Batshit Crazy II

Ms. Oetting has been busy again, this time with a post titled "Rape of the Truth." Yes, my irony meter slammed into the stop peg, too.

Less racism this time out, but the same proportions of venom, contempt, and ignorance. I left a comment, again. I suppose it comes across as condescending, but, damn it, if you're going to make philosophical arguments, you probably should know something about philosophy:

Tracy, there is no usage of "empiricism" in English that corresponds to what you’ve said:

However, our progressive counterparts, for the most part, believe that reality is entirely subjective, with all of reality being inside the brain of the perceiving subject with nothing independent of it. This philosophy is also known as Empiricism.

This is solipsism and is regarded as the antithesis of empiricism.

Adler’s book was written in 50s and has thus missed much of significance in the development of philosophical thinking over the last half century. Adler also indulged his prejudices quite freely and his book should not be mistaken for a systematic (let alone consistent) approach to philosophy.

I haven’t read Sire, but IVP is generally not a reliable publisher when it comes to philosophy.

If you really want to understand philosophy, I strongly recommend Metaphysics: An Introduction by Michael Loux or Metaphysics by Peter Van Inwagen. Inwagen is a Christian so that you may be more comfortable with him. Loux is a bit more rigorous. Neither of these are easy reading. However, given the complexity and significance of the issues, they deserve serious attention. You might also find Robert Audi's Epistemology: An Introduction of interest.

The correspondence theory of truth that you talk about is quite problematic in many ways. The American philosopher Hilary Putnam examines this in great (some might say excruciating) detail. Putnam is not what you would call postmodernist. His essay "Language and Meaning" in his collected papers would be the best place to begin thinking through the issues. Any of his books touch on this at some point.

All of this presupposes, of course, that you’re actively interested in thinking through the issues rather than throwing things together into a club with which to beat up people whose politics you dislike.