I'm pretty much a Kantian, so that one was easy. — Benkei
interestingly enough you didn't opt for a correspondence theory of truth.
You picked idealism? I don't think of Kant's transcendental idealism as idealism, just as I don't think of Putnam's internal realism as realism. Despite their names, I think they're very similar (if not outright the same), and neither properly counts as either realism or idealism (as traditionally understood), hence why I chose "Other". — Michael
As a sidenote, for Kant a theory of knowledge is indeed possible (or so he thinks) and in fact he would claim that only for a transcendental idealist can this be possible. The reason for this might be constructed as follows. Truth is to be understood as correspondence between our judgments and reality. If reality is taken to be transcendentally real, then the correspondence is between our judgments and a reality wholly independent and unreachable for us. I cannot know whether my judgment "I have a blue shirt on" is true or false since this refers to some reality that is by definition inaccessible to us: we are doomed to mere beliefs and can have no knowledge. But if reality is taken to be transcendentally ideal, then the correspondence is between my judgments and the (REAL!) objects that present themselves in my experience. Then this correspondence can be established, and we can have knowledge. Of course, a hardcore proponent of correspondence theory could not accept Kant's formulation of it, since it is more properly thought as a sort of coherence theory instead of a proper correspondence theory.
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.