Blobjectivism and art


Truth is normally a relation of indirect correspondence between language or thought and the blobject



Download 46.65 Kb.
Page3/4
Date17.01.2021
Size46.65 Kb.
#99441
1   2   3   4
Truth is normally a relation of indirect correspondence between language or thought and the blobject.

One question that can be asked is how may the just sketched blobjectivist view allow for any truth. If there exists just one blobject, the world or the cosmos, how may the sentence such as “The cat is on the mat” be true at all? For, if there exists just one blobject, there cannot exist any cat, and any such sentence cannot be true. Let us now take a view at truth. Despite that there are several approaches to truth, perhaps the most natural way to tackle it is that of direct correspondence. According to that one, there exist entities such as E1, ..., En and properties P1, …, Pn. The already stated sentence is true just in case where entities and properties mentioned in it match the items that are there in the world. This construal of truth as direct correspondence meets its hurdles though once as these entities and properties are not recognized to exist in the ultimate ontology, as this is the case for austere realism and for blobjectivism as its monistic version. Just the cosmos exists, according to this one. Now, the construal of truth that may fit to such a view is that of indirect correspondence. As we say that “The cat is on the mat” this sentence may still be true, if we refer to the cosmos, to the blobject or to the world in a direct manner. But as we mention cats and mats, we refer to that same world in an indirect manner, in the way as it appears cat-ishly region-ishly. And as we mostly talk about cats and mats in our everyday dealings with the world, truth happens to be normally construed in the form of indirect correspondence. The normativity is changing from involving regional ontic ontology to the ultimate ontological view. “Do cats exist?” – “Of course.” – “But do cats really exist?” – “No way.” This small dialogue is consistent because the normativity has changed from the everyday ontic scores, concerning whatever ex-sists as being recognized in the world, to the ultimate ontological scores where just the existence of the one world or the blobject may be recognized.




Download 46.65 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2022
send message

    Main page