What do you think?
Rate this book
“What is philosophy?” is a question that admits many answers. One of the simplest—and the best—was suggested by the philosopher John Campbell: “Thinking in slow motion.” But, for most people, slow motion is only appealing in small doses. A whole movie in slow-mo would be one for the art gallery, not the multiplex. This is the problem that faces those who want to write about philosophy for a broad readership: a certain amount of fast-forward is needed, but if you go too fast you’ll stop doing philosophy altogether.
John D Caputo’s entertaining investigation into the nature of truth gets the balance right. His project is to show how postmodernism can help us think through contemporary debates about religion, relativism and the legacy of the Enlightenment. Rather than dividing the world into strict categories such as the rational and irrational, Caputo’s postmodern approach tries to widen our understanding of truth. He is not a naive relativist, however. “I am not arguing against the truth of propositions,” he says. “I am arguing that truth cannot be confined to propositions.” This means taking seriously the truths one encounters in novels, say, as well as religious narratives.
As this last idea suggests, there is plenty in Truth to annoy Richard Dawkins, as well as many contemporary analytic philosophers—but the book is better off for its boldness. Rather than pre-empting every counter-attack, Caputo sets out his case confidently, enlisting Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Derrida as his allies. (His explanation of Derrida’s thought is one of the clearest that I’ve read.) This book does not claim to be the final word on truth—indeed Caputo believes the quest for an ultimate and unchanging definition of truth is doomed to failure—but it might be the starting point for a more sophisticated discussion.
John D Caputo’s entertaining investigation into the nature of truth gets the balance right. His project is to show how postmodernism can help us think through contemporary debates about religion, relativism and the legacy of the Enlightenment. Rather than dividing the world into strict categories such as the rational and irrational, Caputo’s postmodern approach tries to widen our understanding of truth. He is not a naive relativist, however. “I am not arguing against the truth of propositions,” he says. “I am arguing that truth cannot be confined to propositions.” This means taking seriously the truths one encounters in novels, say, as well as religious narratives.
As this last idea suggests, there is plenty in Truth to annoy Richard Dawkins, as well as many contemporary analytic philosophers—but the book is better off for its boldness. Rather than pre-empting every counter-attack, Caputo sets out his case confidently, enlisting Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Derrida as his allies. (His explanation of Derrida’s thought is one of the clearest that I’ve read.) This book does not claim to be the final word on truth—indeed Caputo believes the quest for an ultimate and unchanging definition of truth is doomed to failure—but it might be the starting point for a more sophisticated discussion.
262 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
41 people are currently reading
402 people want to read
About the author
John D. Caputo
86 books146 followersJohn D. Caputo is an American philosopher who is the Thomas J. Watson Professor of Religion Emeritus at Syracuse University and the David R. Cook Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Villanova University. Caputo is a major figure associated with Postmodern Christianity, Continental Philosophy of Religion, as well as the founder of the theological movement known as weak theology. Much of Caputo's work focuses on hermeneutics, phenomenology, deconstruction and theology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
August 28, 2017
Great survey across the canon of philosophy regarding truth and how it can be defined. Caputo makes the philosophy of Hegel and Heidegger digestible, which is the biggest service this book did for me. Those versed in continental philosophy and Nietzsche may find much of this book unnecessary, however Caputo is great at representing the ties between ideas and you leave with a wealth of information in only a few hundred pages.
July 17, 2019
"We require a new way to think about truth and to find a way to think ourselves outside the box or bucket we call modernity... We need to recover something of the punch the word truth has lost, but to do this without losing all the progress made by modernity, which has become a bit punch-drunk with reason."
In this book Caputo sets out to" stage a comeback for the old idea of truth and wisdom but now wearing a postmodern hat." To define this new way to think about truth he focuses on religion which is a hybrid phenomenon in which all three elements (knowledge, ethics and art) of wisdom are fused and can thus give us a clue to what is going on in the broader culture:
"By criticizing the excessive rationalism of modernity, postmodernity has created an opening for what has been called the 'return of religion'."
"When I say religion I mean Augustine's idea of the restless searching heart in the midst of a mysterious world, not the rites and doctrines of what are called the 'confessional' religions or even signing off on what the confessional religions call God."
Further on, Caputo engages with some of Derrida's thought in a very fruitful way.
In the course of the book, one gets a more and more clear picture of what Caputo means when he says 'truth':
"Truth is the shock of the unknown that breaks into our lifes... Truth is our openness or exposure to the open-endedness of the self, or of the world, a being exposed to an unforeseeable future - or to an irrecuperable past - to something we cannot see coming, even if it is coming from the past."
It is strongly connected to ideas like that of 'event', 'surprise' and 'possibility', which are also explained quite well. What is very helpful are the examples Caputo gives, like the example of the Copernican Revolution as an event (something that 'knocks us of our horse').
Caputo interacts with multiple philosophers (modern and then postmodern). He shows for example how Hegel deals with religion and how in his thought God, reality and the spirit are connected:
"What we do is the unfolding life, the realization, of the spirit of the age or of history in and through us. Without us, the spirit is nothing real. Without the spirit, we are uninspired and have nothing to realize."
"What we call God in religion is, truth to tell, what Hegel, back in the philosophy department, called the 'absolute spirit'. [...] God's true nature is to unfold in space and time and ... the old transcendent God up in the sky is an imaginative way of speaking."
This is quite interesting, but for Caputo Hegel is still too much in the grip of the deepest assumption of Enlightenment, namely that the world is a system of reason. As a postmodernist he rejects the meta-narrative of the unfolding of the spirit (or God) in human history.
The following chapter gives insights into Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and shows how they prepared the way for postmodern philosophy.
Chapter 6 dives deeper into postmodern philosophy and explains three of its moves, hermeneutics, language games and paradigm shifts, which are crucial to 'the event' and thus to a postmodern understanding of truth.
In the last chapter, called 'The Future of Truth', Caputo mentions some recent and possible future developments in fields like technology, space travel, biology and others which could mark the beginning of a new paradigm, something he calls post-humanism. He launches several questions regarding the meaning philosophy and truth could have in this post-human age.
One of the more interesting things that happen in this chapter is his short elaboration of the concept of grace in postmodern thought. Other this I found the last chapter to be less compelling than the rest of the book.
Overall, this book was an amazing reading experience for me. As someone who is not that familiar with postmodern philosophy, I was pleasantly surprised that the book was challenging but still not too difficult to read (this was not the case with Caputo's 'The Weakness of God' which I tried to read a while ago). The ideas presented in this book are brilliant and serve, it seems to me, as a good introduction to postmodern philosophy.
I wholeheartedly recommend this book.
In this book Caputo sets out to" stage a comeback for the old idea of truth and wisdom but now wearing a postmodern hat." To define this new way to think about truth he focuses on religion which is a hybrid phenomenon in which all three elements (knowledge, ethics and art) of wisdom are fused and can thus give us a clue to what is going on in the broader culture:
"By criticizing the excessive rationalism of modernity, postmodernity has created an opening for what has been called the 'return of religion'."
"When I say religion I mean Augustine's idea of the restless searching heart in the midst of a mysterious world, not the rites and doctrines of what are called the 'confessional' religions or even signing off on what the confessional religions call God."
Further on, Caputo engages with some of Derrida's thought in a very fruitful way.
In the course of the book, one gets a more and more clear picture of what Caputo means when he says 'truth':
"Truth is the shock of the unknown that breaks into our lifes... Truth is our openness or exposure to the open-endedness of the self, or of the world, a being exposed to an unforeseeable future - or to an irrecuperable past - to something we cannot see coming, even if it is coming from the past."
It is strongly connected to ideas like that of 'event', 'surprise' and 'possibility', which are also explained quite well. What is very helpful are the examples Caputo gives, like the example of the Copernican Revolution as an event (something that 'knocks us of our horse').
Caputo interacts with multiple philosophers (modern and then postmodern). He shows for example how Hegel deals with religion and how in his thought God, reality and the spirit are connected:
"What we do is the unfolding life, the realization, of the spirit of the age or of history in and through us. Without us, the spirit is nothing real. Without the spirit, we are uninspired and have nothing to realize."
"What we call God in religion is, truth to tell, what Hegel, back in the philosophy department, called the 'absolute spirit'. [...] God's true nature is to unfold in space and time and ... the old transcendent God up in the sky is an imaginative way of speaking."
This is quite interesting, but for Caputo Hegel is still too much in the grip of the deepest assumption of Enlightenment, namely that the world is a system of reason. As a postmodernist he rejects the meta-narrative of the unfolding of the spirit (or God) in human history.
The following chapter gives insights into Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and shows how they prepared the way for postmodern philosophy.
Chapter 6 dives deeper into postmodern philosophy and explains three of its moves, hermeneutics, language games and paradigm shifts, which are crucial to 'the event' and thus to a postmodern understanding of truth.
In the last chapter, called 'The Future of Truth', Caputo mentions some recent and possible future developments in fields like technology, space travel, biology and others which could mark the beginning of a new paradigm, something he calls post-humanism. He launches several questions regarding the meaning philosophy and truth could have in this post-human age.
One of the more interesting things that happen in this chapter is his short elaboration of the concept of grace in postmodern thought. Other this I found the last chapter to be less compelling than the rest of the book.
Overall, this book was an amazing reading experience for me. As someone who is not that familiar with postmodern philosophy, I was pleasantly surprised that the book was challenging but still not too difficult to read (this was not the case with Caputo's 'The Weakness of God' which I tried to read a while ago). The ideas presented in this book are brilliant and serve, it seems to me, as a good introduction to postmodern philosophy.
I wholeheartedly recommend this book.
March 18, 2020
"Human beings are border people, living in the between, in the transition from the present to what is coming."
As an unexperienced reader of philosophy, I really liked this book, though it seemed rather abstract at times. I understood that I am a child of my time, and why I resonate so much with the ideas presented. Truth is not anymore understood as an absolute static, but the ways of its dynamic have to be explored. That is what Caputo does in this text, he consults many of the great philosophers of history about their views of truth and wisdom, and ties the findings together neatly. I can really say, I am thankful my friend recommended this book to me. I learned a lot about myself, too.
April 4, 2022
"We....want to be more enlightened when we speak about Enlightenment, less naïve when we speak about science, and less benighted when we speak about religion, art and ethics, not to mention everyday life, and all this in the name of truth."
November 25, 2019
A disappointing book in the end. In fact to get the flavour and essence of this book one need only read the introduction. It is a poorly disguised polemic against organised religion and a propaganda piece for Derrida's notion of truth as an 'event'. It is a well constructed polemic but ultimately it is full of gaping holes.
One of the biggest holes is the lack of rigour on the part of Caputo to explore the philosophy of truth in its fullness. He sets the book up as a sparring match between St Augustine and Jacques Derrida and eventually gives the decision to Derrida after some dodgy and biased refereeing decisions. It seems Caputo is much taken by the coincidences of their birth and upbringing and the notion that their lives are a 'repetition'. To continue the boxing analogy he has Descartes, Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche on the card to fill out the program. Without explanation Caputo jumps from Augustine in the 4th century to Descartes in 17th Century completely ignoring the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages and more crucially ignoring the 13th Century Thomas Aquinas whose philosophy was adopted by the Catholic Church under Poe Leo XIII. Aquinas' philosophy demonstrated the rationality of the universe as a revelation of God. To admit Aquinas into the equation would disturb the neat counterpoint Caputo achieves between Augustine and Derrida. It may make the narrative more coherent for Caputo but undermines his search for the Christian notion of truth.
Caputo also ignores Husserl's 2oth century phenomenonology. It's clear from the text why he ignores these aspects, it would upset the narrative thread which is signposted from the start that the author is in Derrida's corner, come what may.
Caputo, too often, went for a loose conversational style when more succinct prose was required. I found I had to refer to other sources to clarify the philosophical positions of Descartes, Kant and others. He gets lost in incoherent exposition at the start of each chapter, putting the cart before the horse in many cases.
For a Philosophy Professor who has a special interest in religion he falls into the lazy atheist trap, repeating some pretty tired assumptions about Christianity in the first chapter. A read of Rodney Stark's excellent 'The Victory of Reason' would clarify some presumptions he has made regarding Catholicism and Protestantism. His regular asides against organised religion are tiresome and without substance such as 'the beliefs of the confessional religions ... are beginning to look excessively weary'.
Throughout the book he is always skirting around the accusations of moral relativism inherent in an understanding of the 'event', a charge he never really answers convincingly. He acknowledges that the truth 'event' may be different for different people so where does the truth lie? Caputo doesn't like absolutes and uses scientific theories as examples of Absolutes that proved to be wrong. However that doesn't necessarily follow that moral absolutes will be proven wrong. His shapeshifting on this point is annoying, elusive and not convincing.
He speculative post-human truth was one of the weakest chapters in the book. I was surprised that a Professor of Philosophy could be taken in so easily by science fiction. Any minimal reflection on science and technology would reveal that any 'Battlestar Galactica' future for humankind is not technically, physically or morally possible for mankind. What should be of more concern for truth in the future is who owns the technology and how democracies can maintain some semblance of regulation around information and communication systems.
His trite conclusions, based on Derrida's openness to the 'event' seems to be that we should have faith in a future open to possibilities that is always better. 'We get the best results by facing up to the worst, I find a strange joy in all this not-knowing'. It is so threadbare a philosophy it is astonishing that he published it. It may be a attitude of life that works for him but is not plausible for a society or even plausible for a person who lacks basic freedoms due to their own particular circumstances or the political climate in which they live. According to his doctrine the truth seems to be always out there, just beyond the horizon and we have to live life in pursuit of that truth, knowing that we will never fully grasp it. He does not give any examples of his 'truth' in action.
I was completely deflated and frustrated by his conclusions. Almost amusingly he opens chapter two with a confession of his own inability to be open to the future truth when he relates how he tells one his children never to come home and tell him 'you are a Republican'.
If this is the best post-modern philosophy can come up with give us back the cliched certainties of the pre-modern era.
One of the biggest holes is the lack of rigour on the part of Caputo to explore the philosophy of truth in its fullness. He sets the book up as a sparring match between St Augustine and Jacques Derrida and eventually gives the decision to Derrida after some dodgy and biased refereeing decisions. It seems Caputo is much taken by the coincidences of their birth and upbringing and the notion that their lives are a 'repetition'. To continue the boxing analogy he has Descartes, Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche on the card to fill out the program. Without explanation Caputo jumps from Augustine in the 4th century to Descartes in 17th Century completely ignoring the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages and more crucially ignoring the 13th Century Thomas Aquinas whose philosophy was adopted by the Catholic Church under Poe Leo XIII. Aquinas' philosophy demonstrated the rationality of the universe as a revelation of God. To admit Aquinas into the equation would disturb the neat counterpoint Caputo achieves between Augustine and Derrida. It may make the narrative more coherent for Caputo but undermines his search for the Christian notion of truth.
Caputo also ignores Husserl's 2oth century phenomenonology. It's clear from the text why he ignores these aspects, it would upset the narrative thread which is signposted from the start that the author is in Derrida's corner, come what may.
Caputo, too often, went for a loose conversational style when more succinct prose was required. I found I had to refer to other sources to clarify the philosophical positions of Descartes, Kant and others. He gets lost in incoherent exposition at the start of each chapter, putting the cart before the horse in many cases.
For a Philosophy Professor who has a special interest in religion he falls into the lazy atheist trap, repeating some pretty tired assumptions about Christianity in the first chapter. A read of Rodney Stark's excellent 'The Victory of Reason' would clarify some presumptions he has made regarding Catholicism and Protestantism. His regular asides against organised religion are tiresome and without substance such as 'the beliefs of the confessional religions ... are beginning to look excessively weary'.
Throughout the book he is always skirting around the accusations of moral relativism inherent in an understanding of the 'event', a charge he never really answers convincingly. He acknowledges that the truth 'event' may be different for different people so where does the truth lie? Caputo doesn't like absolutes and uses scientific theories as examples of Absolutes that proved to be wrong. However that doesn't necessarily follow that moral absolutes will be proven wrong. His shapeshifting on this point is annoying, elusive and not convincing.
He speculative post-human truth was one of the weakest chapters in the book. I was surprised that a Professor of Philosophy could be taken in so easily by science fiction. Any minimal reflection on science and technology would reveal that any 'Battlestar Galactica' future for humankind is not technically, physically or morally possible for mankind. What should be of more concern for truth in the future is who owns the technology and how democracies can maintain some semblance of regulation around information and communication systems.
His trite conclusions, based on Derrida's openness to the 'event' seems to be that we should have faith in a future open to possibilities that is always better. 'We get the best results by facing up to the worst, I find a strange joy in all this not-knowing'. It is so threadbare a philosophy it is astonishing that he published it. It may be a attitude of life that works for him but is not plausible for a society or even plausible for a person who lacks basic freedoms due to their own particular circumstances or the political climate in which they live. According to his doctrine the truth seems to be always out there, just beyond the horizon and we have to live life in pursuit of that truth, knowing that we will never fully grasp it. He does not give any examples of his 'truth' in action.
I was completely deflated and frustrated by his conclusions. Almost amusingly he opens chapter two with a confession of his own inability to be open to the future truth when he relates how he tells one his children never to come home and tell him 'you are a Republican'.
If this is the best post-modern philosophy can come up with give us back the cliched certainties of the pre-modern era.
June 27, 2017
I think maybe I enjoyed this book because I am somewhat new to philosophy and theology - arriving at it from the outside - as 'laity' so to speak. This book, for me, felt like a really useful and engaging primer to the genealogy of 'postmodern' thought (which Caputo takes careful measure to distinguish strongly from 'relativism'), and produced this rare situation where I actually looked forward to looking into every end note I encountered. It felt like taking a compact course with a professor who had nothing but very interesting things (and people) to point towards. One who elegantly distilled and clarified concepts while carefully building a case for 'truth(s)' in very accessible (nearly conversational) prose.
Beginning with semantic and hermeneutic questions about the word 'truth', then moving to a striking comparison between Augustine and Derrida to establish what would become a recurring motif on the notion of 'repetition', Caputo then presents Descartes and Kant in their era of 'Reason' (citing Plato and Aristotle, when necessary), then retells the somewhat 'prophetic' turn away from Reason (as expressed by Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche), before arriving at a philosophy of 'Event' (citing Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Kuhn). And since this book was published sometime in 2013, Caputo's final chapter on the future of truth has some very interesting and relevant things to look into re science.
Ultimately with this book, Caputo is making a case for 'faith' in the 'Event', which I think is fairly subject to critique. Chomsky made a searing critique of what he referred to as 'postmodern cults' (sometime in the mid 90's) for their (1) disengagement with the very real yet unmet needs of global populations, especially those dealing with paralyzing inequalities, as well as the issue of postmodern 'theories' being either (2) trivial or (3) obscure. Caputo deals with the obscurity (3) in this book very well, and I'm not a distinguished academic like Chomsky, so what counts as trivial for him is not very trivial for me. So I would claim Caputo also adequately deals with that issue (2). What remains unresolved for me though is the struggles of enormous populations living outside the privileges of the over-developed Occident -- which goes virtually unmentioned throughout the book, though I am certain Caputo is the type of person that does deeply care about those issues.
Something I do commend: remaining true to the 'postmodern' tradition of disintegrating borders, Caputo draws from both sides of the 'continental'/'analytic' divide. My concern is that Caputo proposes a 'faith' that the future will be better based on a hope for an unanticipated 'Event'. To clarify, Caputo presents two sources of change put forward by Derrida, invention of: (1) 'the same' which functions in the same paradigm, or; (2) 'the wholly other' or an 'Event' which destabilizes the current paradigm and requires a new one. I think, in a sense, Chomsky feels the first source of change is being neglected in favour of the second one, resulting in an over-emphasis on the 'Event' (which is defined as some future occurrence which is unknown and cannot be anticipated, and requires an opening to 'risk' to make the 'Event' possible). This seems to be diverting important intellectual resources as well as institutional power away from organizing work that makes - what Chomsky claims as - a 'real difference'. Though it can also be claimed 'Events' have brought forward changes that have made monumental changes in everyone's life, though one would need to make a case to demonstrate the importance of 'self-awareness' within discontinuities ('Events') relative to the work that can be accomplished within the existing 'paradigm'. Even still, as Caputo would probably like me to do, I remain a little skeptical of this postmodern apologia, but still find it interesting and useful personally -- as well as publicly useful to consider in moderation, or in carefully determined circumstances. What I feel the book best serves as is a great launching pad into a broad spectrum of 'theology' and its related subjects -- essentially a well written list of recommended reading with some very interesting motivation as introduction.
Beginning with semantic and hermeneutic questions about the word 'truth', then moving to a striking comparison between Augustine and Derrida to establish what would become a recurring motif on the notion of 'repetition', Caputo then presents Descartes and Kant in their era of 'Reason' (citing Plato and Aristotle, when necessary), then retells the somewhat 'prophetic' turn away from Reason (as expressed by Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche), before arriving at a philosophy of 'Event' (citing Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Kuhn). And since this book was published sometime in 2013, Caputo's final chapter on the future of truth has some very interesting and relevant things to look into re science.
Ultimately with this book, Caputo is making a case for 'faith' in the 'Event', which I think is fairly subject to critique. Chomsky made a searing critique of what he referred to as 'postmodern cults' (sometime in the mid 90's) for their (1) disengagement with the very real yet unmet needs of global populations, especially those dealing with paralyzing inequalities, as well as the issue of postmodern 'theories' being either (2) trivial or (3) obscure. Caputo deals with the obscurity (3) in this book very well, and I'm not a distinguished academic like Chomsky, so what counts as trivial for him is not very trivial for me. So I would claim Caputo also adequately deals with that issue (2). What remains unresolved for me though is the struggles of enormous populations living outside the privileges of the over-developed Occident -- which goes virtually unmentioned throughout the book, though I am certain Caputo is the type of person that does deeply care about those issues.
Something I do commend: remaining true to the 'postmodern' tradition of disintegrating borders, Caputo draws from both sides of the 'continental'/'analytic' divide. My concern is that Caputo proposes a 'faith' that the future will be better based on a hope for an unanticipated 'Event'. To clarify, Caputo presents two sources of change put forward by Derrida, invention of: (1) 'the same' which functions in the same paradigm, or; (2) 'the wholly other' or an 'Event' which destabilizes the current paradigm and requires a new one. I think, in a sense, Chomsky feels the first source of change is being neglected in favour of the second one, resulting in an over-emphasis on the 'Event' (which is defined as some future occurrence which is unknown and cannot be anticipated, and requires an opening to 'risk' to make the 'Event' possible). This seems to be diverting important intellectual resources as well as institutional power away from organizing work that makes - what Chomsky claims as - a 'real difference'. Though it can also be claimed 'Events' have brought forward changes that have made monumental changes in everyone's life, though one would need to make a case to demonstrate the importance of 'self-awareness' within discontinuities ('Events') relative to the work that can be accomplished within the existing 'paradigm'. Even still, as Caputo would probably like me to do, I remain a little skeptical of this postmodern apologia, but still find it interesting and useful personally -- as well as publicly useful to consider in moderation, or in carefully determined circumstances. What I feel the book best serves as is a great launching pad into a broad spectrum of 'theology' and its related subjects -- essentially a well written list of recommended reading with some very interesting motivation as introduction.
May 24, 2016
I think this is a brilliant book. It discusses the evolution of theories of truth, leading to postmodern theories of truth and how it evolves based on context vs. relativism. It leaves me asking what control we have of these contexts, evoking the idea that: "We cannot predict the future, but we can invent it" (Nigel Calder, paraphrased from Dennis Gabor). The book concludes with questions on how the evolution of technology affects the evolution of truth.
June 2, 2021
— Truth as that which opens us up, leavens us for change, a seedling that flowers within us, not necessarily the thing that makes us the happiest, but which forces us, confronts us, the future yet-to-come, THE Event. But also, truth as hermeneutics, as getting the right framing; plausible interpretation vs implausible; a "take" more nuanced and unafraid to admit it's subjective bias, against the Aristotleian 'category', or 'bucket-thinking', as Caputo describes it (Faith vs Reason, Objectivity vs Bias, Science vs Non-Science).
— Ancient understanding of truth was different, not wrong, as so many people today think. Truth was much more holistic and integrated, rather than the weird obsession with 'logical' or 'propositional' truth we have today.
— The Descartean and Kantian trenches that philosophy has been thrown into and the need to climb out of them.
— Truth as what changes the Wittgenstinian game and shifts the Kuhnian paradigm.
— The importance of a very serious and deep engagement with what came before to innovation and creation. You can't innovate if you do not have in-depth knowledge of whatever it is you're engaging with. (Personal example: the most innovative DotA plays and players emanate from a profound knowledge of how the game and its mechanics work. )
The question of religious truth, rather than being a question of Enlightened Rationality vs delusion, is the barometer for healthy or unhealthy our understanding of truth is (currently very unhealthy). This did make a lot of sense, and I have been thinking about it in this way for some time. Today, it almost seems as if people are "pre-destined" to agree or disagree with something; and religious conversion seems the most apt way of describing how people change their mind on something.
— Pure Reason, the monster unleashed by The Enlightenment, like Godzilla finally collapsing and leveling an entire city with its rigid corpse, has done a lot of damage to our society.
— "Truth is the march of the spirit through time – which is Hegelspeak for saying that truth is realized only in and through the life of concrete individuals, peoples and ages – without which the spirit is unreal, a mere abstraction, a ghost."
— Hegel suffocating the world under the weight of Concept
— The idea of repetition (Derridian term): that's what I'm trying to do with so much of what i am aspiring to. Repeating the same move in a different game.
— The uncertainty of the future, the event(s) to-come, being the domain of truth.
— Ancient understanding of truth was different, not wrong, as so many people today think. Truth was much more holistic and integrated, rather than the weird obsession with 'logical' or 'propositional' truth we have today.
— The Descartean and Kantian trenches that philosophy has been thrown into and the need to climb out of them.
— Truth as what changes the Wittgenstinian game and shifts the Kuhnian paradigm.
— The importance of a very serious and deep engagement with what came before to innovation and creation. You can't innovate if you do not have in-depth knowledge of whatever it is you're engaging with. (Personal example: the most innovative DotA plays and players emanate from a profound knowledge of how the game and its mechanics work. )
The question of religious truth, rather than being a question of Enlightened Rationality vs delusion, is the barometer for healthy or unhealthy our understanding of truth is (currently very unhealthy). This did make a lot of sense, and I have been thinking about it in this way for some time. Today, it almost seems as if people are "pre-destined" to agree or disagree with something; and religious conversion seems the most apt way of describing how people change their mind on something.
— Pure Reason, the monster unleashed by The Enlightenment, like Godzilla finally collapsing and leveling an entire city with its rigid corpse, has done a lot of damage to our society.
— "Truth is the march of the spirit through time – which is Hegelspeak for saying that truth is realized only in and through the life of concrete individuals, peoples and ages – without which the spirit is unreal, a mere abstraction, a ghost."
— Hegel suffocating the world under the weight of Concept
— The idea of repetition (Derridian term): that's what I'm trying to do with so much of what i am aspiring to. Repeating the same move in a different game.
— The uncertainty of the future, the event(s) to-come, being the domain of truth.
May 24, 2022
John Caputo's book, "Truth" is good. It is a good book to read, and it helps that his style of writing is lucid and easy.
In general, I fear reading philosophical texts, because most authors believe it is essential, they kill the reader with boredom. John Caputo avoids this approach, and I thank him for it.
The introduction is brilliant, in particular, the way he uses the words 'sedentary' and 'pedestrian'. From there, he moved to a discussion of truth, as the ancients perceived it, as well as religious texts.
Then, he explored some "Enlightenment" philosophers, some "Modern" philosophers" as well as "post-modern" ones.
There is no absolute truth. We know this. In Vedic/Hindu philosophy, we have the Goddess Maya who casts a veil over us. In the rock opera "Jesus Christ Superstar", Jesus asked Pilate - "what is truth? is truth a changing law? what is truth? is mine the same as yours?"
It's possible to skip the entire book and just focus on those lines in the opera. However, then you'd miss a super romp through the 'history of truth'.
Keep one thing in mind: he has explored only Western philosophers.
In other parts of the world, we used to have a more nuanced view of concepts like 'truth'. Not anymore, sadly.
In general, I fear reading philosophical texts, because most authors believe it is essential, they kill the reader with boredom. John Caputo avoids this approach, and I thank him for it.
The introduction is brilliant, in particular, the way he uses the words 'sedentary' and 'pedestrian'. From there, he moved to a discussion of truth, as the ancients perceived it, as well as religious texts.
Then, he explored some "Enlightenment" philosophers, some "Modern" philosophers" as well as "post-modern" ones.
There is no absolute truth. We know this. In Vedic/Hindu philosophy, we have the Goddess Maya who casts a veil over us. In the rock opera "Jesus Christ Superstar", Jesus asked Pilate - "what is truth? is truth a changing law? what is truth? is mine the same as yours?"
It's possible to skip the entire book and just focus on those lines in the opera. However, then you'd miss a super romp through the 'history of truth'.
Keep one thing in mind: he has explored only Western philosophers.
In other parts of the world, we used to have a more nuanced view of concepts like 'truth'. Not anymore, sadly.
May 3, 2023
DNF @ 65%
The parts that I read were interesting and gave a lot of food for thought. Unfortunately, I dropped off reading this and couldn't get back on again. What stuck with me was how throughout history, we've always had something to hold on to (what we regard as 'truth'). Pre-modernism, the Church had it's say. The shift started at the advent of Enlightenment till the current 21st Century where people started questioning things more. And here, the Author extrapolates that whatever we are doing now as a modern society honestly has been done before and predicted by previous philosophers - our danger now is turning it into a irrational argument that because 'all is true' hence 'all is equal'. And, well, there are boundaries. We can't be going around worshiping Rats just because we think that's the truth.
I would say that I'm sorry I can't bring myself to finish this but I'm going to give it 5-stars anyway because what I have read, I enjoyed.
The parts that I read were interesting and gave a lot of food for thought. Unfortunately, I dropped off reading this and couldn't get back on again. What stuck with me was how throughout history, we've always had something to hold on to (what we regard as 'truth'). Pre-modernism, the Church had it's say. The shift started at the advent of Enlightenment till the current 21st Century where people started questioning things more. And here, the Author extrapolates that whatever we are doing now as a modern society honestly has been done before and predicted by previous philosophers - our danger now is turning it into a irrational argument that because 'all is true' hence 'all is equal'. And, well, there are boundaries. We can't be going around worshiping Rats just because we think that's the truth.
I would say that I'm sorry I can't bring myself to finish this but I'm going to give it 5-stars anyway because what I have read, I enjoyed.
May 19, 2017
Pretty good
I think there are a lot of reasons to read this book, most of all a refreshing take on a traditional subject. Putting an ancient and contemporary writers in conversation in a prose style dynamic as it is poetic, I will not forget the new ideas introduced to me here that have the potential to chip off the well worn approach I have had to my own conception of religion. I also thought that Caputo was not overbearing in his portrayal of getting beyond modernity and postmodernist to a post human speculation on what is now becoming of us and our world. I recently watched a video of Caputo's speech on Youtube.com in appreciation of Paul Tillich's thought encountering Derrida's and his passion for the work shines throughout in his speaking and quips on the text he is reading. I'm looking forward to reading more of his work.
I think there are a lot of reasons to read this book, most of all a refreshing take on a traditional subject. Putting an ancient and contemporary writers in conversation in a prose style dynamic as it is poetic, I will not forget the new ideas introduced to me here that have the potential to chip off the well worn approach I have had to my own conception of religion. I also thought that Caputo was not overbearing in his portrayal of getting beyond modernity and postmodernist to a post human speculation on what is now becoming of us and our world. I recently watched a video of Caputo's speech on Youtube.com in appreciation of Paul Tillich's thought encountering Derrida's and his passion for the work shines throughout in his speaking and quips on the text he is reading. I'm looking forward to reading more of his work.
November 21, 2020
Truth by John D. Caputo. A clear analysis of truth. He discussed several key philosophers' ideas of truth including Kant, Descartes and Hegel.
~
I must say, it did feel like a super long lecture. Some parts, I could follow. But some were quite blurry. However, is that not the idea of truth? I do love how much the author emphasised that truth is not absolute. That is the problem, is it not, when one thinks that whatever one believes is the absolute truth? It invalidates the thinking of other people. He touched on a lot of things like religion and ethics and law. Very big concepts summarised into one good book. At the end of the day, we are merely pursuers. We do not know anything for certain but we try.
~
I do love these Philosophy in Transit texts.
~
I must say, it did feel like a super long lecture. Some parts, I could follow. But some were quite blurry. However, is that not the idea of truth? I do love how much the author emphasised that truth is not absolute. That is the problem, is it not, when one thinks that whatever one believes is the absolute truth? It invalidates the thinking of other people. He touched on a lot of things like religion and ethics and law. Very big concepts summarised into one good book. At the end of the day, we are merely pursuers. We do not know anything for certain but we try.
~
I do love these Philosophy in Transit texts.
January 14, 2020
As usual with penguin paperbacks it comes with a very bold and broad title, but the work itself is more focussed. But that isn’t a problem - Caputo uses the book to put across an interesting philosophy of truth based on the ‘event’, a need for open ended ness in the face of uncertainty. His arguments are exciting and his passion is palpable, drawing on thinkers from Augustine to Derrida (imagining a fascinating conversation between them). You can tell his publisher wanted him to include a sort of potted history of philosophy - but it pays off in contextualising his own brand of hermeneutic thinking.
June 2, 2020
Four stars - quite a lot, perhaps. But while I did not consider this as a particularly robust and serious academic work of philosophy (which it probably was not meant to be either!), it had its merits. It is easy to read and follow, and most of all, it gives good ideas of where to go and dig in for more. I have a long reading list now, from Plato and St Augustine to Derrida and Habermas. I studied (political) philosophy as part of my degree quite a few years back, and this was a nice soft way to incite my interest in more robust texts. So it did a good job in that sense! I suppose it is also a good starting point for the newbies.
April 10, 2022
A beautiful and humane book full of hope. It is easy to recognise the presence of events as turning points for truth in the history of science, religion and wider culture. It is harder to see a recognition of the contemporary landscape of truth in this book as the new absolutes of critical theory rigorously police university campuses and the post human algorithms of the internet effortlessly contain people within echo chambers of their own belief. It also seems to return in the end to a religious like faith in progress, a belief that things will get better provided we remain open to ever improving interpretations and response positively to fresh truth revealing events. We worth a read.
December 21, 2018
Some book storm to surprise you
This one book
was written by a scholar
A dry concept of truth was expressed in beautiful and tough language
He started with Augustine and Derrida and move slowly to other philosophers about Truth.
A walk on a hard surface without a stick little adventures...
a lovely book to read few pages a day
Superb
This one book
was written by a scholar
A dry concept of truth was expressed in beautiful and tough language
He started with Augustine and Derrida and move slowly to other philosophers about Truth.
A walk on a hard surface without a stick little adventures...
a lovely book to read few pages a day
Superb
October 29, 2017
Should we be despair over postmodernity? Caputo's answer is resounding no. On the contrary, we should believe in progress but take truth to be an everlasting project instead. To either believe in an all powerful pure reason or despair is to be foolish - to be unjust.
April 21, 2019
3.5 stars
January 3, 2020
So wonderfully hopeful and invigorating. Such a sobering encounter that feels as if it suits any moment it is encountered.
January 2, 2022
A great introductory work into Jack's weak thought.
May 4, 2022
Benim kitaptan anladığım şu: Hakikat bir cümle ya da yargıdan öte bir hâldir ve bir hakikat arayıcısına düşen o hâli yaşamaya, anlamaya, okumaya hazır olmaktır.
May 11, 2020
Challenging but a very rewarding read - left me searching for more stuff from this author
December 26, 2018
Highly recommended argumentation for the hermeneutics model of knowledge against the dangers of dogmas and isms.
October 6, 2016
this was recommended to me by a friend who uses it in his intro to philosophy course at fordham. as someone with almost no natural interest in (or patience for) philosophy, this was exactly what i needed-- very accessible, to the point, and for a primer, quite able to dig in to the distinctions between premodern, modern, and postmodern thought, as well as give a passing familiarity with the key players. while he certainly has his own perspective, it's always presented as such and not to the point that one couldn't disagree, or come to different conclusions. very thought provoking read.
"we require a flexible notion of truth and reason but one that still has teeth-- we obviously need to be able to say that things are right and wrong in ethics and physics-- without driving ourselves mad with method. I am saying that the dichotomy 'it's either absolute or its relative' (rational or irrational) is a ruse, a trap. so we have to get rid of it. I am not trying to strike a middle position between the absolute and the relative. I'm not trying to split the difference; I am trying to move beyond (post) both positions, or rather to slip back behind their lines and challenge the presupposition that is common to both. that, I propose, is exactly the work that interpretation (hermeneutics) does for us. absolutism supposes the truth must be presuppositionless; relativism agrees that that indeed is what truth is, and adds 'but that's impossible' so think what you like. hermeneutics says truth is not a matter of presuppositionlessness but of having the right presuppositions and avoiding the wrong ones."
"we require a flexible notion of truth and reason but one that still has teeth-- we obviously need to be able to say that things are right and wrong in ethics and physics-- without driving ourselves mad with method. I am saying that the dichotomy 'it's either absolute or its relative' (rational or irrational) is a ruse, a trap. so we have to get rid of it. I am not trying to strike a middle position between the absolute and the relative. I'm not trying to split the difference; I am trying to move beyond (post) both positions, or rather to slip back behind their lines and challenge the presupposition that is common to both. that, I propose, is exactly the work that interpretation (hermeneutics) does for us. absolutism supposes the truth must be presuppositionless; relativism agrees that that indeed is what truth is, and adds 'but that's impossible' so think what you like. hermeneutics says truth is not a matter of presuppositionlessness but of having the right presuppositions and avoiding the wrong ones."
June 30, 2024
(26 July, 2014)
No philosophy here, no questions, or valid questions at any rate, a very simple theology book.
Caputo seeks the truth, in anything, and asks if it is present in religion then states that he could be looking for it in ethics or art, it really does not matter. But then he launches into a tedious analysis of truth in religion, with no other mention of ethics or art. I have a big, big problem with (dogmatic) religion and can not seem to find anything resembling truth in it, the opposite is quite provable actually but that is neither here nor there.
My problem is this: if the subject is ‘truth versus reason’ then the way to go about it is (I think) to discuss the merits of both and not go into an exegesis of religious texts and commentary. John D. (pun intended) seeks truth without really discussing it. He is mostly looking to validate his views by way of (not very convincing) arguments, sorry pal, that is not truth-seeking. He also seems to not have any original thought, philosophy means ‘love of wisdom’ not ‘history class of past philosophers’ (by the way, something many schools get wrong).
I wanted to read about well-defended views, well thought-out arguments, this was a disappointment.
No philosophy here, no questions, or valid questions at any rate, a very simple theology book.
Caputo seeks the truth, in anything, and asks if it is present in religion then states that he could be looking for it in ethics or art, it really does not matter. But then he launches into a tedious analysis of truth in religion, with no other mention of ethics or art. I have a big, big problem with (dogmatic) religion and can not seem to find anything resembling truth in it, the opposite is quite provable actually but that is neither here nor there.
My problem is this: if the subject is ‘truth versus reason’ then the way to go about it is (I think) to discuss the merits of both and not go into an exegesis of religious texts and commentary. John D. (pun intended) seeks truth without really discussing it. He is mostly looking to validate his views by way of (not very convincing) arguments, sorry pal, that is not truth-seeking. He also seems to not have any original thought, philosophy means ‘love of wisdom’ not ‘history class of past philosophers’ (by the way, something many schools get wrong).
I wanted to read about well-defended views, well thought-out arguments, this was a disappointment.
February 1, 2017
By the midpoint I pretty much decided this is something of a 'history of philosophy', using truth as a vehicle. To be honest, it's an approach that left me confused at first, as did much of the flowery language, in places it was somewhat verbose to say the least.
Still, the more conversational style does make it more accessible to the amateur philosopher, something I can attest to. Worth a read for those sticking their toe into the waters I think, probably not do much for those with a greater depth in the subject.
Still, the more conversational style does make it more accessible to the amateur philosopher, something I can attest to. Worth a read for those sticking their toe into the waters I think, probably not do much for those with a greater depth in the subject.
January 31, 2014
What a debacle. He cherry picks arguments from thinkers and sympathetic thinkers to build a case for religion or "magic" as a necessary part of understanding the world. His philosophical cases basically fall onto religious arguments, and then says that because pure reason can't solve everything he must be right. A joke of a text and even someone like me who isn't trained can poke holes in his logic.
October 18, 2014
A readable introduction for those new to philosophy/theology. There are some quoteworthy parts, but to go further one would have to look beyond Caputo's questions and into the works of those who have influenced his thought. Caputo remains optimistic about the postmodern approach to meaning and while I do acknowledge its hermeneutical value, I am equally cautious about this approach as an end to itself.
June 12, 2014
Nothing particularly new, but perhaps bringing ideas together in a very accessible way that is targeted at the uninitiated. I have to say, it 'does what it says on the tin'. An appropriate book for reading on the train to work. I have quite enjoyed reading it.
January 12, 2016
So fun, so playful, so spacious - a boundless view of truth. This is truth on-the-go, always learning, open to the future, unsettled, cheerful, hopeful (against hope), affirmative, always uttering "yes, yes."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews