Why Truth Matters by Ophelia Benson & Jeremy Stangroom

Why Truth Matters by Ophelia Benson & Jeremy Stangroom
Continuum International
ISBN: 0826495281
Price: Too much, whatever the price

Benson and Stangroom wish to present the case that there is a universal truth that must be defended. In defending it they wish to discredit the purported "enemies" of this truth, these are all things relatatvistic and sceptical - umbrella terms used to refer to postmodernism, anti-realism, anti-essentialism, neopragmatism and social constructivism amongst others.

It would be helpful if they could provide a more accurate definition of this "truth" which they wish to defend but they do not, and there is a reason for this. Any need to define terms would admit the kind of Wittgensteinian language games, a sort of relativism. In fact the authors claim that Wittgenstein's language games being used to denote a relativism are actually being misapplied, they do not say why though. That would have been helpful.

What would have also been helpful would be to not criticise other peoples' use of rhetoric and assertion if the authors are going to seem so keen to do it themselves, or use poor reasoning to draw the conclusion that "[W]e know scepticism and relativism are false" I personally did not know this...but I'm so glad I have Benson and Stangroom to tell me. The reasoning used to come to this conclusion presents "known truths" that a relativist would be unlikely to challenge, i.e. that walls are solid or that a fire burns, and this apparently leads to the conclusion. Non-sequitur anybody? This also displays what appears to be barely a passing knowledge of relativism/postmodernism etc.

Don't worry too much, straw man arguments are pottered throughout the book, finding the weakest proponents of any kind of relativist view and using that to discredit all of it, apparently it wouldn't matter if it was Kant, Nietzsche, Foucault or Derrida..."different cast-list = same story" according to them. Given that, I would love to see them try and take on any of the aforementioned philosophers and try to get away unscathed.

Now I should confess, I have not finished the book. I wish not to be told that in order to review it I should finish it because:
A) I'm admitting I have got as far only as chapter three.
B) I would rather not slowly lose the will to live by having to put up with anymore of the dismissals and assertions.

I cannot help consider the possibility that the authors are not realists, and are actually being ironic. Unlikely, but possible.

Consider this a warning: Even if you are a realist and reject any of the aforementioned abstract nouns, there is probably a book out there that does a much better job of defending/arguing this view than this book.

See also Philosophy Now | Beware of Truth!