Hi Matt, I like the distinction you made between 3 uses of truth. You called the 3rd use the semantic notion of truth, but isn't this whole analysis a semantic one?
Best, Steve On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve said: > I agree that it is indeed the same thing to assert that something is true and > to assert that you are justified in believing that same something--as Pierce > said, "we think each one of our beliefs to be true, and, indeed, it is mere > tautology to say so"--it is nevertheless good to recognize that at least some > of the things that we are justified in believing are probably not actually > true. > > Matt: > Rorty, for these purposes, liked to distinguish--in good, commonsensical > dictionary fashion--different uses of the word "true." Because, on the one > hand, justification is our only route to truth, so when you feel justified in > believing something, you feel it is true. That was the "endorsing use of > truth" (occasionally called the "complimentary" use which got Rorty into a > lot of trouble). Because, if justification is our only route to truth, then > it does seem an add-on to then say it is justified _and_ true. Call the > endorsing use "the use of truth from the first-person standpoint." > > Another use of true, which is what Steve wants to emphasize is different and > needed--we shouldn't assimilate all uses of truth to the endorsing use (like > in our theories of truth)--is the "cautionary use of truth." This is the > impetus of somebody, having heard you slide from justification to a > complimentary extra endorsement of "and it's true, too" to say, "well, you > might be justified, but it still might not be true." Call the cautionary use > "the use of truth from the third-person standpoint." > > Distinct from this again is the "disquotational use of truth," which is the > semantic notion, the very boring explanation of the only kind of > correspondence pragmatists think we are going to find between sentences and > states of affairs: "'X' is true iff X." (For example: The sentence "Snow is > white" is true if and only if snow is white.) Explains nothing much, but > that's the point. Call the disquotational use "the use of truth from the > God-person standpoint." If you find God's point of view useful, maybe you > can get more out of correspondence than pragmatists can. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
