Subjective and objective truth: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Subjective and objective truth » Subjective and objective truth

Subjective and objective truth
Never the twain?

Page: First 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 Last

Subjective and objective truth

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 09/19/09 - 10:54 AM:	#1481
ragus wrote: So some (maybe many )aspects of language can be non-verbal? And, if so, doesn't this open up a way to understanding the evolution of language? It opens up the PLA to further inquiry. I don't really get much out evolutionary speculation. It is of course valid as change is valid, but the exact process in which evolution occurred should be left to the experts. I think it opens the PLA to counter-arguments such as: To say showing is a language is a bit Ad hoc in order to maintain that all experiences are expressible. The problem that arises is one Brainpharte seems very aware of; If it can only be expressed by showing and yet not everything may be shown, then do we arrive at inexpressible via the inability to show?I can be shown an olive, but are there things that I can not be shown? I'm not sure I agree with myself at this point.
Or not.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 630

Posted 09/19/09 - 12:51 PM:	#1482
brainpharte wrote: You reveal something interesting here. You say that the way someone else might be able to understand what another person experienced is if they themselves had also experienced such a thing. Which points out our commonsensical realization that some things can't be communicated in words alone, that there is something additional to be appreciated only by actually undergoing the experience yourself. Can that "something" additional be put into words? If not, then why can't they be understood as experiences? Because Banno for some reason differs by saying, that inexpressible experiences are not experiences. Edited by Willowz on 09/19/09 - 01:10 PM
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 630

Posted 09/19/09 - 12:59 PM:	#1483
Cheshire wrote: I think it opens the PLA to counter-arguments such as: To say showing is a language is a bit Ad hoc in order to maintain that all experiences are expressible. The problem that arises is one Brainpharte seems very aware of; If it can only be expressed by showing and yet not everything may be shown, then do we arrive at inexpressible via the inability to show?I can be shown an olive, but are there things that I can not be shown? Well if you take it from the PLA's POV, then you must understand in principle( in principle, lol!) that anything inexpressible is not an experience. I have no idea what are the premises for "in principle", but it does sound absurd. I would say that not all my experiences can be shown. If they aren't experiences then what are they? Surly they mean something.
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6301

Posted 09/19/09 - 04:03 PM:	#1484
Willowz wrote: Let's not be vauge. Tell me, how should I understand, "in principle", when you reffer to the PLA? You want me to do all the work, and present the macdonald's version. It don't work like that. Read it yourself.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6301

Posted 09/19/09 - 04:30 PM:	#1485
The conversation here is excellent. Some really good thinking going on. Well done.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Simple Occam
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 728

Posted 09/19/09 - 05:13 PM:	#1486
Bsnno wrote: I will respectfully differ here. I'll try a different approach. How does one individuate an experience - separate it out from the things around it? If it is identifiable as an experience, one must have a way to identify it. Could this be inexpressible, unshowable? If so, on what grounds could you be said to have had an experience? This is precisely why your use of the term "quale" is so glib and disingenuous. Of course you can't separate units of experience ito "uncuttables" as the ancient Atomists called the units of physical reality. But it does make sense to refer to the totality of one's perceptual experience as "qualia", which does appear, at least, to have a plurality of parts that are infinitley divisible. The common sense assumption that all knowledge comes from experience underlies both the Rationalist and Empiricist schools of modern philosophy, as well as the Kantian-Hegelian-Marxist-Phenomenologist branches and the Humean-analytical-philosophy of language branches. But the assumption itself smuggles in a hidden distinction, which turns up as an equivocal term in the argument: "experience". Experience plays the dual role of 1) provider of truthful statements, leading to knowledge and 2) consciousness itself. "We", in our role of truth seekers and finders, decide which experiences are reliable indicaters of what is real, versus what merely appears to be real. We compare experiences, look for patterns of constancy wehich can be used as nomological pronciples to predict of post-dict what will be observed in the future or what was observed in the past. But when "experience" refers to consciousness, the subject-object releatinship of knower and known is reified onto consciousness, as if it, too, involved knowledge. Instead of knowing the world though our experience of it, the objects of consciousness are taken to be experiences or "qualia". This leaves modern philosophy to choose between these reified constructions as the objects of knowledge (subjectivism), to deny their existence (eliminative materialism) or to explain them away as philosopher's nonsense per Wittgenstein. Briefly, to avoid the equivocation on experience, change the initial assumption to the equally commonsensical principle;, "All knowledge comes from perception and language". Perceptions sample relevant aspects of the world outside the body with one opart of the brain and language represents the intersubjectively similar data from perceptions as words and sentences with another part of the brain. So far we have not mentioned consciousness at all. That's because consciousness, as distinct from perceptions, has nothing to do with knowledge. It is simply the epiphenomenal appearance resulting from what it's like to be the brain that processes both perceptual and linguistic data.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 630

Posted 09/20/09 - 12:34 AM:	#1487
Banno wrote: You want me to do all the work, and present the macdonald's version. It don't work like that. Read it yourself. That's not fair. Lately you have been making half posts. I don't see the logic in them. You choose not to answer the "I love you more than words can say" questions, implying that lack of language is not the case. It just doesn't stick. I hope I don't get another, goat-in-the-box. No offence. Edited by Willowz on 09/20/09 - 12:51 AM
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Vigotski
The catcher in the rye

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2008
Location: Unknown Russia.

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 77

Posted 09/20/09 - 06:45 AM:	#1488
What is the objective truth?

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 630

Posted 09/20/09 - 07:28 AM:	#1489
There is no objective truth.
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 09/20/09 - 07:30 AM:	#1490
There is only objective truth. Which is- the way it is.
Or not.

Page: First 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.