Re: BHA: truth

[Ruth Groff <rgroff@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Doug and everybody,

Thanks for your ruminations -- at least now I know I'm in good company.

Does it make sense, do you think, to distinguish between (1) ideas that
refer to non-conceptual relationships which we feel confident in trusting
would be the case in the absence of people; (2) ideas that refer to
*conceptual* relationships, e.g., pi, that we beieve would hold in the
absence of people; and (3) ideas that refer to relationships, including
conceptual ones, which would be non-existent/unintelligible in the absence
of people (and I can already see this last group being broken down into
those ideas which, in the *PRESENCE* of people, (a) are essential to thoght,
and those which (b) are not)?  I'm finding myself favoring something like
3A, for truth, but I worry that something about the whole enterprise is fishy.

I'm off today to try to locate an article Wallace refered me/us to: Bhaskar
on the ontological status of concepts.  Has anyone read it?

Ruth



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---