Ajit wrote: >>>Since all the claims to "truth" are arbitrary, <<< I wrote: >>Ajit, why should anyone believe this sweeping statement? that is, why is it true? (Since it is a premise for the rest of the comment, its falsity undermines the rest.) If it's not true, I wonder why you found it worthwhile to state this non-fact. Does it serve your self-interest? does it fit with your cultural, ethnic, and/or gender-based biases? does it reflect subconscious neuroses? is it simply hot air? << Ajit replies: >Very funny, but not true ;). Theoretically speaking, one can show the arbitrariness of all the truth claims made up till now without having to make any truth claims of one's own. That's all I have been saying.< Is it a central part of post-rational "thought" that one simply repeats one's point rather than defending it? (or to find jokes that aren't there?) So, I'll repeat mine: in what sense can one "show" the "arbitrariness of all the truth claims"? why should we believe your "demonstration" if it is also arbitrary? why should we listen to you if you are not making truth claims of some sort? (are you claiming that we should read your postings to pen-l because they are aesthetically pleasing?) what do you mean by "arbitrary"? The most fitting definitions in my dictionary have this word meaning "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than necessity or the intrinsic nature of something" or "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will" (WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY.) If you are asserting that assertions of truth necessarily have subjective components, I agree. I don't think anyone ever can know the "absolute" or "objective" truth. So any assertion of such knowledge is more than merely arbitrary. It's ideological. But some propositions are more true than others; some are less ideological than others. Some views are more logical, fit with the actuality of the phenomenon being described (which unfortunately can only be understood via empirical evidence), or are methodologically more sound than others. Some are better guides to practice than others. The difficulty is that the truth about world that exists outside of our perceptions is that it's multidimensional, complex. So, for example, a proposition that's more logically coherent than another could easily be less consistent with known evidence. People can choose between a variety of different propositions that are "equally true" following their subjective desires. But that does not make efforts to get a greater understanding of what the heck is going on "arbitrary" or futile. Assertions of truth aren't _simply_ subjective. Many of them can be knocked down, criticized for being illogical, not fitting the evidence, incomplete, etc. Some of them can't be falsified in any way. Though I reject Popperian hard-core falsificationism, it seems a good idea to make it explicit when a proposition isn't falsifiable and try to avoid relying too much on such propositions. The point is that there are constraints on our subjective choices about what we think is true or untrue. I think it's pretty well established that Elvis is dead and that the Nazis killed a whole lot of innocent people. My assertions of the truth of these propositions are not arbitrary (though perhaps my choice of which propositions to make was arbitrary). Paul, it's been a long time since I read Lenin's contributions on this stuff. I wish you or someone would summarize it for pen-l. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
