Philip Baker:
The "best match" idea implies degrees of truth. The better the match the
more true.
Jud:
No - there are no *degrees* of entitic truth. The observed entity truthfully
[actually] exists as it exists.
There are no existential *degrees* possible regarding the way an object
exists. If it didn't exist in the way it exists - it wouldn't exist.
Philip:
But then you go on to say:
"Descriptions of entities cannot be MORE truthful or LESS truthful
than the description which truthfully describes the way an entity
exists. Descriptions of entities which correctly or incorrectly
describe some features of the way an entity exists, but not others,
are NOT truthful in relation to the way that the entity exists."
Jud:
Yes, this is so. Now we are considering the results of our human perception
and understanding of an observed object.
Descriptions of entities cannot be MORE truthful or LESS truthful than the
description which truthfully describes the way an entity
exists, but such a theoretical faithful description (as per *object
givenness*) is sensorially IMPOSSIBLE as I keep saying. Therefore human descriptions
of entities cannot be MORE truthful or LESS truthful than the truth of the
observed entity as it truthfully exists in the way it exists.
Descriptions of entities which correctly or incorrectly describe some
features of the way an entity exists, but not others,
are NOT truthful in relation to the way that the observed entity exists,
because partial truth doesn't exist - in fact TRUTH doesn't EXIST either - only
the truthful [actual] entity exists as it exists, and it doesn't [cannot]
exist in any other way.
Philip:
This implies (if I've resolved the convolutions correctly) that partial
correctness is no better than simple falsehood.
Jud:
That is your own woolly thinking implication maybe. There is nothing
*convoluted* or complicated in understanding what any bright school child is capable
of grasping [I have explained this to my eight-year old and HE can
understand it]
The fact that partial correctness in the observation, perception and
description of an object by a human being is a totally different question, and
nowhere have I said that such an incomplete existential assessment of an entity is
*worthless.* It is these partial perceptions of objects which have enabled
us to progress from the caves to Cape Canaveral, so our making the best fist
of our flawed understanding of the entitic truth of objects has proved to be
very useful. If you wish to describe these imperfect descriptions of reality
as the *Truth of *BEING* in the manner of Husserl and Heidegger then you are
perfectly free to pull the wool over your own eyes as they did to theirs. And
what of Plato's forms? If Plato's crazy reification of *ideal forms* are
based upon the observation of the objects which he observes and earmarks for
*formdom* then his forms must be imperfect templates too - for like everybody
else Plato's sensorial equipment was not up to the job and differed from every
other ancient Greek anyway.
The fact that an object can only exists in one way [state] only, and that is
in the actual way in which it exists. Because that is an inarguable fact we
can state that an existing object is *de facto* or *truthful to its
existential actuality or *truth.*
What we [I] mean by this word *truth* is anything that is a FACT and the
most reliable fact that we humans accept is that an object exists in the way it
exists.
Now regarding the HUMAN perception, understanding and instantiation of an
object via the notions of *philosophers* like Husserl and Heidegger} the
*truth of *Being* can be obtained by the phenomenological method of *object
givenness.* Following from the fact that due to sensorial lack humans cannot obtain
a truthful version of the actual way in which an object exists - the can
only obtain THEIR OWN VERSION of the actuality of the object.
Not only that, but because no human sensorial system is exactly the same as
any other human being's sensorial system each human version of *object
givenness IS DIFFERENT.
The only way to have a true experience of what it is like to be the truth
that is a dog - is to BE a dog.
BTW I always read your posts "un-hermeneutically".
Jud:
I [and no doubt everybody else on the list] have guessed that already. ;-)
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---