[MD] Marsha's Relativism

[John Carl]

Hey Steve,

Just reading your words (which I've been enjoying, btw )and came to a point
that caught my attention:

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Steve Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:

> What I was suggesting is that there is no difference in what we mean by the
> word 'true' in the sentences "it is true that slavery is wrong" and "it is
> true that 2+2=4." Obviously, the sentences are very different, but I think
> 'true' is used in the same way in both. Do you agree or do you think that
> there is a difference in usage of 'true' in these two sentences?


The usage of "true" is relative to the speaker.  If I was saying "it is true
that slavery is wrong", my meaning of "true" in this sentence would have
social connotations underlying the statement, backed by a whole edifice of
social morality and historical assumption, aknowledging implicitly that the
statement is debatable.

When I say "it is true that 2+2=4" I have a different intellectual
foundation for how I construe "true" - that of mechanistic logic which is
unswayed by social factors.

Now somebody who has actually suffered under slavery, would mean something
much more comprehensive and non-debatable if THEY said, "it is true that
slavery is wrong".  Part of their meaning of the word "true" would
encapsulate their reality.  If I was in conversation with such a person, I
probably would realize this and aknowledge their reality, but in the back of
my mind I would still hold their truth as relative to their experience.  All
meaning is negotiated in conversation.

Hey!  Maybe I'm a Roycean Rortyist!