I'm working on my contribution to the anthology on truth that several of us are contributing too. I've read through what I wrote early on and through all the abstracts that Jafe sent to us. Now I am rereading the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu) on truth. This article is firmly in the Analytic tradition and it makes a lot of sense to me but what bothers me is that there is nothing in it about the postmodern views on truth.
The Stanford article provides what seems to me a perfectly clear and adequate summary of what Analytic philosophers have said about truth. Is there anything that does the same for the postmodern/continental crowd? I would feel better about writing this if I could read a brief clear summary of what the other side thinks about truth. I want to know what I am missing before I try to put my thoughts in final form.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Being trained in the analytic tradition myself, no thoughts immediately come to mind to answer your question. But I wanted to write in support of continuing the discussion on truth -- I'm back to working on my paper as well.
good. I'd suggest that you read the Stanford article so we have a common reference point. It will take about an hour to read.
I wish, Richard, that there was a particular place - an equivalent to the Stanford Encyclopedia - where I could refer you, but if there is I haven't found it. There are, within the Continental tradition (not all of which is postmodern), any number of "runs" at truth. The crisis (and thus the interest, and thus at least part of the motivation for the book) is that there isn't anything like a standard version of truth, or even a standard set of arguments (although there are patterns), to which one might refer to credibly and reliably work out a framework in which to handle or contain the issues. So, we're foundering, which is frustrating, but also calls for us to engage in an imaginative reconfiguring of the field - with all of the risks (and often nonsense) that accompanies such an activity. I'm not sure that the more analytic notions cannot play a role in all of this, in providing some "ballast" for the ship on the choppy waters of Continental postmodernism, even as the later might open up some space for creativity within the former (although I'm less qualified to comment on that) - which is why it is important to me to have voices from both sides of the philosophical/intellectual tradition represented in the book.
Jeff,
I am sympathetic to the complaint that Analytic philosophy is, or have become, sterile and uncreative. And personally I hate that. Intellectual creativity is very important to me personally. So whatever light you can shed on how the continential side of the philosophical world looks at truth would be helpful to me. I really want to understand the other side and really think I might profit from some new insights.
I do appreciate that there's nothing like consensus among the people you read. This isn't a surprise really. But please do what you can to help me see why I shouldn't just continue to view truth as Aristotle did (to say of what is that it is or to say of what is not that it is not). What's the most plausible and attractive alternative to this?
Post a Comment