Who, really, is afraid of objectivity?
In the current debates around truth, meaning and other such matters, much is said about whether or not truth should be construed as mind-independent. It is also a particular characteristic of the current debates which sees the term ‘mind-independent’ interchangeably used with the term ‘objective’. So, ‘mind-independent truth’ becomes analytically equivalent to ‘objective truth’. This is an unfortunate practice, leading to, what I believe, some of the impasses within this polemic. This confusion is further exacerbated by fallacies of equivocation when employing terms such as ‘fact’ within the speculations around whether facts are, once again, to be considered objective or not.
This paper sets about a very simple task: It aims to illustrate what some of the foundational terminology of the current debates could look like, and hints, but does not explore, what some of the immediate a priori consequences would be of accepting some of the proposed definitions.
In the current debates around truth, meaning and other such matters, much is said about whether or not truth should be construed as mind-independent. It is also a particular characteristic of the current debates which sees the term ‘mind-independent’ interchangeably used with the term ‘objective’. So, ‘mind-independent truth’ becomes analytically equivalent to ‘objective truth’. This is an unfortunate practice, leading to, what I believe, some of the impasses within this polemic. This confusion is further exacerbated by fallacies of equivocation when employing terms such as ‘fact’ within the speculations around whether facts are, once again, to be considered objective or not.
This paper sets about a very simple task: It aims to illustrate what some of the foundational terminology of the current debates could look like, and hints, but does not explore, what some of the immediate a priori consequences would be of accepting some of the proposed definitions.
2 comments:
What is a fallacy of equivocation?
Can an objective truth be mind dependent and thus subjective? Is an objective truth an absolute truth?
Does it matter whether truth lives outside us or inside?
We all need solid ground and frames of reference, but real life for the few sentient beings amongst us is surely internal
A fallacy of equivocation is when a word is used ambiguously in an argument. Or more precisely it is used to denote two different things. Such as "objective" being used to indicate devoid of personal feelings, sentiments and values (reliant of proof) and is used to refer to mind-independent. In other words, that the nature or reality of something is not a projection or creation of our minds.
No all objective truths are not absolute. I think scientific truths are objective but certainly not absolute. They are mostly falsifiable on pain of new emerging evidence- yet they are objective- on account of them being supported by evidence in the first place.
Does it matter if truth lives inside or outside of us?
I think not, ultimately, but it does depend on the claim being made. If the claim is "There are no such things as Angels" then this would need to be an objective truth or falsity. If, however, the claim is "I believe there are such things as Angels" then a subjective truth would be perfectly justified.
Real life, thank goodness, is what we create ourselves. But this falls within the existentialist camp. We love them for it.
Post a Comment