Philosophy Online Forum  
09/01/10 @ 22:25 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] |   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: N: truth always related to some goal  (Read 983 times)
LostInAShaftOfSunlight
Newbie
*
Offline

Posts: 45


but you are the music while the music lasts...


« on: 27/07/09 @ 14:27 »

You write in your book that for N truth is always related to some goal, related back to the individual and the will to power.

This might be a trivial point or objection, but how could this apply to "mundane" kinds of truths, things we might agree on as matters of fact, or even as indisputable, such as "it is true that N was born in Rocken" or that i did or didn't eat breakfast this morning? How do these relate to a will to power or to a goal?
Logged

Man, when I was young I shoved my ignorance in people's faces. They beat me with sticks. By the time I was forty my blunt instrument had been honed to a fine cutting point for me. If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you'll never learn.
Gareth Southwell
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 190


WWW
« Reply #1 on: 30/07/09 @ 08:14 »

Well, the more mundane the truth, the more fundamental the 'goal' that leads us to see the world in that way. For instance, 'N was born in Rocken'. Now it might sound silly and weird (and it is!), but why should we name individuals? Why should we give places a name and a discrete area of reference? Why doesn't Rocken change its area of reference with relation to (for example) the weather? If N got married, why don't we refer to the two individuals as the same entity?

These are 'odd' questions to us because the notions that are being questioned are so fundamental to our seeing the world in terms of (for instance) geographical areas with uniform points of reference. And so with people - N is a person with definite features. However, as 'sci-fi' type examples can show us, there are situations which would undermine the assumptions that these 'matters of fact' exist separately from us 'in the world'. I don't mean that Rocken will always exist, or that we could never rename it or tinker with the town's boundaries, but rather that our notions of identity, uniformity, change, etc. are not so inviolable as we might like to think. I think this was N's ultimate point: even our ideas of something as simple as 'thing' or 'object' are a construct of some sort. And if something has been constructed, then surely there is a sense in which it could have been some other way? Perhaps, if we ever meet 'Martians', they will have completely different notions of identity, object, and individuality to our own (think of the mere possibilities that quantum physics suggests - e.g. things being in two places at once, or affecting each other at a distance, etc.).

Does that make sense?
Logged

This site is 100% free. To support it, you can Buy Books, Buy Art, Advertise, or Pay for Tutoring. For questions, please visit the FAQs.
Pages: [1] |   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: