Replies

You address the issue of what "makes something true". What is your criterion for "what makes something true"? You say what doesn't, but not what does. From a philosophical point of view the question is obviously quite deep, as it has been being asked throughout the entire history of philosophy and not gotten a satisfactory answer.

But when Pontius Pilate asked "what is truth" was he asking a philosophical question? He was a Roman afterall, not likely much inclined to abstract philosophy. I suspect, if he wanted an answer at all, he wanted a practical one. You can call it word play, but I think "Truth is what those in power say it is." is about as good a practical answer as one can come up with. And woe to the man who fails to act, consciously or not, in accordance. What is true medicine and what is quackery; the government decides. What is a legitimate religion and what is a "cult". The government decides. Never mind the fate of the Branch Davidians. When the draft was in force, conscientious objector status could be granted, but conscientous objection had to be based on a religious faith accepted as "genuine" by the government. And so it goes, government is the final arbiter of what is "true". Most prominently, by its near monopoly of education, the government determines what is instilled as "truth" in the minds of the young. Consider the evolution versus creationism controversy. Government even decides what is "historical truth" although that has been quite rare in the U.S. if not elsewhere.

You address the issue of what "makes something true". What is your criterion for "what makes something true"? You say what doesn't, but not what does.

IMHO the issue is not "what makes something true." Something is either true or it isn't.

With few exceptions (e.g., statements such as: "I promise"), what I SAY has little or no bearing on what is true. It doesn't matter what I CALL something; it is true or false independent of what I think or say.

The issue is how we try to ascertain what is true (epistemology).

On that I tend to follow the "fallibilism" articulated by Sir Karl Popper. Only by recognizing our limits and rejecting what is provably false, can we accumulate useful knowledge.

What really angers me is when "word-play" (a la Newspeak) and "word magic" (a la Marx) is used to give the illusion of proof and evidence.

Deconstructionism is a good example.

"The truth is that there is no truth!"

"There is no reality, and I can demonstrate it!"

"Proof of anything is impossible, and I can prove it!"

Government even decides what is "historical truth" although that has been quite rare in the U.S. if not elsewhere.

This may seem to be a trivial distinction, but I think not. The government may decide what is TAUGHT as "historical truth," but it doesn's decide what is true.

"The truth is out there," and if the government, or anyone else, lies about it, there is the POTENTIAL (through hard work and research) to find what is true and expose what is a lie.