On The Deflationary Theory

Mars · July 24, 2015

I don't quite think we're talking past each other; more likely I'm just asking the wrong question. Here, I am focusing on a practical matter where the word "truth" is relevant. Where "truth" is relevant, how does the deflationary theory allow us to distinguish "true" from "false"? Particularly if it is going to reject the correspondence intuition that makes scientific inquiry possible to begin with?

i think the deflationary theory of truth isn't meant to answer that kind of question.

it just says that "it is true that eugene stole from stacy" is no different than "eugene stole from stacy"

we'd just use language to establish the truth as we saw fit

whether that's evidence gathering and argument giving in a court of law

or something altogether different, like language used to describe water boiling such that you can say "water boils at 212F at sea level". it's useless to say "it is true that water boils at 212F at sea level" it's just dandy to say the first one.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Mars

Ahab · July 24, 2015

It means roughly "I agree with that view"
No metaphysics about reality

So you saying something is true means you agree with that something, whatever was being said.

And you saying something is false means you don't agree with that something, whatever was being said.

Which could lead to you saying something is false which I am saying is true with both of us saying whatever we have is the truth, even though one or both of us could be wrong about what we are saying is true.

Which would then lead at least one of us to want to find out for sure what really is true, somehow, so that we would not be wrong in saying that something is true.

And then hopefully somehow we would be able to know what is true.

mfbukowski · July 24, 2015

Mars said this one time or other. I copied it for further reference. It says it in perfect simplicity

i guess it's just a question of shared language to describe the experience rather than the experience containing a property called truth outside of our language's ability to describe

That's it in total simplicity.

If you want something more complex here is part of a great article even if it is wikipedia, that can bring you up to speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_religious_language

Analogies of games
The analogy of a game was first proposed by Hans-Georg Gadamer in an attempt to demonstrate the epistemic unity of language. He suggested that language is like a game which everyone participates in and is played by a greater being.^[58] Gadamer believed that language makes up the fundamental structure of reality and that human language participates in a greater language; Christianity teaches this to be the divine word which created the world and was incarnate in Jesus Christ.^[59]
Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed a calculus theory of language, which maintained that all language should be analysable in a uniform way. Later in his life he rejected this theory, and instead proposed an alternative language-game analogy.^[60] He likened the differences in languages to the differences in games, arguing that just as there are many different games, each with different rules, so there are many different kinds of language.^[61] Wittgenstein argued that different forms of language have different rules which determine what makes a proposition meaningful; outside of its language-game, a proposition is meaningless, He believed that the meaning of a proposition depends on its context and the rules of that context.^[62] Wittgenstein presented a language game as a situation in which certain kinds of language are used. He provided some examples of language games: "Asking, thanking, greeting, cursing, praying".^[63]

That is a portion of the wikipedia page on religious language- I suggest a good look at it to get up to speed with a lot of the current issues.

This is the issue here: How we can speak intelligently about God perhaps in a new way that ignores the sectarian way of seeing God that still persists in spite of 2000 years of criticism to its approach.

The old dualism just doesn't work any more and does not communicate to sectarian audiences. THAT is the real issue here.

Either we come up with a Restorationist way of defining God (we already have that in our scriptures) and make that philosophically clear, which I maintain is quite easy by following the example of William James and the Pragmatists, or we will lose everyone who understands more philosophy than "I think therefore I am".

Nietzsche pronounced god dead, and he was right in speaking of the sectarian god of substance trinitarian theology. It doesn't make sense now and never did.

As long as we postulate an abstract realm of "TRVTH" in bold Roman letters etched on the temple in homage to Plato and Aristotle, and "Reality" beyond what is experienced by mankind, and put god in that realm of the unknowable, we will never have a God who is our Father. It cannot be done. Transcendent unchangable and immaterial entities do not have the equipment to worry about or create "children".

The paradigms are just incompatible. That is the problem of classic "Christianity" which they have solved making up Christ's "dual nature" and "Three persons in one substance". Totally unintelligible and they like it that way.

We can remain as unintelligible as they are as long as we want and as long as we stick to believing in some realm existing beyond language that WE CAN TALK ABOUT.

You can't talk about anything outside language. You can't see everything through rose colored glasses without everything having a rose color!

That is the problem with "truth". You cannot get outside of language to see if it corresponds to something "real" which is "beyond language" and therefore the vagaries of sexism racism and any other ism you want to throw out there. All those isms are words, nothing more nothing less.

There is nothing we can speak about which is beyond what we can speak about. That and what Mars said above should have comprised this whole thread.

Three or four lines, and done! If you get this, that becomes self evident and even beyond debate. Debate is words arguing with other words pretending to talk about something beyond words.

We can't know what humans can't know, and correspondence requires us to know something we can't know - "reality" beyond human experience- and then requires us to talk about it and supposedly "verify" what we know against what we can't know.

How does that make sense?

Edited July 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

mfbukowski · July 24, 2015

So you saying something is true means you agree with that something, whatever was being said.
And you saying something is false means you don't agree with that something, whatever was being said.
Which could lead to you saying something is false which I am saying is true with both of us saying whatever we have is the truth, even though one or both of us could be wrong about what we are saying is true.
Which would then lead at least one of us to want to find out for sure what really is true, somehow, so that we would not be wrong in saying that something is true.
And then hopefully somehow we would be able to know what is true.

Is this the Ahab who want's "more" or is it the Ahab who says

This is basic stuff, bukowski.
I know what words are.
I know what reality is.
I know the difference between truth and what isn't.

Fyi that podcast said what you said but more elegantly and you could have learned from it to make your posts more convincing.

You are your own worst enemy. Only a friend would tell you that.

Edited July 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

mfbukowski · July 24, 2015

i guess it's just a question of shared language to describe the experience rather than the experience containing a property called truth outside of our language's ability to describe

read this 200 times and call me in the morning if you are not better.

Ahab · July 24, 2015

I understand what you're saying, bukowski.

Words work. It's just that not everybody agrees, even when clearly understanding each other.

Maybe you just need to come up with some way for everybody to be able to agree with what there really is in reality.

mfbukowski · July 24, 2015

Maybe you just need to come up with some way for everybody to be able to agree....

Then we wouldn't need language.

Even God has given us an open canon because no one description ever works for all times and all places and all circumstances.

Mars · July 24, 2015

i'm surprised people disagree even if they understand

this is just describing how we arrive at things we call truth.

mfbukowski · July 24, 2015

In contrast to the institutions of the world, which teach us to know something, the gospel of Jesus Christ challenges us to become something.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/the-challenge-to-become?lang=eng

mfbukowski · July 24, 2015

i'm surprised people disagree even if they understand

this is just describing how we arrive at things we call truth.

"CALL" truth is the key there. Truth is linguistic. That is the deflationary theory. It's no more complicated that that. Truth is in language- not in any "reality" beyond language.

mfbukowski · July 24, 2015

God "called" the evening and morning "the first day"

He defined the experience with the words "the first day" and saw that it was good

He saw it. He had the experience we might call "goodness" after he defined it. Like solving a math problem and feeling satisfied. He defined reality with a word and felt satisfaction at doing so.

Edited July 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

mfbukowski · July 24, 2015

He even named his son "logos".

The Word. The word created the world.

mfbukowski · July 24, 2015

What would it be like to experience a "day" without the words "light and dark"?

Again- the podcast.

There can be no human "thought" without language. The categories by which we think don't exist until language defines then for us.

And by postulating the paradigm that God is human, all this becomes totally clear. God gives us language and saves us from ignorance by the Word.

The Word is light and truth.

This is so powerful to me I sometimes feel I can't contain it.

All reality is human reality because it is defined by the Word. Words only exist in society- in interpersonal communication. God is a family - an interpersonal unit who teaches the kids language.

You have little kids at home. You teach them words. You are a godling.

Edited July 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

Mars · July 24, 2015

i agree.

it's still new to me, but... i agree.

mfbukowski · July 24, 2015

He defined reality with a word and felt satisfaction at doing so.

He defined human, linguistic reality with a Word...

mfbukowski · July 24, 2015

i agree.

it's still new to me, but... i agree.

I saw this when I joined the church- that was 36 years ago.

It takes a while. Once you really see it, it just grows stronger and stronger, at least it has for me.

And the beauty of this for me is that it takes away all the silly squabbling you see here and everywhere. It exploded my testimony. All the squabbles about science and religion go away. All the squabbles about historicity go away. They are competing language games no closer to a pure description of what is undescribable than any others. Some kids are playing historicity games and some are playing science games all enjoying their paradigms.

Good for them. Some work some don't. Basketball is nice and so is chess. I am not a fan of any in particular.

But seeing that, this "church" is the only place on earth that is even close to being able to see things this way. This is a path that includes Alma 32- where what is "sweet" is "true knowledge".

And seeing God as the Creator of Language- the Word- by which all things were made- the creator of families and love and interpersonal relationships- the creator of humanness and all that we are and need to be human- because he is like us ultimately- is so dang powerful I want to yell it from the roof tops!

Once you understand that there is not reality beyond human reality you can really see how a human God IS God. It took a human to create human reality- the world as we can know it. It was not a transcendent spirit, it was a Daddy with a Family looking for a place to "go down" and define away to their heart's content.

THAT is the only reality there is as far as I am concerned. There is no human reality beyond the human reality God has given us. No pagan Greek Unkowable Realm of Abstract Forms- just words and human brains trying to process it all. No metaphysics- just physics as a language giving us paradigms and making up stories about "strings" and "waves" and "particles" that may work for a few years or not, and fall by the wayside, or not.

Human changing definitions- the ebb and flow of civilization as defined by humans with interpersonal experiences we can agree on- or disagree on, primarily the latter.

And here we sit forging reality as humans know it with every word and arguing about getting it "right" when all that means is making it clear and what we call "rational".

Stories that work to get a job done- THAT is the only reality about which we can speak, because that IS what language is!

So is this pragmatic church the "only true and living church on the face of the earth today"? I think the philosophy behind it, at least as I interpret it is exactly that.

You cannot argue that we can speak about anything that is unspeakable. All we have are descriptions that work, and this church provides by far, for me, the best "true and living" descriptions available to mankind today- pragmatism expressed in Christian terms- which is exactly what I think this church at its best is.

And Rorty- the most current and profound proponent of Pragmatism was about 1 inch away from seeing that. In fact I am convinced that he DID see that, not in having a testimony - that is what he lacked- but in knowing that the theory behind the church worked perfectly for his paradigm

He said he would join a church that saw God as a "friend' of mankind- which is us!- but he never took the step. He even mentions Mormon beliefs - along with others- as being "justified" in at least one place I know of.

So for me- you combine the philosophy with the TESTIMONY which is of primary importance- And you have the only true and living view of God and man that works intellectually on the earth today. I am totally convinced intellectually. Hook line and sinker

And now you add to that God himself giving me an experience I cannot deny?

You couldn't pry me out of this church with.... anything. It would take a paradigm shift turning black to white to do that, and I cannot even imagine what that would be.

So maybe I am an odd TBM, but nevertheless a TBM that is not going anywhere!

Ahab · July 24, 2015

Interesting what you say about Rorty not seeing the Church as what it is even with his philosophy. And you call what he lacked a "testimony"? A testimony of what, exactly? Or from who?

I know you think I don't word things very well sometimes but buddy bro you don't either. Put your ideas in better language for me and then maybe I will pick up on some things I haven't picked up on yet, too. I think I do understand what you have been saying and because of my word choice to you you just can't see that I do as well as I do.

2 people getting on the same wavelength is really pretty cool when it happens. I like it especially when I get on the same wavelength with our Father ib heaven. And yes I know that I have not perfected this form of communication with him, just as I haven't with you, and just as you haven't with me.

But even if we could all communicate perfectly with each other, there would still be disagreements and opposition. The dark side vs the light side, with the dark side still trying to distort and confuse all of our communications and what we really can see.

mfbukowski · July 24, 2015

Interesting what you say about Rorty not seeing the Church as what it is even with his philosophy. And you call what he lacked a "testimony"? A testimony of what, exactly? Or from who?
I know you think I don't word things very well sometimes but buddy bro you don't either. Put your ideas in better language for me and then maybe I will pick up on some things I haven't picked up on yet, too. I think I do understand what you have been saying and because of my word choice to you you just can't see that I do as well as I do.
2 people getting on the same wavelength is really pretty cool when it happens. I like it especially when I get on the same wavelength with our Father ib heaven. And yes I know that I have not perfected this form of communication with him, just as I haven't with you, and just as you haven't with me.
But even if we could all communicate perfectly with each other, there would still be disagreements and opposition. The dark side vs the light side, with the dark side still trying to distort and confuse all of our communications and what we really can see.

Fair enough! Good point.

A testimony is received after praying to God and receiving an experience we perceive as an answer. I think Rorty was not far enough along to even try that, but he did understand it all on an intellectual basis.

I have quoted this before, but this book - and other things he has said- indicates that he understood the religious point of view, but he was stuck trying to envision God as the sectarians saw him, the same god that Nietzsche pronounced dead. He understood the idea of "God as a friend" but I think did not understand taking that paradigm as one that could actually be tested, as we do in Moroni 10. That is what I meant.

Here is a fine review of a book Rorty contributed to, in which he defined religious views the way he saw them a few years before his death. It's funny how facing death tends to change one's views on religion

First some notes on terminology. "Foundationalism" http://www.iep.utm.edu/found-ep/for purposes of this discussion, assumes there is a "reality out there" independent of language to be discovered. It is related to the correspondence theory of truth. Rorty was against that, therefore an "antifoundationalist"

Hermeneutics is essentially the view, as used here anyway, that language IS "reality" for all practical purposes. Good guys for Rorty

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/#Hermeneutic

For Rorty, a "liberal ironist" is one who seeks to create his own "reality" through language, knowing full well the "irony" that the world he creates is nothing but words- "vocabularies" and that all the other world views of everyone else are the same- some recognize the irony, others don't. In other words, verbal paradigms are all we have, and we need to create our own verbal paradigms or "reality", and that any reality "outside" of language is unknowable because all we have is language for communication.

Positivism is the view that all truth must be scientifically provable, definitely "correspondence" stuff. Bad guys for Rorty.

Vattimo is a Catholic priest and philosopher who pretty much agrees with Rorty, with some differences. He is a co-author of the book- which consists of an essay by each and then a discussion. Note that this is a conversation with a Catholic priest- clearly a theist.

I have been playing the role of Vattimo in this thread.

What is interesting here is that the reviewer, McClean essentially comes to the same view I do, which is that Rorty needed to look farther afield for the answer.

Send the missionaries to McClean's office please.

I have underlined relevant points that I have tried to make here and elsewhere

The source of the review AND THE BOOK is here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134959

Overcoming Dualism; Or How To Get to the Market via Mars By Dr. D. E. McClean on March 30, 2005
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo have given us a work that may be described as an important part of an answer to two important questions that modernity has not yet engaged constructively. First, How may modernity come to terms with the religious impulse that is still alive and well in the modern world even after over a century of the hegemony of science and rationalism? Second, How may those who do not hear the music of religion begin to understand those who do, rather than throw stones at them across a dualistic divide (and vice versa)? Richard Rorty, ever evolving in his philosophical thought, exposes himself as once caught in a dualism concerning religious faith. In this book, he laments that he has in the past branded himself an "atheist" and observed the need for a more nuanced description of his thinking concerning religion and religious belief. The "atheist" label, once self-applied, is now rejected. It is rejected not because he has "come to Jesus" or "has seen the Light" but because it plays into a zero-sum, dualistic game that Rorty knows he can do without. ("Atheist," which is both an epistemologically and metaphysically charged word, is replaced with "anti-clerical" because of its political use.) To use his own language from other of his writings, "atheist" is a kind of "conversation stopper" in the sense that it truncates active and fruitful discourse with those of his fellows who brand themselves "theists." This indicates evolution in Rorty's thought, but it is perfectly in line with his antifoundationalism and his governing ethical value - his so-called "liberal ironism." Thus, Rorty is prepared, as never before, for his conversation with Gianni Vattimo, a Catholic intellectual whose approach to the philosophy of religion is Gadamerian and Nietzschean, that is to say hermeneutical.
Vattimo takes us through an ambitious and bold analysis. He attempts to transform nihilism into a salutary outlook, and claims that this salutary nihilism is a result of the history of a long discussion about the meaning of the Gospels and of the Cross. This is, in fact, a jolting and novel perspective that will make the reader (as well as more conservative Catholic intellectuals) sit up and take notice. At times, however, Vattimo seems to conflate "nihilism" with "skepticism," especially where he argues against the positivistic notion that any knowledge claim needs science's blessing in order to be taken seriously. For Vattimo, both the Church and science valorize a false "objectivism" and a pursuit of "Truth" at the expense of truths - that is, at the expense of what William James referred to as the truths accumulated through lived experience in community; the truths that actually make life worth living. Vattimo argues that one of the worst faults of Catholic church leadership (and the leadership of other confessions) is its clinging to this kind of positivist objectivism in theological and social matters, rather than embracing the Church as an important institution that provides useful and interesting ways to interpret the world. The Church's long history of vying with science for the chair of objective Truth has led it down the wrong epistemological road. Thus, it is easy to see how Vattimo and Rorty have critical common ground. For Rorty, the same epistemological wrong turn has led Western philosophy down a similarly unfruitful road, and attempted to make philosophy "the mirror of nature" rather than a discourse about how to live fruitful lives with ample space for poetry, myth and solidarity.
The upshot of Rorty's antifoundationalism and of Vattimo's hermeneutics is that charity (love) is what modernity must aim for. But is all of this discussion about antifoundationalism and hermeneutics, of Gadamer and Nietzsche, really necessary to get us to a conclusion that saints and prophets and martyrs have been reaching for thousands of years without such intellectual convolutions? Is this conversation not like driving to the market by way of Mars? Well, in some sense. But note that this book is aimed at a highly educated and somewhat elite (not to say elitist) slice of humanity who actually take subjects like philosophy and theology seriously. For some, a naked slogan like "love is the answer" simply won't do. It is, of course, a very important answer and, as far as this reviewer is concerned, if some need to go to Mars to come around to that conclusion, if some need to be given permission by elite intellectuals to begin to take such slogans seriously, then Rorty and Vattimo have done a service here. No book is for everyone, after all, and I lament no approach that may win over even small populations of intellectual readers to a planetary love ethic.
All this said, a book with this title ought to take into consideration the insights of different faith traditions. Vattimo is right to stick to what he knows best, but his sticking solely to what he knows best is problematic. Rorty's own conception of religious faith seems equally narrow, and always has. To tackle such a broad subject as the future of religion, both Rorty and Vattimo would have done well to survey alternatives - different modes and types of religious thought. This is the one failure of the book. For one cannot talk about the future of religion without considering a broad enough swath of the ways religion plays out in the modern world. If that were done here, claims such as that "interiority" was introduced into the world by considering the meaning of the Cross (Vattimo), or that the principal divide in religious thought is or was between theists and athiests (Rorty) would have been more nuanced, or not made at all.
_____________
A Postscript (August 2010): This review seems to have been somewhat useful, and has even been quoted in scholarly journals. I did not expect that when I wrote it. My doctoral dissertation, "Richard Rorty and Cosmopolitan Hope," and an essay I wrote for the Journal of Speculative Philosophy, "The Theological Uses of Rortian Irony," may also be of interest. Both are available on the web, and both address Rorty's views of religion.

See also http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/david-mcclean

So this is to give y'all a feel for the "real philosphy" behind our little discussion here and how it plays out in the real world of academia (less of a "real world" than any I can think of! )

So for me, this is about justifying a gospel of love in intellectual terms, justifying human values which make family love the primary unity of civilization, and doing it in as rigorous a way as I am able, and justifying the notion that we need to worship the Human Family headed by the Man of Holiness as the primary paradigm of religion, which creates the only "true and living" paradigm which is relevant to our lives.

That's all I am after. Just that.

Edited July 25, 2015 by mfbukowski

tagriffy · July 26, 2015

i think the deflationary theory of truth isn't meant to answer that kind of question.

it just says that "it is true that eugene stole from stacy" is no different than "eugene stole from stacy"

we'd just use language to establish the truth as we saw fit

whether that's evidence gathering and argument giving in a court of law

or something altogether different, like language used to describe water boiling such that you can say "water boils at 212F at sea level". it's useless to say "it is true that water boils at 212F at sea level" it's just dandy to say the first one.

It seems to me that is the main deficiency of the deflationary theory then. To acknowledge there are at least some contexts in which "truth" and "false" are relevant but without giving any solid way to work out what is true or not even in those contexts? The myth of reality at least gives us some kind of baseline.

Mars · July 26, 2015

It seems to me that is the main deficiency of the deflationary theory then. To acknowledge there are at least some contexts in which "truth" and "false" are relevant but without giving any solid way to work out what is true or not even in those contexts? The myth of reality at least gives us some kind of baseline.

my apologies - i don't believe i was clear. (and as a side-note, i don't think i'm the best defender of this stuff. my background is electrical engineering, not philosophy - or any other liberal arts education that would prepare me to better understand and explain such a concept as this. i've noticed that on this board and great many other online-mormonish-discussion outlets such as blogs that the strong majority of content is produced and discussed by people who are far more familiar with words than i am. lawyers, historians, english majors, etc... outnumber the geeks like me by a great number. what does all this mean? it means i don't think you have any real ground to declare the deflationary theory of truth as deficient because of what a schlub like me says about it. )

the deflationary theory of truth would say that it's useless to distinguish between two sentences who argue a property about truth. iow:

"frank, it is true that snow is yellow" "no, bob, it's not. what you've said is false. it's true that snow white."

is superfluous.

"frank, snow is yellow. "no, bob. snow is white." "but i can tell it's yellow, it matches the color of this here block of cheese which is also yellow." "since when is mozzarella cheese yellow?" and so on.

the deflationary theory of truth isn't meant to compare right from wrong but rather explain that our ability to describe the world - both internal to us (things in our head, so to speak) and external to us - is the best way we can arrive at truth. i think there is use is thinking that there is something out there, something more we can discover, something we don't know yet, and it's useful to me to think that undiscovered stuff is going to reveal more truth to me, but to assume some relationship between the unknown and truth is useless because until i discover it, how can i describe it? how can i incorporate it?

don't say "it's true i love my wife"

just say "i love my wife."

don't say "it's true that snow is white"

just say "snow is white"

say what you perceive, say what you observe. as people who observe and perceive and conclude differently than you cross your path, by understanding why they chose to use the words they chose to use, you will discover where the disagreement lies and you will be able to tell what about the language you used to make your description was false, incorrect, or what have you

imo, at least...

Edited July 26, 2015 by Mars

mfbukowski · July 26, 2015

It seems to me that is the main deficiency of the deflationary theory then. To acknowledge there are at least some contexts in which "truth" and "false" are relevant but without giving any solid way to work out what is true or not even in those contexts? The myth of reality at least gives us some kind of baseline.

Well this is essentially the position of nearly all those who argue against this position. Essentially you are saying it is better to believe a myth (paradigm) that gives one certainty, that allows one to define "truth" even though we know it is "just a paradigm"

That's why I think you used the word "myth". You are knowingly asserting that the whole idea of truth is in fact a "useful paradigm" that you like better than other useful paradigms.

But the whole point is that by doing that you are unconsciously affirming deflationism!

Your argument seems to be along the lines of "Well, no, we cannot define truth, but it sure would be nice if we could". Unfortunately we can't, and without something that is not a "myth" we will never be able to.

Admitting that the "myth of reality" gives comfort is essentially admitting Pragmatism, that the only "truth" to be found is that which gives one comfort and "works better"

The "myth of reality" works better and is therefore "true".

Edited July 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

mfbukowski · July 26, 2015

Yes there are some contexts in which it is useful to use the word "true", but that is what we are saying.

Again to quote Rorty, "we know what truth means, but there isn't much we can say about it".

Once more, por favor- listen carefully to every word. One minute 42 seconds. Not a huge investment

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0SO8ofHa7VVX14Ag2ZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEydDJyYzZ2BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjAwMjdfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=Rorty+On+Truth&fr=mcafee#id=1&vid=636ec75f1cfb3afd13482c1a15ef63f3&action=view

tagriffy · July 27, 2015

Well this is essentially the position of nearly all those who argue against this position. Essentially you are saying it is better to believe a myth (paradigm) that gives one certainty, that allows one to define "truth" even though we know it is "just a paradigm"
That's why I think you used the word "myth". You are knowingly asserting that the whole idea of truth is in fact a "useful paradigm" that you like better than other useful paradigms.
But the whole point is that by doing that you are unconsciously affirming deflationism!
Your argument seems to be along the lines of "Well, no, we cannot define truth, but it sure would be nice if we could". Unfortunately we can't, and without something that is not a "myth" we will never be able to.
Admitting that the "myth of reality" gives comfort is essentially admitting Pragmatism, that the only "truth" to be found is that which gives one comfort and "works better"
The "myth of reality" works better and is therefore "true".

We are definitely getting there, at least. I would go further than to say it is "just a paradigm." I previously described reality as not just a myth, but the myth. "[T]ruth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93:24). Having knowledge of anything presumes that there is reality of something to be known. The myth of reality works not just because it gives one comfort, but it gives us something to strive for and it provides a means of doing it. This is the source of the correspondence intuition. We pursue science and scholarship because we want to know "things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." We continually act upon the myth and our everyday speech reflects it.

To a certain extent, I guess you are right that I'm unconsciously reflecting deflationism. But whereas a deflationist would say adding "it is true" to a statement adds nothing, I would say it adds everything.

Meadowchik · July 27, 2015

I just saw another video that reminded me of this conversation.

It basically described what has made humans so powerful, and it comes down to the ability to adapt flexibly and in large numbers together. These phenomena are brought about because of our ability to create, understand, communicate, and cooperate with fictions. For example, currency is a fiction, national borders are fictions, rights are fictions. Currency is valued because we've agreed upon it, not because the piece of paper or digitized figure in a bank account is intrinsically valuable.

And thus, while all other creatures live in a simpler world of the elements, we as humans have our feet in the elements and our heads in useful lies.

https://www.ted.com/talks/yuval_noah_harari_what_explains_the_rise_of_humans

Jumping off that, however, not only do we live in fictions, we're created new worlds with those fictions, and we're also discovering more about the elements themselves with the helps of those useful lies.

Tacenda · July 27, 2015

Late to the party, are we saying religion is a useful lie? This is not meant to be snarky.

Also, MF, have you ever thought about trying to meet Rorty, if he's still around?

Edited July 27, 2015 by Tacenda

Sign In

On The Deflationary Theory

Recommended Posts

Mars

Ahab

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

Ahab

mfbukowski

Mars

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

Mars

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

Ahab

mfbukowski

tagriffy

Mars

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

tagriffy

Meadowchik

Tacenda

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content

What convinces y’all that Mormonism is true?

What Is The Lds Reaction To The Miracles Of Fatima? 1 2

Biblical Keys For Discerning True And False Prophets 1 2 3 4 10

Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson (And Anyone Similar) A Source Of Truth? A Voice Of Warning? A Stumbling Block?

Ingenuous

Activity

Browse