Either I completely don’t get it, or this is some kind of sophistry that seems deep. Humans make a choice what they mean when they pronounce the sound “truth”. Therefore, truth is arbitrary.
The same argument can be made about anything else. Humans make a choice what they mean when they pronounce the sound “circle”. Therefore, circles are arbitrary.
By learning to look up, even just a little, we can break free of our self-construct dreams and start to engage with the world as it really is.
Okay, so instead of using the word “truth” we should be saying “world as it really is”? Other than getting an extra point for poetry, I think this is what many people already mean by truth.
Similarly, the problem with the criterion—I have no idea whether I agree or disagree with you here—is that we gradually learn about the world, and the criteria we used in the past may turn out to be less good than we assumed. For example, one might start with “it is true if I can see it” and then realize that sometimes things make sense even if we cannot directly observe them by our senses (because they happened in the past, happen far away, require x-ray vision, etc.), so the criterion would change to… something else, which again might require an update in the future. That does not make it arbitrary, it just makes it… learning.
To my reading you violently agree with me but are framing it a different way. I never said anything about arbitrariness. I said truth (and all concepts) is contingent. That you think contingency implies arbitrariness is a related but different kind of confusion I hope to address, but not in this post.
Either I completely don’t get it, or this is some kind of sophistry that seems deep. Humans make a choice what they mean when they pronounce the sound “truth”. Therefore, truth is arbitrary.
The same argument can be made about anything else. Humans make a choice what they mean when they pronounce the sound “circle”. Therefore, circles are arbitrary.
Okay, so instead of using the word “truth” we should be saying “world as it really is”? Other than getting an extra point for poetry, I think this is what many people already mean by truth.
Similarly, the problem with the criterion—I have no idea whether I agree or disagree with you here—is that we gradually learn about the world, and the criteria we used in the past may turn out to be less good than we assumed. For example, one might start with “it is true if I can see it” and then realize that sometimes things make sense even if we cannot directly observe them by our senses (because they happened in the past, happen far away, require x-ray vision, etc.), so the criterion would change to… something else, which again might require an update in the future. That does not make it arbitrary, it just makes it… learning.
To my reading you violently agree with me but are framing it a different way. I never said anything about arbitrariness. I said truth (and all concepts) is contingent. That you think contingency implies arbitrariness is a related but different kind of confusion I hope to address, but not in this post.