fresco wrote:An interesting question is why this thread should run and run.
From the point of view of language as "bevioural co-ordination" the answer is simple. The word "truth" only arises in situations of lack of co-ordination...where consensus is lacking. Most of the time "redness of blood" is never (in real life) in dispute...not even for those deemed "colour blind". But my own colour blind child once fell in mud and thought he was bleeding. Only at this juncture did "truth" matter within a decision process of how to "handle" the child i.e. how to co-ordinate our behaviour. (A 17th. century physician might even have recommended " bleeding" to treat the child's "hysterics" !)
Quite simply, we cannot separate "truth" from a decision process involving social co-ordination (including self with self), and the appeal to "objectivity" is actually an appeal to "consensus" (reality being a mythical "total consensus")
IMO The thread will continue to run whilst truth is treated as though separate from particular contexts.
interesting example, fresco. if you had been color blind as well, would your child have been bleeding? would your assertion that 'truth'
only arises due to lack of co-ordination need qualification in that case?
i do agree that the thread will 'run on'.
earlier, you wrote to me that
Quote:W's dictum "meaning is use" obviously applies to the linkage of "truth" with "objectivity".
by behavioral co-ordination you are refering to linkage of truth & objectivity, i think, or did i misunderstand?
anyway, thanks for the input, and also the attempt--at least, i think it's an attempt--to propose a middle path between idealism & materialism.