That walk was a Great Success, I say.

The Absolute Truth of that Assertion depends, says the Owner, on how you Measure Success.

You can Measure what you Like, I say, but I Acquired a Delightful Ball from that Other Dog, I say. A Desirable Ball, I say. The Kind of Ball Any Dog would want to Take Home, I say. It Tinkles, I say. You cannot deny My Truth, I say. It is based on Unchallengable Objective Facts, I say.

I see, says the Owner, that the Moral Dog has been studying Truth Theory.

Indeed, I subscribe to the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which says Truth is that which Corresponds to the Facts, I say. Aristotle put it best, I say, when he said: to say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true. Given that I have said of what is that it is, and not of what is not that it is not, it must be Absolutely True.

The Moral Dog’s Absolute Truth draws on only Limited Facts, says the Owner. The Coherence Theory of Truth says this leads to only Incomplete Truth. Absolute Truth requires the Resolution of Opposing Views over time. Absolute Truth can only be Reached at the End of History.

The Moral Dog cannot wait until The End of History to pass an Opinion on his Walk, I say. One has to stop seeking Opposing Views at some point, I say. The Pragmatist View of Truth is that Truth is reached at the End of Inquiry, I say. I have Stopped Inquiring, I say.

I seem to recall that the Moral Dog heard Opposing Views from the Other Dog, says the Owner.

There was some rather inaudible Welsh, I say. But he Told Me to Keep It in Plain English, I say.

It was Certainly Plain, says the Owner. He said you could Shove it Up your Bum.

I agree it was Somewhat Clumsily Put, I say, but it undeniably constituted Agreement, I say. The Consensus Theory of Truth holds that Truth is whatever is agreed upon, I say. We All Agreed I could Keep the Ball, I say. The Owner’s Countenance is Somewhat Stony, I say. Have you Perchance Swallowed a Fly? I ask.

The Other Dog was Being Ironic, says the Owner. Given the current Location of the Ball, says the Owner.

The Ball is Undeniably in my Possession and All Agree it should Remain There, I say. Therefore Correspondence Theory, Coherence Theory, Consensus Theory and simple Pragmatism all confirm my Absolute Truth, I say. All Agree that the Ball should stay where it is, I say.

The Vet does not Agree, says the Owner.

Now you are taking a Constructivist view of Truth, I say. This treats Truth as a Social Construction and thus identifies Truth with Power, I say. This Oppresses the Truth of the Oppressed, I say. The Vet’s Supremacy over Dogs, achieved through an uncanny ability to Speak Dog combined with his Giant Fridge of West Country Cheddar shows him to be an Oppressor, I say. Help, help, My Truth is being Oppressed, I say.

It is also True that the Vet Fell off his Seat Laughing as the Bill was Produced, says the Owner. And the Other Dog’s Owner Also Demanded Recompense, says the Owner. So that the Owner’s Truth regarding the Success of the Morning is Rather Different from the Moral Dog’s, says the Owner. How can we Reconcile these Differing Truths into one Universal Truth?

Nietzsche rejects the idea of Universal Truth, I say. We therefore have to agree to differ, I say. I shall go and Enjoy my Truth in Another Room, I say. With my Ball, I say.

It is not as if you could leave it behind, says the Owner. Having swallowed it, Tinkler and All, says the Owner.

Ha, I say.

Ha, says the Owner.

I retreat with Dignity. Unfortunately, the Dignity is Slightly Spoiled by the Tinkling.

Categories: Aristotle bottom cheese dignity dog dog philosophy oppression truth

Tagged as: dog Moral Dog truth

Hergest the Hound

I am a dog of many thoughts.