Plato's Gorgias for a dialectical view of truth

Nietzsche's essay On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense maybe as a counter to Plato
http://www2.fiu.edu/~harveyb/HI-NietzEssay.htm

>>8275983
Thank you! ill start reading those

Important writers about truth in 20th century philosophical discourse.
Quine.

"As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer . . . For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits."

He essentially showed that the analytic synthetic distinctions dont hold up and are intermingled with each other. Meaning that any data when we attempt tp grasp it, is already mixed up with out linguistic conceptions.
Previously it was thought that we can have objective reporting of "data" and the problems come when we try to interpret it.

Wittgenstein also put another dent in positivism.
Derrida on the other hand fucked over structuralism and showed that any words we use are dependent not only on their place within a synchronic structure of language but also on a diachronic progression.
The culination of all this was the death of foundationalism, the attempt to somehow find an objective position that is outside of the human conditions to be able to show how we can objectively assert anything.
The descartian attempt to do that failed.
Then pragmatism entered the picutre and ideas about cultural relativism and how truth is simlply what you get when you allow free information fow within society, only possible through a free democratic regime.
Meaning that there is no way to ground any knowledge as objective so we must rely on historical narratives and experience to judge what has worked for us and what hasnt to see what is more correct.

Then there is an approach that simply says that sine humans are part of nature and have evoloved just like other organism we are always bound by reality and function within it and that language is not a filter preventing us to see the truth but is exactly the means by which any truth can be aquired.
Objective truth is simply an incoherent idea and the "pure" knowledge is the filtered knowedge we get as it passes through language to us.

ill would have some recommendations for you but only if you post your feet first :33333

phaedo before gorgias, on how everything related to truths works. better insight on how the abstract theory works.

io solo le pido a dios..........un mundo 5lombianos

>>8275951
hand in a blank piece of paper with "truth" written on it