Template:Critical theory, modernism and the death of objective truth: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 5: Line 5:
: — Chris Isaak, ''Move Along''}}
: — Chris Isaak, ''Move Along''}}
====Things and propositions about things====
====Things and propositions about things====
{{Drop|M|ost conspiracy theories}} contain a grain of [[truth]]. There has to be ''something'' for the credulous to glom onto. [[Critical theory]]’s grain of truth, ironically, is “''there is no such thing as a grain of truth''”. Well, not ''quite'' — “it is true that there is no truth”  refutes itself, after all — but rather, that the very idea of “[[objective truth]]” makes no sense on its own terms. It is incoherent. There can be no [[objective truth]], the same way there can’t be a square triangle.  
{{Drop|M|ost conspiracy theories}} contain a grain of [[truth]]. [[Critical theory]]’s, ironically, is “''there is no such thing as a grain of truth''”. Well, not ''quite'' — “it is true that there is no truth”  refutes itself, after all — but rather, that the very idea of “[[objective truth]]” makes no sense ''on its own terms''. It is not  wrong, but ''incoherent''. “Objective reality” being a property of “the world out there” and “truth” being a function of a sentence expressed in a language, there can be no “[[objective truth]]” the same way there can’t be a square triangle. It is a category error.


“Things” are properties of the universe. They have (we presume) temporal continuity,<ref>Though even temporal continuity is a function of language: computer code has no [[tense]], and therefore no temporal continuity.</ref> whether we see them or not, and whether we talk about them or not.<ref>[[David Hume]]’s causal scepticism put paid, centuries ago, to the idea that we can be sure about this.</ref> “Truths” are ''propositions'' about ''things''. Propositions put things into a relationship with each other: “the cat sat on the mat”. “Gordon is a moron”.  
“Things” — rocks, wristwatches, aeroplanes — are artefacts in the external universe. We presume they have temporal continuity,<ref>Though even temporal continuity is a function of language: computer code has no [[tense]], and therefore no temporal continuity.</ref> whether we see them or not, and whether we talk about them or not. They are independent of us.  
 
“Truths” are ''statements'': linguistic propositions ''about'' external things. Propositions put things into a relationship with each other: “the cat sat on the mat”. “Gordon is a moron”. Sentences do not exist independently of us. They are not properties of the universe, but of our ''language'': prisoners of the vocabulary and grammatical rules of the language in which they are articulated.
 
Beyond that  language they are only marks on a page. Presuming for a moment, dear reader you do not have Persian, consider the following:
 
“گربه روی تشک نشست”
 
Unless you ''do'' have Persian that is not a sentence, but a string of elegant but unintelligible symbols on a page. (As far as JC knows, it says, “the cat sat on the mat.”)
 
Thus, “things” ''aren’t'' true or false: only “''propositions'' about things” are. We owe this to a beautifully clear exposition by the late philosopher [[Richard Rorty]].<ref>{{br|Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity}}</ref>
 
====''That'' is your best shot, JC?====
This does not go very far towards undermining the materialist tenets of western European philosophy, I grant you. But it is far enough.
 
This argument used to play out between Christians and Atheists. Now the critical theorists are involved it is a lot less fun because they tend to be humourless, so we will pretend the protagonists are still Christians and Atheists. Damnation to hell for eternity I can handle. Cancellation by the woke mind virus is a bridge too far.
 
At this point two images are cast into the ring:  atheists in foxholes, and postmodernists on planes.
 
“Show me,” [[Richard Dawkins]] huffs, “a [[relativist]] on a plane and I'll show you a hypocrite at 30,000 feet”. By the fact that he takes his argument no further, we expect Dawkins believes he has won it, [[quod erat demonstrandum]]. There are objective truths, everyone knows it, and this [[postmodernist]] blather is all a ''posture''. Because aeroplanes.
 
But Dawkins misreads consensus for truth. And he mistakes observation for explanation. The truth to which he appeals is not “the veracity of modern aerodynamics” — we imagine the finer points of that were not worked out when Richard Pearse took his first flight, so clearly that belief is not needed — nor even the general principles that are broadly right, and have been with us since Leonardo — but the simple statement that “planes fly reliably enough that I am prepared to get one”. Our postmodernist might even hold a degree in advanced aeronautics, and might happen to think it provides an excellent model based on known data. She just holds that caveat that, you know, the conclusion is inductive, can't be proven, and is provisional.
 
In any case, generalised observations about the typical behaviour of physical objects are not the sorts of things postmodernists disagree about. Even if you could establish they were true — as per the above, logically you can’t — it would not establish anything about the sorts of things post modernists ''do'' disagree about.
 
These tend to have a social cast to them. They are about history, sociology, psychology, politics, ethics, morality.  And it is not just post modernists who disagree about these things. ''Everyone'' does.
 
Indeed, in much of economic theory, disagreement is not just possible but imperative. Economic system cannot function without differing evaluations of the same goods.
 
So when social commentators exasperatedly blame post modernism, or relativism for some failure to see the world in the plane terms it should be seen, we should hear alarms at once.


“Propositions” are properties not of the universe, but of ''language''. They are prisoners of the language they are articulated in. They cannot exist outside it. Beyond it, they are only marks on a page.


“گربه روی تشک نشست”<ref>Translated from Persian into English: “the cat sat on the mat.”</ref>


See?


Thus, “things” ''aren’t'' true or false: only “''propositions'' about things” are.
====Analytic and synthetic and propositions====
====Analytic and synthetic and propositions====
{{Drop|B|ear with me}} for a brief technical interlude:it won’t take long. There are two kinds of propositions: [[analytic proposition|analytic]] and [[Synthetic proposition|synthetic]] ones. “Analytic” propositions are true by definition. Synthetic propositions tell us about the world beyond the language they are expressed in. Analytical propositions are ''mathematical'' statements; synthetic propositions as ''scientific'' statements.
{{Drop|B|ear with me}} for a brief technical interlude:it won’t take long. There are two kinds of propositions: [[analytic proposition|analytic]] and [[Synthetic proposition|synthetic]] ones. “Analytic” propositions are true by definition. Synthetic propositions tell us about the world beyond the language they are expressed in. Analytical propositions are ''mathematical'' statements; synthetic propositions as ''scientific'' statements.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:Critical_theory,_modernism_and_the_death_of_objective_truth"