List,
forgive me for jumping in only very shortly
but...
I agree that that there can not be "alternative facts"
but for sure, there are only alternative interpretations.
And both concepts of immediate and dynamic object are a very clear
explanation of that difference that makes as just humans...
All the best
Claudio
Helmut Raulien escribió el 25/03/2017 a las 20:05:
List,
In common language the word "truth" is used for two different things:
The fact and it´s representation (the truth independent of
observation, and the truth as represented- correct representatrion).
In philosophy it mostly is only used for the representation, and means
a correct representation of a fact.
With one exception: Having looked at Wikipedia: "Truth": I would say,
that the redundancy theory uses the term for the fact, otherwise
"truth" would not be redundant (tautology, ok.).
I would say, that "truth" in the sense of the fact is semantically
redundant, because a fact is one of the things of which there can only
be one. I think, there is only one person in the world who claims that
there may be "alternative facts".
Examples:
"It is the truth, that Alice and Bob have married": "Truth" means the
fact, and is redundant as a term, because you might as well just say:
"Alice and Bob have married".
"Paul told the truth when he said that Alice and Bob had married":
Fact, redundant, because to tell means to speak about. "About" is the
bridge between representation and fact, adresses the fact. The
sentence can be said like: "Alice and Bob have married, and Paul has
told that".
Though the redundancy is not complete regarding the connotations: The
first version of the statement implies the suggestion, that Paul does
not always adress facts correctly (tell the truth), which the second
version does not imply.
"Paul spoke the truth when he said that Alice and Bob had married":
representation, not redundant. The truth here is not the fact, but
what Paul spoke.
Anyway, I guess it is very dangerous, that there are two completely
different things which may so easily be conflated and confused,
because they share the same term. Eg. the said person who claims
alternative facts is a danger.
I guess, that language in general is somewhat blurry about the
distinction between representation and the represented. But in the
case of the term "truth" it is a major problem, leading to confusion
and misconceptions, even ideologies: Ideologies work with forged
"facts", and are only able to do so, because the term "truth" is not
clear. If there were two words for the two things (representation and
represented), then it would be much more difficult to establish myths
and conspiracy theories, which both are necessary for ideologies.
I had thought about proposing to call the two types of "truth"
dynamical and immediate truth, but this is confusing, I guess, because
a dynamical object may be an immediate truth. Or "trueness" and
"truth"? I dont know.
Best,
helmut
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
