RE: BHA: truth

["Wallace Polsom" <wallace@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Colin,

> What I did suggest was that he misreads RB.
> For example, on page 150 he seems to lump
> Bhaskar in with Rorty, Althusser and Balibar
> in holding an older untenable view of the
> correspondence theory wherein language
> 'pictured, or mirrored reality'. Bhaskar
> does not hold this view.

I don't think that Devitt means to suggest that Bhaskar holds this view; I
think the reason Devitt cites Bhaskar is because Bhaskar appears to hold
that all "correspondence" theories MUST be of the picturing/mirroring type.

> Also, on page 160 he seems to suggest (objection 5)
> that Bhaskar claims that we are only entitled to
> claim that something is true if we know
> it with certainty. Again, this is not Bhaskar's view.

Two works are cited for Objection (5), not just Bhaskar's, but I agree that
Devitt seems to think that Bhaskar claims that something is true iff we know
it with certainty, and I agree that this is not Bhaskar's view.

Oh, BTW, thanks for responding to my posts.

Wallace



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---