of a belief and criteria by which a belief is justified.
Many thanks!!
I find this fascinating. In have draft of a manuscript to answer a similar theme: how do we become more fully alive? As a physician, scientist with multiple patents, drugs in the market, huge but amateur interest in epidemiology- it took me 50 years to come up with this draft.
Any interest for a free read for feedback lmk.
Gerald Horn