Part of the problem stemming from my "No Truth" post a while back is the use of language. For the most part, I try to keep away from any words or phrases that are freighted with any baggage that might confuse the reader. When I discussed the question of "Truth" in that post, I was being philosophically technical while attempting to be free of pedantry. The result was confusion, misunderstanding, and a lack of clarity based upon my own stupid assumption that I was being clear. I certainly believe it is the case that there are certain statements that reflect certain facts. I also believe it is the case that logic as a form of reasoning arrives at certain conclusions that are irrefutable. Finally, I believe it to be the case that a certain way of living in the world, both as individuals and as groups, that are preferable to other ways of living. What I do not believe is that claiming immutable, infinite, and eternal Truth for these beliefs adds anything substantive to them. It doesn't strengthen my claims, is not an argument in their favor, nor does it contribute to our general conversation on what it means to live together in all our differences.
Standing behind all this is a view of language that recognizes both the contingency and history of language as a bearer of meaning. Words mean things, certainly, but what they mean is always in a state of flux, subject to change through various uses. In the end, the meaning of words comes down to a reference to other words. While it may be uncontroversially correct to point to a pebble in a driveway when asked what the word "rock" means, on another level, this does nothing to define the word "rock", because the word "rock is nothing but certain human beings make, or a mark certain human beings make, whose meanings are multiple. One person may indeed point to a pebble; another may pull out a T Rex album as an answer to the question. Or, one may offer a metaphorical response. All would be correct, but hardly suffice to clear up the confusion aroused by the question, "What is 'rock'?"
I hope this little clarification helps. I believe that words ultimately refer to other words, which refer to other words in their turn. All of them have a history, an etymology that gives us a rough idea of usage and development that is important for grasping the reality the contingency of language, and the impossibility of fixing meaning through language for all time. This more than anything else is my reason for refusing to acknowledge something called "Truth" that inheres in statements, making them normative for all persons, and granted to certain language users and denied to others. Hegel had a quip, "The finite cannot contain the infinite", that sums up my view very nicely. Words do indeed mean things, which is why we should be careful in our word use; we shouldn't look for more than meaning in words, however, because there is no "there" there.
