This article responds to the criticism of M. Zach, who challenges my view that it makes no sense to try to prove metaphysical realism. The author argues that Zach's criticism is based on several confusions and that the conclusion he eventually reaches is not far from what the author has been claiming from the beginning.
According to metaphysical realism, there are truths that we can understand but cannot even in principle come to know, whereas according to anti-realism, there are no such truths. The goal of this paper is to point out some of the problems that beset attempts to justify such metaphysical theses about our cognitive limits. It is argued that we should be agnostic about each of them. We are not in a position to know anything about what does and what doesn't lie beyond the limits of our knowledge. On the one hand, argument for anti-realism are based on controversial conceptual analyses of truth or they proceed from a controversial theory about the nature of understanding. On the other hand, arguments for metaphysical realism depend on the controversial principle of bivalence.
This article focuses on John Wycliffe´s thought and aims at uncovering an inherent revolutionary potential of his philosophy. First, Wycliffe´s metaphysical realism that gave rise to a specific notion of truth based on the divine authority is examined. This notion is then developed into a belief that the Scripture is the absolute authority in the matters of truth. Therefore, Wycliffe considers the Biblical description of the First Church to be a measure for all other ages. However, the Church in Wycliffe´s time was far away from this ideal – thus he concludes that the present day Church needs to be reformed. Since even the Pope, the very head of the Church is corrupt, the reform must come from outside of the Church, namely from the King.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.