14 of 16 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Only what is true explains what happens
Alone it stands, assailed on all sides by priests and postmodernists and prophets and pseudoscientists and practitioners of public relations, how are we ever going to approach a word like "truth" in its solitary majesty? With a philosopher like Simon Blackburn at your side, and with this brilliant book in your hand. The difference between him and them is the degree of...
Published on 31 Mar 2009 by Sphex
8 of 28 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars The sceptic cannot live by his philosophical beliefs
Simon Blackburn's 'Truth'.
Who are the intended readers? The general public, or philosophical specialists? In his preface, Blackburn only says: "[This book] is therefore something of a guide for the perplexed (p. ix)." But where are the perplexed guided to? Does the book merely show that the perplexed are right to be perplexed, and clarify the ways in which they...
Published on 26 Feb 2009 by trini
Most Helpful First | Newest First
14 of 16 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Only what is true explains what happens,
This review is from: Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed (Paperback)Alone it stands, assailed on all sides by priests and postmodernists and prophets and pseudoscientists and practitioners of public relations, how are we ever going to approach a word like "truth" in its solitary majesty? With a philosopher like Simon Blackburn at your side, and with this brilliant book in your hand. The difference between him and them is the degree of commitment to reason, the degree to which obfuscation is avoided and the temptation to hide behind jargon is resisted. Blackburn could easily dazzle most of us with technical arguments, but he wants to clarify, not mystify, and he succeeds. This book is about a "war of ideas and attitudes... not only between different people, but grumbling within the breast of each individual": today, are we a believer, a sceptic, a cynic, a rationalist, an absolutist, a relativist? And tomorrow? Many of us will sensibly shrug off such labels, but we should not and we do not shrug off questions about truth: it matters if "politicians claim that some country has weapons of mass destruction when they know that it does not, or if NASA says that a shuttle is safe" when it is not.
Chapter 1 - "Faith, Belief and Reason" - draws in three more similarly abused and important terms. While this might seem to be multiplying our difficulties before we have begun, these are all connected and their meanings interdependent. People either give reasons for or have faith in the truth of any particular belief. That sounds simple, inclusive and nicely symmetrical, and surely covers all bases. The harmony is an illusion. The absolutist, often of a religious temperament, cannot resist the allure of dogma, while relativism "chips away at our right to disapprove of what anybody says." Both sides bicker over questions of authority. Blackburn's opening sentences hold out the promise of finding a way through this maze: "There are real standards... We must not believe that anything goes."
Indeed, we "have a duty to believe carefully, in the light of reason alone" as the following story illustrates. A shipowner who acquires "a sincere and comfortable conviction" that his vessel is thoroughly safe and seaworthy, and who ignores any doubts to the contrary, is putting his trust in a higher power and putting his passengers at risk when he allows the vessel to sail. His belief in the safety of his ship has not been earned "in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts."
This is from the essay "The Ethics of Belief" by William Clifford, who argues that it is always morally wrong to take an intellectual shortcut and believe on faith alone. Blackburn agrees. Someone "sitting on a completely unreasonable belief is sitting on a time bomb. The apparently harmless, idiosyncratic belief of the Catholic Church that one thing may have the substance of another" (transubstantiation, a process still believed to fuel the Eucharist) "although it displays absolutely none of its empirical qualities, prepares people for the view that some people are agents of Satan in disguise, which in turn makes it reasonable to destroy them." Lack of faith is not a deficiency, and a refusal "to believe something is not a kind of faith." I would argue in addition that a lifetime of exposure to such false beliefs corrodes our powers of critical thought. How else to explain Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's recent assertion that secularists are not "fully human"?
"Making ourselves gullible or credulous, we lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them" and risk "sinking back into savagery". Children, who are naturally open to all sorts of beliefs and have their lives before them, must therefore be protected from their own credulity just as we protect them from running into the road. An important first step is to recognize that children "are born human beings, but nothing else."
Blackburn has a wonderful way of bringing a discussion about truth down to earth and can write the kind of sentence you're unlikely to find elsewhere: "we do not have to resort to dark forces to explain my status as an announcer of butter". He believes there is butter in the fridge because he has opened the door and seen it. What's more, since the age of around four, when we ceased to be self-centred realists, we have all known that it is possible for others to hold a false belief about there being butter in the fridge - if we have eaten it and not owned up! This appreciation of truth is not metaphysical speculation but an ordinary part of being a functioning human being. No one is "born a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Jew" but we are all born with the potential to work out what is true and what is not true without recourse to supposed higher powers. A just and humane society must nurture and not extinguish such potential.
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars An engaging guide to an age-old controversy,
This review is from: Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed (Paperback)An engagingly-written guide to the battle between realists and relativists that has raged since the time of the Ancient Greeks. Blackburn's mission is to remove the "sneer quotes" placed around "truth" by relativists and pragmatists, whilst admitting the flaws in the realist position. The quest for truth, he believes, is a worthwhile one: even if we cannot prove that our truth corresponds to the world out there, we can say that the quest for it gives us answers that work.
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Read,
This review is from: Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed (Paperback)Lucid, thought provoking treatise. A good start for those seeking truth, rather than those who have their 'truths' provided for them by some form of superstition.
5.0 out of 5 stars A brilliant introduction to the hunt for truth,
This review is from: Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed: A Guide for the Perplexed (Kindle Edition)Takes you through the ancient and modern philosophical attempts to nail down truth, discusses the merits and flaws as you move through the centuries and suggests the most reasonable positions. If you thought truth was obvious - it's time to think again!
4.0 out of 5 stars You May Still be Perplexed!,
This review is from: Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed: A Guide for the Perplexed (Kindle Edition)If one has a grounding in philosophy then I would imagine that this will not be too much of a struggle provided one has the time and space to concentrate on the arguments presented. This is not, though, a light read for the layperson. Propositions are tightly argued, perhaps too much so for the general reader who may require a more gently guided approach to some of the extremely interesting, but more complex issues. Nonetheless I have enjoyed this work despite no previous formal engagement with philosophy. My advice would be to get a feel for the principal arguments presented in each chapter without worrying too much about following the intricacies of each and every step along the way. One can always retrace these steps at a later stage when a more general feel for the terrain has been established. Four stars - it is good - if it were more accessible (and given the space available, perhaps this would be asking a little too much) I would have given it five.
8 of 28 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars The sceptic cannot live by his philosophical beliefs,
This review is from: Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed (Paperback)Simon Blackburn's 'Truth'.
Who are the intended readers? The general public, or philosophical specialists? In his preface, Blackburn only says: "[This book] is therefore something of a guide for the perplexed (p. ix)." But where are the perplexed guided to? Does the book merely show that the perplexed are right to be perplexed, and clarify the ways in which they are justifiably perplexed, or are they guided out of their perplexity into a region of philosophical clarity? None of this emerges clearly.
What is the main thrust of the book? In his Introduction (p. xx) Blackburn signals the contrast between the absolutists and the relativists, and says that this issue is `arguably the most exciting and engaging issue in the whole of philosophy". In his concluding remarks, Blackburn hopes that `Peace Breaks Out' between the absolutists and the relativists - let us tolerate our irreconcilable differences.
In between, what emerges constantly is that the anti-realists, the anti-moralists, the sceptics, the relativists, cannot live by their beliefs. Life is impossible unless the sceptic/relativist says, "Well, I don't think there is a table and a glass, or that the glass is on the table, but I will have to act as if these things are really so; and I don't believe in morality, in right and wrong, but I must live (and hope that everyone else lives) as if there is morality, and as if life is governed by ideas of right and wrong."
My own hope is greater. When the University of Chicago in the 1950s published a series of 54 books called the Great Books of the Western World, one commentator said that "Chicago quickly gained a reputation as an `eccentric' place, `where they talked about Plato and Aristotle and [St Thomas] Aquinas day and night' ". Blackburn talks about Plato quite a lot, and mentions Aristotle once and Aquinas not at all.
Real hope for the future of philosophy must begin with a return to common sense, to Aristotle and Aquinas.
Several factors affect the usefulness of the book.
(i) The Index is very poor, though a good index is needed. Very many occurrences of topics discussed and authors referred to in the text are simply omitted even when there is a main index entry for the subject.
(ii) Furthermore, many topics fleetingly (or sometimes even frequently) mentioned in the text fail to have any index entry, and many other topics which I would have considered essential to a discussion of Truth are never mentioned in the text at all. Some such un-indexed or un-treated topics/names are Catholic Church, common sense, empiricism, epistemology, free will, intellect, logic, metaphysics, morality, natural law, norms, pragmatism, probability, senses, story, theist, Thomas Aquinas.
(iii) This exposes a serious weakness in the structure of the book. The topic of Truth is brought into discussion without its being defined or having the ground adequately prepared. There is no discussion of the five senses or the intellect. `Adaequatio mentis et rei', the correspondence between what is in the mind and what is external to it but activates it, is never discussed. Are there not essential physiological and mental foundations for mental realities, for thinking, and therefore for truth and for philosophizing? The author owes us a formal discussion of these topics, especially Epistemology and Logic. Casual references to these topics when dealing with other topics do not suffice.
(iv) This book really needs an extended glossary of the philosophical ideas/terminology introduced in the text, and of many others too that are not in the text but which underlie the discussions, as stressed in my comments on the Index.
(v) Furthermore, and essentially, Truth must be about something more than abstract discussions about whether there is a glass on the table or not. If philosophy, and specifically the study of Truth, goes no further than that, then what is the point of it? It is one huge waste of time. Philosophy must have its techniques, but it must also have worthwhile objects on which to exercise its techniques. Blackburn's book should more fully discuss these objects (whether material or intellectual, political or cultural or religious or whatever), the study of which is the only purpose of bothering at all with the techniques.
What and whence are the universe and our earth, what and whence are we, whither are we, why are we, how do we (how must we?) structure our private and our group lives, is there morality, what is morality's framework, how and why do we think, and appreciate truth and beauty and love, do science, do scholarship, philosophize; is there an Absolute Other (not merely 'other' humans with different views from our own), a Creator God, out there? (It is petty of Blackburn to link on page 8 - with similar treatment elsewhere too - the "belief that the world is the product of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing intelligence" with "astrology [and] homeopathy", all considered equally rubbishable.)
A lot of the philosophizing described in this book seems to be meaningless word-play. The big names of the past two centuries invariably contradict each other and regularly deride their own earlier work. What worthwhile vision or subject matter emerge?
Wittgenstein says that his ideas are meaningless. One Google entry on A J Ayer says: "His Language, Truth and Logic ... made rather radical charges against philosophy itself, such as asserting that metaphysics was simply nonsense, that questions of value were nonexistent and that philosophers should concern themselves almost solely with language. ... In fairness ... Ayer himself realized many of the shortcomings of Language Truth and Logic. ... Then again, to declare oneself an out-and-out supporter of Ayer is to be left with such an emaciated version of 'philosophy' that it shouldn't be too difficult to become an expert in it."
And Nietzsche? Heidegger? Derrida? Sartre? What and where have they left us?
Most Helpful First | Newest First
Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed by Simon Blackburn (Paperback - 25 May 2006)