Abstract
There are several distinct components of the realist anti-realist debate. Since each side in the debate has its disadvantages, it is tempting to try to combine realist theses with anti-realist theses in order to obtain a better, more moderate position. Putnam attempts to hold a realist concept of truth, yet he rejects realist metaphysics and realist semantics. He calls this view “internal realism”. Truth is realist on this picture for it is objective, rather than merely intersubjective, and eternal. Putnam introduces a concept of epistemic idealization — epistemically ideal conditions, or idealized justification — to try to ground the strong objectivity of truth without sliding into metaphysical realism. I argue that the concept of ideal conditions to which Putnam appeals does not cohere with his (anti-realist) commitment to an assertability conditions account of meaning.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dreben, B.: 1992, ‘Putnam, Quine — and the Facts’,Philosophical Topics 20 (1), 293–315.
Dummett, M.: 1959, ‘Truth’,Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society LIX; reference to reprinting in Dummett: 1978,Truth and Other Enigmas, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 1–28.
Ebbs, G.: 1992, ‘Realism and Rational Inquiry’,Philosophical Topics 20 (1), 1–33.
Putnam, H.: 1983,Realism and Reason, Philosophical Papers, Vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Putnam, H.: 1987,The Many Faces of Realism, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois.
Putnam, H.: 1988,Representation and Reality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Putnam, H.: 1990,Realism with a Human Face, edited and introduced by James Conant, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Folina, J. Putnam, realism and truth. Synthese 103, 141–152 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01090045
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01090045