Philosophy Now Forum

What is truth? Joel Marks develops a new approach which he calls alethic deism.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/100/An_Answer_to_Pilate

Philosophy Now wrote:What is truth? Joel Marks develops a new approach which he calls alethic deism.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/100/An_Answer_to_Pilate

"Epicurus said of the gods that they exist, but that they have nothing to do with our affairs. A similar idea about God became known as ‘deism’ during the European Enlightenment. My suggestion is, then, for a sort of alethic deism (alethic comes from the Greek word for ‘truth’), according to which truth may exist but is so beyond human ken to establish without begging some question or other, and so prone to generating pointless and destructive strife (and/or a damaging stasis) among those who think they possess it, that we are well-advised to go about our affairs as if it did not exist.

Or so I believe, and that is why."
Above is the last paragraph in Professor Marks' article.

In a trial by jury, the jury decides what happened between the two interpretations of the factual incident or transaction . It decides which is the truth of fact. But, according to Marks this is impossible for human beings. It is beyond our powers, from the standpoint of epistemology.

If we follow Marks, we must conclude that jury (and judge trials) trials are impossible and, therefore, should be abolished.

I suggest that in his next article he is obligated to describe an institution that will resolve civil and criminal situations that were formerly resolved by the traditional civil and criminal trials.

Is it true that being an amoralistic alethic deist means never having to say you're sorry ?

Daphne rides again. The start of a Truth Trilogy ?

First paragraph:

“What is truth?” Pilate asked. (John 18:38)

What if anything would be lost if we stopped talking about truth? This question has come to the fore of my thinking of late as a result of my on-going experiment with giving up morality (see Issues 80 and 81 and thereafter). For what I have discovered in the case of morality is that it is surprisingly easy to live in what would normally be referred to as a moral way without thinking explicitly in terms of right and wrong and related concepts. Furthermore, I have found that I prefer living in this way and believe the world would be a better place, that is, more to our collective liking, if everybody did.

So, JM doesn't want anyone to think or talk in terms of 'right and wrong'.
He has discovered that a way to avoid judging what is 'right and wrong' is to think in terms of 'desire'; 'know what you want and why'.

Now, he is suggesting that it would be better for all our 'collective liking' if we did the same with 'truth'.
His problem seems to be about people asserting that something is true, with resulting tensions when met with opposing opinions. So, Marks poses the question would it be 'more to our considered liking' if we 'forgot about truth'.

{ Is it true that if we forgot about truth, we would have less tension? }

However, a dogmatic assertion of absolute truth is different from questioning whether something is true.
Isn't this an essential part of philosophy?

Marks - suggests that we should not use the word 'true': 'there are many ways of expressing and asserting a conviction of truth without the explicit use of the word ‘true’. Instead, we should all adopt a certain approach. We should avoid the 'arrogance of taking oneself to be on the side of truth.'

Marks is baned, or pained, by a tendency to arrogantly-held entrenched opinions and preferences; a narrowing of someone's beliefs and desires.

He cares about 'flexibility of thinking, openness to change and diversity, reduction of conflict, and progress toward a world more to everyone’s liking.'

Probably, most us can share his care - and we would talk in terms of what is 'right and wrong' and ask 'Is it true that...?'

So, to answer Marks' question: What if anything would be lost if we stopped talking about truth?

Perhaps credibility, philosophy - just for starters...

To get to what we call the 'truth' of a matter, is to question. We can't hold inflexible politicians to account otherwise.
Sometimes, conflict is no bad thing.

God's Strewth

'Alethic deism'

Hurrah ! Just what we need, another philo flag...blowing in the wind...