Ah, here we meet again. It seems, in doing what I do, it is impossible to escape you. I have expressed before, when I was much younger, that I'd much rather think about things than think about thinking. Now I know I was quick to dismiss what you can offer, intimidated as I was by your 'logic' and the mathematics of those who claim to worship at your altar. I worry that you are enslaved by those who claim that there is truth backed by "rationality." I am somewhat comforted that it is also true that your development in recent centuries have been tailored to suit the natural world. And so it is fruitless to argue logic when one cannot perform experiments on human societies to verify or falsify social theories.
By virtue of the body of knowledge I have become familiar with all these years, there is in me the natural urge to resist that there is 'truth' to be 'known.' I like the fancy Frenchies with their outrageous claims that there is no truth at all. Or that we all walk around with various interpretations of it. In class today, the philosopher with a doctorate from Oxford doesn't seem inclined to believe truth is relative. Perhaps he is reluctant to let go of the DWEM (dead white European male) version of his truths. In the discussion he keeps giving examples in the natural world, wholly irrelevant in my discipline.
I took issue with the 'pragmatic theory' of truth, which claims that faced with evidence contrary to what we believe to be true (such seeing a black swan when before we were sure they were all white), then we have a choice to either accept there are black swans or reject it and claim what we saw was no swan at all. My understanding is that we will all respond to this contradiction depending on our degree of attachment to the whiteness of swans, and we will accept there are black swans if it is expedient (that is, beneficial) to us and our sets of truths. Some will adjust their beliefs to accommodate this new truth, or some will reorganise their whole belief systems to cling to the whiteness of swans. The point is, according to this theory, we have a choice. That all truths are 'rejectable.' But what if we really have no choice? What if we have only an illusion of choice?
It is easy enough to verify the color of swans, so really, why should we even bother to think about it? Juxtaposed to my discipline, which Professor Oxford encourages all the time, then what if I choose to go against the basic tenets of international relations, that all 6.3 billion of us are divided into discreet units called 'states' and that we all must carry a 'nationality'? What if I say I choose to renounce my nationality? It may be true for me because I supposedly choose for it to be so, but how is it expedient when this means I will become in essence a non-entity? Will not the world we live in, the system and structure of our reality, constrain my choice?
Found this in my drafts. Written last semester when I was taking Epistemology chu-chu.