08.01.2013 Views

roger wasson company - cheapersunglasses.com

roger wasson company - cheapersunglasses.com

roger wasson company - cheapersunglasses.com

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

propositions could be either tested or correlated to the body of<br />

propositions taken to be valid.<br />

(2) The theory of coherence itself is no exception to its own<br />

truth. It too, as a formulated theory, is to be tested in the same<br />

manner. But how, you say, is this possible? How could I apply<br />

the theory if I did not first formulate it, and how if it is true,<br />

could I formulate it if I did not know its truth to begin with?<br />

The answer is that the coherence theory is merely the formulation,<br />

in consciousness, of the way in which the a priori categorical<br />

structure ideally functions from the outset in the<br />

manipulation of experiential data. It is not then that I need to<br />

know the theory to begin with, but that the theory is a conscious<br />

description of the way in which I do in fact think to begin with.<br />

The whole argument for synthetic apriorism is therefore an argument<br />

for the coherence theory of truth: and just as the apriori<br />

categories as such were established by showing that without<br />

them knowledge would be impossible, so the coherence theory<br />

is established in the same way by showing that rational nature<br />

does in fact test its propositions in this manner and that if valid<br />

knowledge were not thus attainable, skepticism would result.<br />

(3) The theory does not appeal to certain axioms as selfevident.<br />

In fact, no proposition is self-evident as such. If it is a<br />

basic proposition, its validity is demonstrated by showing that<br />

if the proposition were not true, knowledge would be impossible.<br />

It is sometimes said, for example, that the law of contradiction<br />

is self-evident because its reaffirmation is involved in its<br />

denial. But as Blanshard points out, this argument is itself an<br />

appeal to coherence: [[Page 103]]<br />

[indent] The demonstration lies in showing that acceptance<br />

of the law is necessary on pain of incoherence. The argument<br />

is: if the law of contradiction holds, then within the system governed<br />

by it even the assertion that it does not hold assumes that<br />

it does. The incoherence is between the principle of the system

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!