Philosophy Now Forum

Is Postmodernism finally on its deathbed? Roger Caldwell examines the evidence and takes a look at its would-be successor: Critical Realism.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/42/How_to_Get_Real

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sun May 06, 2018 7:28 pm Is Postmodernism finally on its deathbed? Roger Caldwell examines the evidence and takes a look at its would-be successor: Critical Realism.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/42/How_to_Get_Real

The author states implies that there is a logical contradiction: "One may question whether it is even possible to state theories of this kind without self-contradiction. If objective truth about reality is impossible, then what is the logical status of the statement that objective truth about reality is impossible, since it itself aspires to objective truth?"
.

There is no contradiction. The statement that "objective truth about reality is impossible" refers to knowledge about reality rather than 'reality' itself.

Consider it to be a meta-statement if you like, operating at a different level from statements about reality.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 4:34 amThe author states implies that there is a logical contradiction: "One may question whether it is even possible to state theories of this kind without self-contradiction. If objective truth about reality is impossible, then what is the logical status of the statement that objective truth about reality is impossible, since it itself aspires to objective truth?"
.

There is no contradiction. The statement that "objective truth about reality is impossible" refers to knowledge about reality rather than 'reality' itself.

You may choose to interpret it that way, but I don't think the author is speaking of knowledge. It is hardly a profound statement to say that it is a contradiction to know about the objective truth of reality.

So the realist (non-idealist) way is to say that reality is not dependent on humans, observation, or knowledge. The universe was real before there were observers to note it. The author, in this light, is probably not speaking of knowledge. Objective truth about reality means that some answer is the correct one, be it unknowable or merely unknown. Is it a logical contradiction for no particular answer to be the correct one?

The statement itself aspiring to objective truth suggests the 'correct answer' is an objective truth, contradicting the answer if the correct answer is 'There is no objective truth'. But I disagree with that, but for different reasons than you do. A statement can be true or false without it being an objective truth. The statement being true is different than it being an objective truth. Some might disagree with me on this point, the author being one of them it seems. What do we mean by objective? That the truth of it is not contingent on some context? That it is real, in a sort of Platonic way?

Noax wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:57 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 4:34 amThe author states implies that there is a logical contradiction: "One may question whether it is even possible to state theories of this kind without self-contradiction. If objective truth about reality is impossible, then what is the logical status of the statement that objective truth about reality is impossible, since it itself aspires to objective truth?"
.

There is no contradiction. The statement that "objective truth about reality is impossible" refers to knowledge about reality rather than 'reality' itself.

. A statement can be true or false without it being an objective truth.

A statement can only be labelled as 'true' or 'false' if someone judges it to be so.