On Truth

Frankfurt writes a short clip about why "Truth" exists, and it is useful. He succeeds more in the latter than the former. Citing the needs of bridge builders, he states that facts (and as an extension truth) exists, and is useful. But would that really convince a post-modernist who believes it is all in the point of view, whether cultural or economic? Perhaps the bridge is a special case... But I digress... The book defends truth as instrumental in getting through life, and finding one's boundries as a human being. Sources range from Spinoza to Shakespeare, with a poet thrown in the middle. (ok - so Shakespeare was used as a counter example) If you're interested in the subject to read the review, go for the book. It won't take long to read, and it certaintly can't hurt.

Full disclosure: I am an attorney, not a professor of philosophy. As my profession must deal with unending loads of BS and is one that ostensibly seeks "truth," Dr. Frankfurt's latest essay was required reading. I stress essay and choose to recognize what this book accomplishes rather than what it does not. I found this volume to be a worthy introduction to an exceedingly important topic. "On Truth" is a sequel to a famous predecessor regarding BS wherein Dr. Frankfurt uses the common vulgarity as a metaphor for the goals of our society. However, he felt that he had failed to adequately show the dangers of indifference to truth, which he defines as the hallmark of BS. His premise is that our society is based on truth sufficient to weather the increasing storms of BS but that the foundations of our culture are susceptible to the continual eroding force of BS. He argues that we need to start paying attention to truth before we lose the concept and are unable to repair the damage being done. The Declaration of Independence began "We hold these truths to be self-evident" thus, those who went on to accomplish the American Revolution, draft and enact the Constitution, and who were generally recognized as a pretty capable bunch, did not collapse into arguments and finger-pointing about the philosophical niceties of what they were about. The self-evident truths of the founding fathers were rather like Justice Stewart's famous admission that pornography is hard to define, but "I know it when I see it." Truth is a staple of religious training--folks used to get their weekly dose in Sunday School. Thus, the decline in religious observance seems to be closely mirrored by the decline in appreciation for and understanding of truth in general. Too few commentators dare to approach the issue--the vicious attacks on those who profess any belief in truth are all too common, as is the prevailing attitude that "your truth" need not be "my truth." Accordingly, "On Truth" is more of a warning than a summation. It is a piece of evidence, not proof of the argument. States Dr. Frankfurt: truth is of immense practicality, if we lose respect for truth we cease striving after it, we are more creatures of truth than we admit, ignorance and error have no value, lack of respect for the value of truth will ultimately cost us the very powers that give us the power to create. Highly Recommended

I write this review because there are criticisms that are irrelevant concerning the lack of creativity involved in the writing of this book. One criticism is that it is not thorough. It is not the be-all and end-all. It is a quick, accessible, interesting, insightful read though. As an undergraduate I double-majored in German & Philosophy. Now I am about to complete my M.A. in German Studies and pursue philosophy as a hobby. I am a pragmatist. As a pragmatist, the book is also particularly scintillating to me. I am a pragmatist as a direct consequence of William James's Pragmatism, my favourite work of philosophy. I am also reading James's The Meaning of Truth from time to time. Frankfurt raises a fascinating problem in this work: the problem of a beneficial lie. He also cites 2 works by Montaigne ("Of Liars") and Kant ("On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives"), which I now feel compelled to read if I can obtain thru interlibrary loan. Frankfurt argues that yes, some things are relative, but reminds me of the importance of getting it right. As I was schooled by a professor steeped in postmodernism, I have to find myself keeping postmodern tendences in thinking in check. Yes, engineers and architects and doctors do not have time for discussing some non-beneficial abstract notion of relativism, nor are they paid to do so. If this was all they focused on, they would not excel in their professions, and would not be successful. I found this work insightful and personally helpful. More importantly, I found it culturally responsible and with a strong sense of social conscience so absent amongst philosophers that seem more and more ethically bankrupt. The most relevant questions are the most important. The question of truth is one that is relevant to us all. Thus, it is one of the most important. This is a good starting place and I feel may change peoples lives who have a tendency to lie. I have considered buying it as a gift for some friends of mine, so well did I like this book.

On Truth is a solid continuation of Frankfurt's On B.S. It is a quick read, being an essay really and not a book, and should be required reading for any and all postmodernists. Here Frankfurt's main point is that though it may be hip to declare yourself a relativist, or a "postmodernist," though it seems to be excruciatingly sexy to claim that you do not believe in objective truth, there really is no such position. EVERYONE believes in objective truth whether they realize it or not. They reveal this fact in their actions. They know full well and good that, even if they are a postmodernist, that if they walk off a cliff they will fall to their death and not hover in the air, regardless of their postmodernist beliefs. In other words, behind all their postmodernist B.S. and posing lies just what they claim does not exist: belief in objective truths, such as gravity. Those in the liberal arts and sciences who preach such intellectual rubbish as postmodernism are chasing a contradiction. This is easily demonstrated: Fred says "Well, there are no OBJECTIVE truths--what I believe is true for me and what you believe is true for you." Walter says "Well, I believe that that is false." Bingo, Fred's claim is impossible. Why? Because if Fred is right, then Walter is right also, which means Fred is wrong. They cannot both be correct. Fred says "There is no such thing as objective truth," well, if he's right then what he said IS objectively true, and that's a contradiction. The same contradiction exists in the position of cultural relativism: We must tolerate the beliefs of other cultures, for they exist in their own mode of reality, which is separate from ours. Oh yeah? Well, what if a culture believes another should be wiped out in a grand act of genocide? If we interfere then we are not being tolerant of their cultural beliefs. The cultural relativist says there are no objective moral truths and then at the same time claims that "tolerance" IS an objective moral truth. This is contradictory. Frankfurt also points out, as I have in my own writing, that it is not enough to be a pragmatist. One cannot merely say that truths are important because they have practical value. This begs the question, why do they have practical value? They do precisely because true statements are accurate descriptions of reality, plain and simple. They benefit us for a reason, and that is because they reduce uncertainty about the world. They serve this function because they are, in fact, the truth. They serve to inform us about the true state of affairs. Frankfurt's essay is also then must reading for pragmatists, as he makes it clear that they embrace an empty position. Science for example, does not just give us "useful" or "pragmatic" findings. Its findings are "useful" BECAUSE they are correct. When John Snow said that cholera was a water-borne illness this was useful in London BECAUSE he was right. Those who said it was caused by miasma, or "bad air," did not offer useful findin

Truth to tell, it would appear that some humorless admirers of some (let's be honest) less well known philosphers (Simon Blackburn??) have a problem with this little book, which hardly proclaims to be the last word on the subject but is still a thoughtful and entertaining read. Yes, if this is the subject of your dissertation, or your hobby is metaphysics, you might find the Professor's other books more challenging. But if you want a short and very deadpan (think Colbert Report) performance on a big subject, showing tongue-in-cheek how far society has come from the common-sense respect for simple (non-metaphyscial) truth, by all means don't be scared off by people with obscure axes to grind. Refreshing and actually memorable. I intend to stock up for certain "truth challenged" friends on my list!