真理与对定义的探索

IF 0.7 0 PHILOSOPHY
Phronimon Pub Date : 2019-08-28 DOI:10.25159/2413-3086/4421
P. Aleke
{"title":"真理与对定义的探索","authors":"P. Aleke","doi":"10.25159/2413-3086/4421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The controversies in contemporary truth discourses can be traced directly or indirectly to the Fregean choice of “thought” as the truth bearer, Ramsey’s redundancy thesis, Tarskian semantic conception, and Davidson’s defence of the indefinability of truth. The common feature of these four positions is an inadequate treatment of the “what is” question. Because of the neglect of this kind of question, the consequence is that truth has been reduced to a thin concept (that is a reduction of truth to logical, semantic or linguistic analysis of the truth predicate, or analysis of intentional signs at the expense of intentional acts) and subsequent quest for the deflation of truth. I argue that such an approach to the philosophical investigation of truth is at best inadequate and at worst bound to fail. Hence, I propose that an adequate exploration of truth must first address the “what is” question, rather than just assuming it. Further, I argue that to realise this, it is vital to take into consideration the wider context in which the truth question arises, that is, the human quest for knowledge and self-transcendence; and it is the conception of truth as critical correspondence that is capable of sufficiently answering the question.","PeriodicalId":42048,"journal":{"name":"Phronimon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Truth and the Quest for Definition\",\"authors\":\"P. Aleke\",\"doi\":\"10.25159/2413-3086/4421\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The controversies in contemporary truth discourses can be traced directly or indirectly to the Fregean choice of “thought” as the truth bearer, Ramsey’s redundancy thesis, Tarskian semantic conception, and Davidson’s defence of the indefinability of truth. The common feature of these four positions is an inadequate treatment of the “what is” question. Because of the neglect of this kind of question, the consequence is that truth has been reduced to a thin concept (that is a reduction of truth to logical, semantic or linguistic analysis of the truth predicate, or analysis of intentional signs at the expense of intentional acts) and subsequent quest for the deflation of truth. I argue that such an approach to the philosophical investigation of truth is at best inadequate and at worst bound to fail. Hence, I propose that an adequate exploration of truth must first address the “what is” question, rather than just assuming it. Further, I argue that to realise this, it is vital to take into consideration the wider context in which the truth question arises, that is, the human quest for knowledge and self-transcendence; and it is the conception of truth as critical correspondence that is capable of sufficiently answering the question.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Phronimon\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Phronimon\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25159/2413-3086/4421\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phronimon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2413-3086/4421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

当代真理话语中的争议可以直接或间接地追溯到Fregean选择“思想”作为真理的载体、Ramsey的冗余论、Tarskian的语义概念以及Davidson对真理的不确定性的辩护。这四种立场的共同特点是对“什么是”问题处理不充分。由于忽视了这类问题,结果是真理被简化为一个薄薄的概念(即将真理简化为对真理谓词的逻辑、语义或语言分析,或以牺牲故意行为为代价对故意迹象的分析),并随后寻求真理的通货紧缩。我认为,这种对真理进行哲学调查的方法往好了说是不够的,往坏了说肯定会失败。因此,我建议,对真理的充分探索必须首先解决“是什么”问题,而不仅仅是假设它。此外,我认为,要实现这一点,至关重要的是要考虑到真理问题产生的更广泛的背景,即人类对知识和自我超越的追求;正是真理作为批判性对应的概念能够充分回答这个问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Truth and the Quest for Definition
The controversies in contemporary truth discourses can be traced directly or indirectly to the Fregean choice of “thought” as the truth bearer, Ramsey’s redundancy thesis, Tarskian semantic conception, and Davidson’s defence of the indefinability of truth. The common feature of these four positions is an inadequate treatment of the “what is” question. Because of the neglect of this kind of question, the consequence is that truth has been reduced to a thin concept (that is a reduction of truth to logical, semantic or linguistic analysis of the truth predicate, or analysis of intentional signs at the expense of intentional acts) and subsequent quest for the deflation of truth. I argue that such an approach to the philosophical investigation of truth is at best inadequate and at worst bound to fail. Hence, I propose that an adequate exploration of truth must first address the “what is” question, rather than just assuming it. Further, I argue that to realise this, it is vital to take into consideration the wider context in which the truth question arises, that is, the human quest for knowledge and self-transcendence; and it is the conception of truth as critical correspondence that is capable of sufficiently answering the question.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Phronimon
Phronimon PHILOSOPHY-
自引率
25.00%
发文量
5
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信