Averroes Double Truth View

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@philosopher mentioned this to me, saying It sounds like me. I have no idea what this is and I"m not sure I like this term. Can some one explain it to me? (without making stuff up)

Double truth

I do not think this is quite what I am saying. I think I’m more of (to invite a term) a Realist-Perspectivist. Or maybe a critical realist:

Theological critical realism

… I propose a form of critical realism . This is a way of describing the process of “knowing” that acknowledges the reality of the thing known, as something other than the knower (hence “realism”), while fully acknowledging that the only access we have to this reality lies along the spiralling path of appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and the thing known (hence “critical”).[2]

Reminds me of my last identity crisis on this topic: What Exactly Am I?

@swamidass

This is not something merely chalked up to interpretation errors, that can be eventually refined out, but rather is a consequence of our creaturely limitations. Therefore, I see great wisdom in the Eastern parable of the blind men and the Elephant:

It was six men of Indostan // To learning much inclined, // Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind), //That each by observation // Might satisfy his mind

Each in his own opinion concludes that the elephant is like a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan or rope, depending upon where they had touched. Their heated debate comes short of physical violence, but the conflict is never resolved.
Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia

This is not to deny absolute truth, mind you. There is an Elephant. There are truthful and false ways of describing said Elephant. There is a solid reality with which we are all engaged. All that is true. This seems very classical and modern of me.

Rather it is to recognize that we are unavoidably bound to our limited view of reality. Our view of the world is bound to our language, culture, time, history, experience, and more. This should humble us substantially, as what ever we think of the world, we will find someone whose perspective should add to our limited understanding. We should probably default to both/and, instead of either/or, even if there are certainly many things that are false. Even if they are false, however, there is often truth within them that should be and can be affirmed. This seems very postmodern of me.

[Guy_Coe]

We are, in fact, not bound to a limited view of the “Elephant” based upon combining our blind samplings, for we do share the faculty to read the book that the “Elephant” wrote about Himself! What limits our view, mostly, is our stilted imaginations.

[jongarvey]

Josh

You’re definitely closer to critical realism than double meaning.

[Dan_Eastwood]

Double Plus True!

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Dan_Eastwood

Double Plus True!

What do you mean?

[Quest]

There is no such thing as double truth. One truth is scarce enough

[Dan_Eastwood]

It was supposed to be a humorous reference to “Newspeak” , from the distopian novel 1984 by George Orwell. It uses words like Plusgood and double-plusgood eliminates synomyns for “good”. It also eliminate unnecessary antonyms, so “bad” becomes “ungood”, double-plus ungood, etc…

Also lost are the concepts of right/wrong, good/evil. Orwell’s vision of the future is a terrible place.

IOW: I was totally off-topic.

[jongarvey]

@Dan_Eastwood

Orwell’s vision of the future is a terrible place

Sounds like Foucault’s vision of the present.