Chapter 4 of Real Identities deals with the notion of truth, among other topics.
She writes, "The portrayal of how philosophical claims are judged recognizes that philosophy is always situated, in both the problems it addresses and the answers that make sense, but this need not sacrifice our ability to claim truth. Philosophy can successfully clarify and explain without those explanations needing to be transcendentally true for all time or completely adequate to all aspects of the object it studies."
When we speak, when we express, when we argue, we do it from our specific, situated identity. This identity supports and allows the development of our individuality by placing us within a context. This is definitely a blessing, yet it seems as if it may be a curse as well, especially for a philosopher.
According to dictionary.com, philosophy is "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." Alcoff's quote says that because of our situation, truth can be claimed but never for all time. Our particularity denies transcendence; only an abstraction can reach perfection. I feel that "expressed" would be a more appropriate word than "claimed."
Is philosophy simply art through the symbolism of words, or something more? Why investigate the truths of being if your views will not be seen as transcendently true but rather only an expression inevitably from a situation? What is the goal that philosophy is working towards?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment