Metaphorical Truth and Neopragmatic Realism of Hilary Putnam

Introduction. The problems of reference, truth, and realism are extremely important for contemporary philosophical discourse. Interesting interpretations of these problems have been given by such thinkers as Paul Ricoeur and Hilary Putnam. Instead of being originally representatives of different philosophical traditions, Ricoeur and Putnam came to similar conclusions on a number of the above issues, which allows us to speak of the possible prospect of a fruitful philosophical synthesis of the two authors' positions. The aim of this paper is to justify the theoretical possibility of such a synthesis, namely to show how the different elements of Putnam's theory can be improved by using Ricoeur's approach, which is outlined in his concept of metaphorical truth. Despite the obvious proximity of the two authors, there are currently no works where Ricoeur's conception of metaphorical truth was compared with Putnam's philosophy.

Methodology and sources. To meet this challenge, we have resorted to an examination of the author's primary sources, which reveal the methodology of both philosophers. Special relevance of the article is connected with the unusual perspective of considering the problems that are important for the philosophy of late 20th-early 21st century. These are problems that related to the comprehension of our thinking, the role of language in creating a picture of the world and the resulting possibility of building a special kind of ontology.

Results and discussion. The study revealed many overlaps in the authors' consideration of the concept of truth, the problem of realism, and the theory of reference, as well as in the way that both philosophers define the relationship between language and reality. The most similarities were found in the relationship between Ricoeur's concept of metaphorical truth and Putnam's philosophy of inner realism.

Conclusion. Thus, we can conclude that the philosophical approaches of both thinkers share a great deal of intuition about the direction in which research of truth and referential theory and the problem of realism that is one of the most fundamental problems of philosophy throughout its history can be developed.

1. Makeeva, L.B. (1996), Filosofiya Kh. Patnema [Philosophy of H. Putnam], IF RAN, Moscow, RUS.

2. Gryaznov, B.S. and Sadovskii, V.N. (eds.) (1978), Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, Progress, Moscow, USSR.

3. Dzhokhadze, I.D. (2011), “Hilary Putnam’s Pragmatic Realism”, Russian J. of Philosophical Sciences, no. 4, pp. 112–127.

4. Putnam, H. (2002), Reason, Truth and History, Transl. by Dmitriev, T.A. and Lebedev, M.V., Praksis, Moscow, RUS.

5. Filosofskii pragmatizm Richarda Rorti i rossiiskii kontekst [Philosophical pragmatism of Richard Rorty and the Russian context] (1997), Syrodeeva, A.A. (comp.), Rubtsov, A. (resp. ed.), Traditsiya, Moscow, USSR.

6. Dzhokhadze, I.D. (2011), “Putnam vs Rorty: the debate about pragmatism and relativism”, Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, no. 4, pp. 175–190.

7. Dzhokhadze, I.D. (2001), Neopragmatizm Richarda Rorti [The neopragmatism of Richard Rorty], Editorial URSS, Moscow, RUS.

8. Aristotel' (1976), Sochineniya [Compositions], in 4rd vol., vol. 1, Mysl', Moscow, USSR.

9. Putnam, N. (1994), “Sense, Nonsense, and the Senses: An Inquiry into Powers of the Numan Mind”, J. of Philosophy, no. 9, pp. 445–517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2940978.

10. Ricoeur, P. and Gadamer, H.-G. (2019), Fenomenologiya poezii [Phenomenology of poetry], Trans., ed. and comment. Stanzhevskii, F. et al., RIPOL klassik, Pangloss, Moscow, RUS.

11. Derrida, J. (1974), “White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philosophy”, New Literary History, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 5–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/468341.

12. Nietzsche, F. (1999), “On Truth and Lies in the Extramoral Sense”, O pol'ze i vrede istorii dlya zhizni. Sumerki kumirov. Utrennyaya zarya [About the benefits and harms of history for life. Twilight of idols. Morning dawn], Transl. by Zavalishin, L., Popurri, Minsk, BLR, pp. 361–377.

13. Rousseau, J.-J. (2001), Sochineniya [Compositions], Transl. by Kareev, N.I., Yantarnyi skaz, Kaliningrad, RUS.

14. Ricoeur, P. (1995), Germenevtika. Etika. Politika [Hermeneutics. Ethics. Politics], Transl., Academia, Moscow, RUS.

15. Putnam, H. (1983), “Possibility and Necessity”, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, vol. 3, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, GBR, pp. 46–68.

16. Putnam, Н. (1985), “Reference and Truth”, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, GBR, pp. 69–86.

17. Harman, G. (2019), Speculative realism: an introduction, Transl. by Pisarev, A.A., Ripol klassik, Moscow, RUS.

18. Heidegger, M. (1997), Sein und Zeit, Transl. by Bibikhin, V.V., Ad Marginem, Moscow, RUS.

19. Ricoeur, P. (1996), Le conflit des interprétations Essais d'herméneutique, Transl. by Vdovin, I.S., Iskusstvo, Moscow, RUS.