_philophile_ t1_irb5h6e wrote

>But when anything can mean everything (and why not, also its opposite while we are at it) then you aren't on a quest for knowledge.

I don't understand your point here. Are you denying the Hegelian dialectic as a process for uncovering truth and reaching understanding? That seems to he implicit in your framing, but I grant I may well be misunderstanding.

>To the point that I have read the worst scoundrels wiggling away from any responsibility towards their work, by claiming that the very damn language that they were using to convey such information is just too limited to actually know the world.

I think understanding with langugage is possible, to a point -- the impossibility of totalizing signification and recognition -- being that point. Is there something to be gained by denying the limitation of symbolic thought (aside from grasping for symbolic authority)? Again, may be misreading.

>And btw it's quite disingenuous to affirm that Carnap and other logical positivists failed. They set the basis for Popper's theory of truth, in what could be considered the biggest example of "progress" that there probably ever was in philosophy.

Definitely understand your point here... Disagree. 'Progess' is ideological in the most unproductive sense. Historicism is for fools and capitalists. Positivism is only useful toward those same ends.