<$BlogRSDURL$>


The Social Construction of Truth

This is a series of philosophical meditations attempting to tell the story about how 'truth' (general term) is a socially constructed phenomenon.

Monday, July 26, 2004

(p or not-p) and not-(p and not-p) 

What is the status of the above "law" of logic?  This is a question that I have been sweeping aside for some months now; perhaps it won't be resolved for much longer.  However, I must keep prodding the question.

At the moment I would say that it is very nearly a universal construction:  just about everyone would accept it.  But of course there are some who do not.  And the former mock the latter for being irrational or for sloppy thinking.  But "human stupidity is infinte."

A curious observation is that I cannot claim that the law of coherence is wrong, if I am one who is suspicious of it.  I do not say that the categories of the True and the False are wrong or false, because then I would be assuming their validity in making that judgement.  Rather I say that I am suspicious of it.  And if you can derive in me a contradiction by my statement of suspicion, then you have not refuted me but you have shown only the inadequacy of language.

(Perhaps this gets to the bottom of my response to Dr O's comment in the last entry.)

Coherence is a choice:  you choose to be coherent or not to be coherent in your beliefs.  You choose to subject yourself to the categories of True and False.  I do not reject those categories, but I am saying that they are constructed like one makes a shelter.  The bullies have partitioned the world of experience into the True and the False and if you don't conform you are labeled as Irrational, another category of the powers that be.

Not only is it a choice but it seems that choosing in favor of coherence makes using language much easier:  more clear and safe--definite.  You are right or you are wrong.  True or False.  I do not deny the benefits of this scheme:  It would make my job much easier.  To convince myself I need only come up with arguments (in language) which thereby lend to the idea that my position fits into the category of True.  But we must ask ourselves what are the consequences of acting as if the categories of True and False are final, regardless of how we partition the world according to those categories.


posted by pennedav  # 1:26 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

Links

Archives

April 2004   May 2004   June 2004   July 2004   August 2004   October 2004   November 2004   December 2004   March 2005  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?