For vols. 1-3 (2009-2011), cite articles as: Author, “Title,” Libertarian Papers [volume #], [article number] (year). Example: Jan Narveson, “Present Payments, Past Wrongs: Correcting Loose Talk about Nozick and Rectification,” Libertarian Papers 1, 1 (2009).
For vol. 4 (2012) onward, cite articles as: Author. Year. "Title." Libertarian Papers. Volume # (issue #): [page numbers]. Example: Michael F. Reber. 2012. "The Role of Work: A Eudaimonistic Perspective." Libertarian Papers. 4 (1): 1-26.
8. “Truth in Philosophy”
by Tibor R. Machan
Abstract: Can there be truth in philosophy? A problem: it is philosophy, its various schools, that advances what counts as true versus false, how to go about making the distinction. This is what I wish to focus on here and see if some coherent, sensible position could be reached on the topic.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[Mises Institute]](http://mises.org/Community/resized-image.ashx/__size/500x400/__key/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00.00.08.00.78/80x15.png)
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
Pilate asked, “What is truth?” The question itself implies that a real universe may not even exist, but if it does it is probably impossible to describe it or know anything about it.
Our knowledge of the real universe must begin with an empiricist approach in which we are making observations from experience and experimentation. In this approach we will want to take seriously the observations, experiences, and experiments of those who have preceded us.
It is true that we have definite limitations in both our perceptions and our abilities of language. These limitations however, are not sufficient for us to suggest that we know nothing.
Raw nihilism is unacceptable, because at the end of that road is social and personal self destruction. In the end it is a denial of the real and objective universe. On the contrary, we are smart, and construct tools that enable us to perceive what the human eye cannot see by itself, and to perceive what the human ear cannot hear.
We begin with an article of faith: that the objective universe exists and we have the marginal capacity to understand at least some of it, and to describe it.
All of our knowledge is based on probability…i.e. based on the available data of the universe which we currently have in hand. Newton’s universe was perfectly acceptable for a very long time until Einstein began thinking about travel at the speed of light. The fact that we are not perfect does not mean that our lives, and thoughts, and efforts are meaningless.
What is right or true is that which most accurately describes the universe as it is…in spite of our limitations. From my libertarian perspective, what is right or true is that which most accurately describes natural law.
You say: ‘raw nihilism is unacceptable, because at the end of the road there’s social and personal destruction…’
At the end of the road you could have found bad news in any ideologic case – teleologic or not, nihilistic or less.Your perspective sounds like a social consideration, rather than a philosophical consequence induced
by the evidence . Quite difficult to testify a social experience, even more if you try to demonstrate , in a cartesian deduction, it….
contains ever a violence meaning.