[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote (back in post 310):

When I said that 'facts' like 'killing is wrong' or 'water is wet', etc are nothing to do with 'Truth' I meant simply that they are facts, which are 'products' of our response to Truth - ie, 'Truth', in the sense in which I am using it, refers not to moral codes or precepts, but to the source of those codes, the thing which inspires them in us.

Ah! I'm glad you said that. That is I think something like the definition I was asking for. "Truth" means "the source of truth" where the uncapitalized is understood in the conventional sense - is that it? That's certainly a definition I can live with - of course in another context I would still dispute whether "the source of truth" makes any sense. But I can certainly suspend that doubt and accept the term as a well-defined one.

My problem in so far as coming to an agreement as to what Truth is, in an attempt to reach some kind of common ground, is that I cannot 'translate' my conceptions of Truth, Joy, etc into terms which would fit your world view, at least not without sacrificing what I mean by them, in order to make them 'fit' - & if I could, we wouldn't really be debating on common ground, we'd be debating on grounds that you had set out, & we would have to remain on that sharply defined ground, if we wanted the debate to continue, & wherever the debate went, it could only go where you allowed it to go.

I understand that, and that's why I said earlier that we had come to an impasse. For if I were to simply accept your Truth/Joy/Tao, we would be debating on grounds that you had set.

The reason I was so interested in hearing your definition of "Truth" is that I wanted to know whether it was a term we could both accept and simply use even if we thought it meant different things.

Since metaphors are so fashionable in this thread: imagine a Jewish theologian and a Christian theologian discussing some subject. They may very well have occasion to refer to "God" in this discussion. Now, each one means a different thing by "God". The Jew means a singular omnipotent being; the Christian means the Trinity (forgive me if I'm oversimplifying this, but you get the point). But, unless they are debating these specific differences, they can quite comfortably use the word "God" with each other and as if they were referring to exactly the same thing. Their ideas about the meaning of the term "God" are different, but they are similar enough to allow discussion involving "God".

But now take a Christian and an ancient Greek "pagan". The Greek also has a word "god". But he or she means something quite different. There will be few topics that the two could discuss in which they can use the word "god" simpliciter.

I was hoping that our disagreement about Truth was like the Christian and the Jew rather than the Christian and the mythologist. That is, I was hoping that we could accept some broad definition for Truth and leave the exact contents of the definition unspecified. It appeared earlier that we cannot in fact do this. So, to be honest, I am a bit confused about why you continued (back in post 310, again) to argue in favor of your concept of Truth. As I see it, you indeed belive that:

If we limit ourselves to the physical, material world, that can be encompassed by current psychological & literary theories, whatever conclusions we may come to would not really be relevant, as central issues would have been rejected.

. . . then I'm afraid there is simply no more to be discussed, for in such a case your definition of "Truth" differs in a way crucial to the subject at hand from any definition I can accept.

You wrote:

My world view includes the metaphysical as well as the physical, but yours seems limited only to the physical, so I would not be allowed to offer metaphysical 'proofs' - which by their nature can only be expressed through feelings & experiences.

If by "metaphysical" you mean something like "supernatural" or "not reducible to logic and physics" then you're right. I don't want a proof of anything; but again, if Truth is in your view necessarily not reducible to logic and physics, then we have no common term.

I have to say that you & SpM seem to get het up at claims that you are missing something, almost as if you're 'demanding' that I, or Helen, or H-I should 'reaveal' the 'secret' to you, or stop implying that there is such a 'secret'. Yet you claim to be so confident that you have understood it all in the way that you want, & that anything we could 'reveal' - if we deigned to let you in on the hidden meaning - would not interest you because it can't be True anyway, because there's no such thing as Truth.

So, here we are, us saying Truth exists, you denying it exists, but demanding that we tell you what it is anyway. If you don't feel you're missing out on anything why do you keep asking us to tell you what you're missing out on?

Well, I hope I've at last made my position clear (as I've been trying and failing to do in the past two or three posts). I am not demanding that you "reveal" anything to me; I simply wanted to know what you mean when you say Truth - just as, if I started using some term like "goomak" in the discussion, you'd want to know what I meant by it. That's a completely separate issue from that of the viability of reading Tolkien's literary theory with Faerie and Truth as psychological objects rather than metaphysical ones.

In connection with this last point, Mister Underhill wrote:

Surely he means more than “the set of true propositions” about the world: 2+2=4, the earth is round, and so forth. Unless I mistake what you mean by “set of true propositions” – which I take to be limited solely to rational, provable, indisputable, factual propositions

I'm afraid you do misunderstand me. The set of true propositions could (a priori) be as abstract as one likes. It could include truths that cannot, even in principle, ever be tested. It could include transcedent truths, if such things exist. And so on.

Now, as for my claim that "On Faery Stories" and the rest can be read with purely psychological definitions for "Truth" and so on - certainly this is not what Tolkien intended, or what he believed. My point is that nonetheless I think his theory is a perfectly coherent and sound one even if one replaced his transcendental truths with psychological ones.