Article 1 of 24

Subject:      Re: What would Mr. Lewis think?
From:         Sam Dodsworth <sam@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Date:         1997/02/28
Message-Id:   <wi$K0JAe6uFzEw5P@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Distribution: world
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk
References:   <01bc1d07$a8e6b600$LocalHost@m-586>
Organization: Annexia Free Press
Newsgroups:   alt.books.cs-lewis



In article <y1g2SEALELFzEwoo@aslan.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Rilstone
<andrew@aslan.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Do all statments of opinion whatsoever tell us only about the genetics,
>state of mind, and biography of the person expressing them, or is
>philosophy a special case? If philosophy is not a special case, then how
>do we advance from error into truth on any subject whatsoever? Or is
>that question a philsophical one, and to be written off as meaningless
>noise?

        I've covered a lot of this in an earlier post on relativism.
Briefly: we can only discuss our opinions meaningfully if we share at
least some common assumptions. If we do not share any assumptions then
we cannot communicate meaningfully, but we do not have to be in complete
agreement to communicate at all. Think of language as an analogy: the
relation between words and the things they describe is arbitrary but we
don't have to posit "absolute meaning" for communication to happen. 
        Truth, admittedly, is more difficult. I suppose the best we can
do is to base our criteria for truth on things that most of us hold in
common - physical reality and the validity of logic might be good
starting-points.

Sam Dodsworth (sam@aristos.demon.co.uk)
"I think there should be more sex and violence on television, not less. 
 Both are powerful catalysts of social change, at a time when change is
 desperately needed."
                        -J.G. Ballard