1. Why Williams
2. Williams problem
3. A problem with Williams problem
4. Intrinsic versus ingrainness
5. Cs in recent philosophy
6. Equivocation about "truth"
7. From the value to the virtue of truth.
Williams is grouped with the analytic branch of philosophy. Engaged most of career in
moral philosophy. He engages contemporary continentalitsts like Derrida, and figures
from the Frankfurt school. He is critical of much of his own tradition, and sometimes
unfairly critical. Bernard is as much as part of the continental philosophy as derrida or
Foucault. Continental philosophy as a group of deniers?
Williams problem. How does William sees a problem? It is not just an abstraction or
paradox. It has real world implications. This question has an ethical/moral side of things.
What's the real consequence of the problem of truth? The minimal answer to this
question is the problems that he find in contemporary humanities. Are there legitimate
authorities in history? The idea is that if you abandon the possibility of legitimacy in
social truths, you are just left with basic power. That's the minimal issue at stake. The
maximal consequence of this is if we deny the truth, we not only lose the legitimate
authority of truth, we lose everything. The everything is the common world we interact.
Page seven. The common world consequences has real life origins. Politicians
frequently lie to us, and we don't like it. We are used to deception in everyday life. There
seems to be a basic tension for truthfulness. We have suspicion of truth, we actually try
to find the truth, which means that we value truthfulness, else we would just be content
with deception. The fact that we aspire and pursue truth indicates the general value of
truth. Truth, in itself, can it be really known by us? This is a tension. Somehow we deny
ourselves of the truth in our pursuit of truth by disbelief. Therein lies the possibility of
Williams wants to show that we already respect the truth in our behaviour. The problem
with this is that on the other hand, we are at the same time, we are prone ourselves to
deceiving others and prone to accepting the deception of others. How are these two
instincts related? The desire for truthfulness is qualified by our doubts of the possibility
of truth. Those doubts can build to a point of whether the truth can be attained.
Presumably the primary cause of the doubt of our truths, is not the byproduct of the
process of obtaining truth, but the sheer amount of possibilities in the pursuit of truth.
Social life seems to tolerate and promote a whole bunch of lies and bullshit. There is a
basic cynicism that we have with the truth of others, especially with public figures. A distinction between the intrinsic and instrumental value of true. Deception may have
an instrumental value. A social life. But truth must have intrinsic value? What does this
mean? He does not mean the intrinsic value of nature. The intrinsic value of truth is not
absolute objectived truth, but a set of agreements that map statements (signs) to that
which is referred to. It is with this view in mind of the necessity for most of our
statements and values to be true, or else we could not live in this world. This view itself
about language and truth, is taken about by Williams, and is called by the party of
common sense because it has rehabilitated truth in everyday roles. The series of signs
that dominate language, are truths that are accessible to everyone, pervasive, and
Equivocation about truth. Williams uses truth in different ways. On the one hand, there
is truth that is the most proper truth, or the platonic idea of the underlying structure of
reality, a non rel