Friam

What philosophers do

Classic

List

Threaded

2 messages Options

Russ Abbott

What philosophers do

I just came across a review of a new book on truth. The review says, in part,

The volume is an ambitious attempt to survey the field of current work on truth as it relates to a variety of topics. ... It may thus be recommended as an excellent primer for anyone looking to get an overview of current work on issues concerning truth in areas including norms of belief, relativism, color, truth-making, critical reflection, autonomy, as well more traditional themes such as paradoxes, deflationism, coherence, correspondence, pluralism, and the status of bivalence. "

Since I had no idea what deflationism means with respect to truth, I looked it up and found that there is an article devoted to it in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

This seems to me to be typical of the sort of work that philosophers do. The distinctions that are analyzed are real--and in some cases even interesting. But somehow the effort seems to me to be much to parochial, which is a strange thing to say considering that it is dealing with a notion as general and important as truth.

-- Russ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Re: What philosophers do

I did not read all of the explosion of posts about philosophy (I was at a conference when it happened), but...

This is a very limited view of what it is that Philosophers do. One of the main points to come out of the American Philosophical tradition is the notion that philosophy must continuously reinvent itself in ways that are relevant to the here and now (i.e., the particular place and time the philosopher finds herself in). The traditional idea that philosophers today should be obsessed with the same things that philosophers were obsessed with centuries ago is the cause of much of the trouble that people on this list are rightly complaining about. (When philosophers buy the traditional notion, it causes them to do things that aren't very valuable, and when lay people buy the traditional notion it causes them to misunderstand the philosophers who are trying something new and potentially valuable.)

For example, if modern philosophers are to have anything to do with the word truth, they probably should be investigating the shifting meaning of the term, rather than engaging in an antiquated quest for truth as understood based on centuries-old categories.

Based on skimming the deflationism article, it seems as if the point is to deflate people who try to puff up their chests with talk of "truth." While there might be much more mumbling about philosophical things that necessary - it is, after all, part of an academic game - that seems like a pretty reasonable goal, potentially relevant as a commentary on modern political and scientific discourse.

It is also worth noting that, as many people on this list know, it is unfair to judge the merits of an academic discipline based on finding out that some of the work done in that field seems trivial. I'm sure it would not be hard to find research done by complexity theorists that seems just as trivial and parochial as discussion of deflationism.

Eric

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 12:25 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I just came across <a href="http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=24291" onclick="window.open('http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=24291');return false;">a review of a new book on truth. The review says, in part,

The volume is an ambitious attempt to survey the field of current work on truth as it relates to a variety of topics. ... It may thus be recommended as an excellent primer for anyone looking to get an overview of current work on issues concerning truth in areas including norms of belief, relativism, color, truth-making, critical reflection, autonomy, as well more traditional themes such as paradoxes, deflationism, coherence, correspondence, pluralism, and the status of bivalence. "

Since I had no idea what deflationism means with respect to truth, I looked it up and found that there is <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/" onclick="window.open('http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/');return false;">an article devoted to it in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

This seems to me to be typical of the sort of work that philosophers do. The distinctions that are analyzed are real--and in some cases even interesting. But somehow the effort seems to me to be much to parochial, which is a strange thing to say considering that it is dealing with a notion as general and important as truth.

-- Russ
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601