Search

During the 80s, Hilary Putnam developed a metaphysical viewpoint called 'internal realism'. Its slogan said, "the mind and the world together make up the mind and the world." According to Putnam, internal realism has two elements: 1) conceptual relativity and 2) seeing truth as idealized rational assertability. Here it will be argued that there is an internal incompatibility in the second element; i.e. truth as idealized rational assertability. To explain this incompatibility, firstly it will be shown that the idealization of rational assertability is duo to Putnam's emphasis on realistic intuitions of truth. Secondly, it will be shown that Putnam prefers to use 'sufficiently good conditions' instead of 'ideal conditions' to make a distinction between his idea and pierce's. Finally, it will be argued that some implication of 'sufficiently good conditions' is incompatible with those realistic intuitions of truth. Hence, one can conclude that there is an incompatibility in Putnam's attitude toward truth.

One of the challenges of religious language is how to reconcile these two theses: the transcendence of the divine realm and conventional reference to that realm. This challenge raised since it seems, at first glance, that ‘if the divine realm is transcendent, i.e., completely separated from the human realm, then one, a human, cannot make a fixed reference to that realm.’ In this paper, extending Putnam’s model-theoretic argument in metaphysics, I argue that this conditional statement could be true, and thereby the transcendence of the divine realm and conventional reference to that realm would be irreconcilable unless we adjust at least one of our presuppositions. I will show just three ways for this adjustment: Internal pluralism that says that the divine realm is mind-dependent; Some versions of apophatic theology according to which one cannot assert a true utterance about the divine realm; Claiming that language is a non-human phenomenon.

Rejecting metaphysical realism (MR) is a basic element in Putnam's Philosophy. He introduces two arguments against MR: Model-theoretic (MT) and brain-in-vat (BIV). However, according to some scholars and commentators who work on Putnam's Philosophy, the phenomenon of conceptual relativity, as introduced by Putnam in some of his books, is another argument by which MR is rejected. This Phenomenon is a state in which two sentences that are at face value incompatible could be consistently true. However, there is not any explicit and complete formulation of this argument in the writings of Putnam and his commentators. In this paper, first we will formulate a version of conceptual relativity against MR. According to our version, Putnam ask the metaphysical realist to explain this phenomenon. Then we will show that this argument is not independent of MT and BIV. Therefore, the phenomenon of conceptual relativity could be an argument against MR only of we accept either MT or BIV. Furthermore, any objection to MT and BIV will weaken the argument from conceptual relativity against MR.