Either the folks who responded that they accept correspondence theory didn't understand the question, or they interpreted "correspondence" in some creative way.
Correspondence is not accepted by anyone who's familiar with the topic. It's fairly straightforward to demonstrate that truth can't be analyzed in that way.
Might it be that you are thinking of the question in too narrow a way and not they collectively misunderstanding it? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Which topic? It remains the most popular conception in metaphysics, of that I'm quite confident. — Count Timothy von Icarus
What's the demonstration? — Count Timothy von Icarus
What makes you think this?
It's fairly straightforward to demonstrate that truth can't be analyzed in that way.
Might you be conflating foundationalism with monism here? Hegel has a circular and fallibalist epistemology, but it is monist. Artistotle thinks that "what is best know to us," our starting point, are concrete particulars, the "many." But what are "best known in themselves," are unifying, generating principles (the unifying "one(s), which virtually contain the many. Nor is Aristotle particularly rigid; he admonishes us not to expect explanations that are more detailed than the topic area under discussion allows in the ethics (pace analytics who have tried to quantify "moral goodness"). Both have a monistic theory of logic/Logos, but neither are foundationalists. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Cheshire is saying that this view, that may cement logical monism, especially in the sense of using logical principles as laws, is an internalist conceit. Cheshire points to the way classical logic is self-contained and self-protecting. It's a castle built on air, and potentially leaving us deluded.
Cheshire would prefer to see us start from where we are, here in the world, with our problems in view instead of down in a brain-vat. — frank
BTW, I agree with you here. I feel like there have been knock down arguments against correspondence for millennia at this point, e.g. Plotinus asks how one might step outside one's beliefs and experiences to compare them with the world. Yet it has trucked along nonetheless. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.