[MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn

[Krimel]

> [Krimel]
> Exactly, this odd notion of a fixed, absolute, perfect point of view is 
> the dream the drives folks like Ham. You seem to be in accord that 
> philosophers are on board rationally with what the sciences have 
> demonstrated empirically. There is no fixed absolute reference point. 
> There is no Absolute Truth beyond the conception of Absolute Truth. We can

> imagine such a thing. We can give it a "tip of the hat or a wag of the 
> finger" But we have no way of being certain that what we tip and wag at, 
> is what we think it is. 

[Platt]
I presume you invoke an Absolute Truth in asserting "There is no Absolute
Truth."
Of course, if true the statement is self-contradictory. If not, it is a 
relative truth which may or may not be true, depending on your point of view

(or your culture if you are a postmodernist). Either way, the statement is
doubtful.

[Krimel]
No you are completely missing the point. Whether or not there is an Absolute
Truth is irrelevant. I am willing to grant the conceptual possibility as is
Matt, I believe. The point is justifying belief in an Absolute Truth. How
could you achieve Absolute Certainty that you have a correct belief in such
a Truth and that your belief is correct. I am saying that you could not be
Absolutely Certain that your belief is Absolutely Justified even if Truth
were Absolute. I am maintaining that both Truth and Justification are merely
adjectives that describe beliefs.

If you would get a handle on this you might stop embarrassing yourself with
this inane paradox talk you keep bringing up.