(1) Anglo-American philosophy is myopic with its monistic view of conceptual analysis, seeking to obtain a list of necessary and sufficient criteria for a concept.
A more fruitful approach is extension, a pluralist approach, a list of examples.
A still more fruitful approach is aphorism, metaphor, trope, painting.
(2) On this continuum from formal analysis, through list, to metaphor, we can see the creative aspect of analysis. We can see that bound up in the project of the logothete (the namer) is the evaluative project. We live in a stream, in a senseless, ever-shifting world of images. The very creation of the self, the identification of discrete "things" in the universe, is artificial, is artifice, is a thing created. To pick "tree" out of a landscape, to identify "tree" as a UNIT, is to reveal our antecedent valuations, is to project an ALREADY EXTANT personality on the world.
Objective analysis is a blind alley. Speaking of "points of view" is not a tool to attain objectivity, but an expression of our limitations. That we can conceive of "points of view" and critique them pragmatically is simply evidence of our practical reason, our unproved, instrumental, and inherent ability to "separate" ourselves from our environment. It is not evidence of conceptual capability, or true objectivity.
(3) Thus we dispose of the liberal tradition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Truth is subjectivity."
ReplyDeleteThis, I think, is very consistent with orthodox Christianity. In fact, my impetus for bringing it up is because it is integral to my defense of natural law.
ReplyDeleteOur natures define our analytical capability. Yet we have an ineffable sense of "something" objective. Is it optimistic to seek objectivity? Or is it just theoretical humility, to admit that we are embodied beings?
Yes, "we" do. Isn't this sense the only way we can have authentic communication at all?
ReplyDeleteMy critique above is simply designed to say that IF there is truth, it isn't reducible to linguistic concepts. There is no such thing as objective analysis.
I don't think this bears on the question of whether there is objective truth, or whether we can communicate it.
My sense is that while truth isn't reducible to linguistics, we have a shared nature that allows us to look each other in the eye, and to guess at what is being said. We pragmatically work towards each other. It is inexplicable, and divine.