Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A MORE LAUDABLE TRUTHFULNESS

A MORE LAUDABLE TRUTHFULNESS COLUMNS Barry Allen When Hilary Putnam wrote in eulogy of his late colleague W. V. O. Quine, he began by asking what it was that made Quine an important philosopher.1 He went on to talk about two kinds of philosophers, those whose arguments were plausible and those whose arguments were and have ever been unbelievable. He counts Quine among the unbelievable (Berkeley is another). If you think you agree with Quine — if you think ontology is relative, translation indeterminate, and that words and sentences have no meaning — you don’t really understand what he’s saying. If you understand it, you see it’s crazy, despite Quine’s elegant arguments. Putnam says Richard Rorty is the only philosopher he knows who both understands and believes Quine’s unbelievable arguments. I am struck by the quick move from “important philosopher” to a discussion on the relative merits of an argument. In the sciences, a personal name (Gödel, Darwin) is often shorthand for a proof or theory. Putnam implies that it’s that way in philosophy too. An important philosopher is an important argument. Important doesn’t mean true; it doesn’t even have to be plausible, just important. I wonder if Putnam is right, though, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Common Knowledge Duke University Press

A MORE LAUDABLE TRUTHFULNESS

Allen, Barry
Common Knowledge , Volume 14 (2) – Apr 1, 2008
Download PDF
8 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/a-more-laudable-truthfulness-CvpbWq95C0
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
© 2008 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0961-754X
eISSN
0961-754X
DOI
10.1215/0961754X-2007-067
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

COLUMNS Barry Allen When Hilary Putnam wrote in eulogy of his late colleague W. V. O. Quine, he began by asking what it was that made Quine an important philosopher.1 He went on to talk about two kinds of philosophers, those whose arguments were plausible and those whose arguments were and have ever been unbelievable. He counts Quine among the unbelievable (Berkeley is another). If you think you agree with Quine — if you think ontology is relative, translation indeterminate, and that words and sentences have no meaning — you don’t really understand what he’s saying. If you understand it, you see it’s crazy, despite Quine’s elegant arguments. Putnam says Richard Rorty is the only philosopher he knows who both understands and believes Quine’s unbelievable arguments. I am struck by the quick move from “important philosopher” to a discussion on the relative merits of an argument. In the sciences, a personal name (Gödel, Darwin) is often shorthand for a proof or theory. Putnam implies that it’s that way in philosophy too. An important philosopher is an important argument. Important doesn’t mean true; it doesn’t even have to be plausible, just important. I wonder if Putnam is right, though,

Journal

Common Knowledge – Duke University Press

Published: Apr 1, 2008

There are no references for this article.