First, I would like to announce my discontent for relying on technology to unfold and display such inquiries, as this is the second time I've had to rip this from my thought to write up here, as words seem to mysteriously disappear more frequently on a computer than thoughts do from a mind. However, I remain committed to the blog.
Despite the possible obviousness of this claim, it appears that a reason the discussion of the 'Correspondend Theory of Truth' remains open ended and lingered in class is the ambiguity of 'the way the world is' to which a claim must correspond to be true. Aside from hallucinations and individually constructed perceptions of any objective or subjective plane, which can vary, be relative, and change in the context, must a claim, according to this theory, correspond to collectively constructed perceptions (which are of course necessary for us to associate, communicate and live in the experience of our consciousness), or to the 'thing-in-itself', the essence or concept to which to claim is referring? Consider the example that Professor Johnson gave, the claim "snow is white" is true if it corresponds with the experience of white snow. However, for one to have the complete truth of this claim, one must ask, "is snow, snow?" and "is white, white?" Does the collectively constructed perception of the substance of snow and the property of whiteness correspond with the 'thing-in-itself' or essence of snow and white? The so-called essence of such things does form and change to a degree with our perceptions, but beyond the perceptions, the original or true essence is difficult to grasp and communicate, and will we ever truly know if "snow is white"? Of course even if we did know the 'thing-in-itself' or broke down the other into its base properties, which we may know, but not typically perceive, such as sub-atomic particles or wavelengths of energy, this does not do us much good in the pursuit of practical knowledge (though this is different from truth). And therefore, as stated, we need to make definitions and give names to our collectively constructed perceptions of consciousness in order to associate, communicate and live in our experience.
i feel what you are saying as far as using the internet as a means to communicate with each other, its negative reinforcement for sure. anyways.... i think that the example of snow being white may be antimony ;) the essence may be its existence because it is fulfilling its potential as a frozen water particle. what we label white and what we label snow is completely arbitrary to the snow in itself even when it is consistent with the reality that exists beyond our perception of its existence. maybe essence is the 1 thing (the metaphysical dimension) that picks the qualities and attributes that constitute existence out of the ethereal world of possibility? yes language has failed us in differentiating material and metaphysical realms of existence, and since we think in english, it makes it extremely hard to evolve rationality beyond our understanding of language. i read recently that the english language even in comparison to other language lacks greatly, that we would have to have 42 letters in our alphabet in order to be ably to articulate the vedas
ReplyDelete