Unbelievers do not use words in ways that are inherently philosophically corrupted. We all use words to refer to the same things in the world, the objects of common human experience.
We use some words and concepts in common, others not, so we can cherry pick examples.
Your advisor rejects social constructionism and some other postmodernist nonsense. Great. But many unbelievers do not. So, they use words like "truth" as a different concept than I do. The phrase "my truth" is gibberish to me, but not to them. I don't know that we could find a dictionary definition of truth that both parties accept, and then disagree only later about details. I doubt that we could agree on definitions of "morality" and similar words except by defining them in terms of words whose definitions, it turns out on deeper examination, we disagree on, such as "right" and "wrong."
I know the kind of thing you’re saying, but I wouldn’t put it that way, and I think you should put it differently too! If we’re using different concepts when we say “truth,” truth1 and truth2, then our statements, “There is truth,” and “There is no truth, only power,” do not contradict each other. Instead of saying that we use different concepts, I would say that we endorse contrary, even contradictory propositions, using common concepts.
In particular, postmodernists primarily think that truth is “correspondence to reality,” like most of us do. They just deny that there is such a thing! Our concepts and definitions are, in principle, the same. This is what makes disagreement possible; it’s what makes error possible. The postmodernists are wrong that there is no truth, precisely they are using the correct concept of truth, and there IS truth.
In philosophy, people do disagree on definitions sometimes, but I don’t think this means we have different concepts. I think it means that finding the best, succinct circumlocution for a word is tricky. Again, in debating definitions of truth, we had better be using the same concept “truth.” Otherwise we wouldn’t even be disagreeing. What would we be disagreeing about?
The same for other concepts. I think everyone knows what “right” and “wrong” mean; they know the concepts. But we disagree about what is right and what is wrong. We couldn’t even have that disagreement if we weren’t using the same concepts.
I think this is an important distinction. For unbelievers to be accountable to God for sin, they have to be accountable for truth, which they attempt to deny, and right and wrong, which they fail to abide by. We also need to be able to appeal to their knowledge (if implicit) of truth, right, and wrong. These are the most contentious concepts, the ones you might think people have different concepts of. But they are precisely the ones that Christian theology holds that all people are possessed of. That common ground, point of contact, is the basis to which we can appeal for the sake of conviction of sin and the need of the gospel.
Interesting. One idea is that truth can vary from person to person, the other that truth is universal, irrespective of person. I guess I would want to say that “my truth, and your truth” are conceptual contradictions. If you admit that people have different concepts, then you cannot say that the idea of truth includes universality.
Part of this is evidenced in how you would argue against the subjectivist. My argument would be that if there is my truth and your truth, then there really is no truth. I also think that the main reason people adopt subjectivism is to avoid truth, by assimilating thought to preference or taste. But again, I want to say that that’s to get truth and thought wrong. I don’t want to grant that subjectivists have a different concept of truth or thought.
Not sure that distinction (same concept, but getting it wrong) can hold. Just think of any less abstract example. "That man and I have the same definition of marriage, but he gets it wrong." Sounds to me like he defines marriage differently than I do.
We use some words and concepts in common, others not, so we can cherry pick examples.
Your advisor rejects social constructionism and some other postmodernist nonsense. Great. But many unbelievers do not. So, they use words like "truth" as a different concept than I do. The phrase "my truth" is gibberish to me, but not to them. I don't know that we could find a dictionary definition of truth that both parties accept, and then disagree only later about details. I doubt that we could agree on definitions of "morality" and similar words except by defining them in terms of words whose definitions, it turns out on deeper examination, we disagree on, such as "right" and "wrong."
I know the kind of thing you’re saying, but I wouldn’t put it that way, and I think you should put it differently too! If we’re using different concepts when we say “truth,” truth1 and truth2, then our statements, “There is truth,” and “There is no truth, only power,” do not contradict each other. Instead of saying that we use different concepts, I would say that we endorse contrary, even contradictory propositions, using common concepts.
In particular, postmodernists primarily think that truth is “correspondence to reality,” like most of us do. They just deny that there is such a thing! Our concepts and definitions are, in principle, the same. This is what makes disagreement possible; it’s what makes error possible. The postmodernists are wrong that there is no truth, precisely they are using the correct concept of truth, and there IS truth.
In philosophy, people do disagree on definitions sometimes, but I don’t think this means we have different concepts. I think it means that finding the best, succinct circumlocution for a word is tricky. Again, in debating definitions of truth, we had better be using the same concept “truth.” Otherwise we wouldn’t even be disagreeing. What would we be disagreeing about?
The same for other concepts. I think everyone knows what “right” and “wrong” mean; they know the concepts. But we disagree about what is right and what is wrong. We couldn’t even have that disagreement if we weren’t using the same concepts.
I think this is an important distinction. For unbelievers to be accountable to God for sin, they have to be accountable for truth, which they attempt to deny, and right and wrong, which they fail to abide by. We also need to be able to appeal to their knowledge (if implicit) of truth, right, and wrong. These are the most contentious concepts, the ones you might think people have different concepts of. But they are precisely the ones that Christian theology holds that all people are possessed of. That common ground, point of contact, is the basis to which we can appeal for the sake of conviction of sin and the need of the gospel.
What do "my truth" and "your truth" mean if we all agree that "truth" means correspondence to reality?
Interesting. One idea is that truth can vary from person to person, the other that truth is universal, irrespective of person. I guess I would want to say that “my truth, and your truth” are conceptual contradictions. If you admit that people have different concepts, then you cannot say that the idea of truth includes universality.
Part of this is evidenced in how you would argue against the subjectivist. My argument would be that if there is my truth and your truth, then there really is no truth. I also think that the main reason people adopt subjectivism is to avoid truth, by assimilating thought to preference or taste. But again, I want to say that that’s to get truth and thought wrong. I don’t want to grant that subjectivists have a different concept of truth or thought.
Not sure that distinction (same concept, but getting it wrong) can hold. Just think of any less abstract example. "That man and I have the same definition of marriage, but he gets it wrong." Sounds to me like he defines marriage differently than I do.