The Truth Paradox: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » The Truth Paradox » The Truth Paradox

The Truth Paradox

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Truth Paradox

Dunamis
Darchism

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
Total Topics: 60
Total Posts: 2749

Posted 03/14/07 - 09:18 PM:	#51
Nonblack Raven wrote: Further, I cannot learn from such instructions unless I assume you are making what you believe is a true statement about the items pointed to, and in turn, have sufficiently similar beliefs that I can find something that I believe to be true about all of the items pointed to. This is the sense in which I interpret Dunamis’ statement that “Communication is based on the assumption that the preponderance of beliefs that you, and others hold, are true.” Yes.
Tractatus theologico-politicus [is a] work forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil and issued with the knowledge of Mynheer Jan de Witt. - Church Council of Amsterdam If no man ever thinks alone, then we might say that to know really is to think ever less by oneself - Balibar

GDA
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 56

Posted 03/14/07 - 11:53 PM:	#52
Nonblack Raven wrote: What an incredible thing to be certain of!!!! But what on earth can you mean by it? When you say you know the meanings of the words you use, do you mean that you could write a dictionary that would include meanining for each word you use such that one of the meanings could be substituted into every sentence in which you have ever used the word and the sentence would have the same meaning? This strikes me as an almost absurd claim? It seems to me anyone who has ever read the early Socratic dialogs should have noticed the very considerable difficulties in defining words, as you alone or anyone else means them. What, by the way, does it mean to you to say that two sentences have the same meaning (even for you alone)? That their truth conditions are the same, or what exactly? Are you aware of the number of arguments as to whether it even makes sense to talk of meanings that are valid for you and you alone? How would you know that your meanings are consistent, for example? So explain to us what this thing you are certain of is exactly, and why on earth you can be certain of it. When I said that I was certain I knew meanings of words, I didn't mean that I was certain that I knew correct, or even consistent meanings of words. Nor did I mean I could write them all in a dictionary and use them properly or consistently. For example, I would not be able to understand any words I am writing if they did not have meanings to me. They would be like any other symbol to me, and I would have no understanding of them (like Japanese Kanji, of which I have no understanding). Having my own meanings for words would obviously have problems, but I cannot be sure that I know the conventional meaning for every word I use, so I instead say that I know meanings, rather than correct or conventional meanings.

Ibn M
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2004
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 38

Posted 03/15/07 - 01:32 PM:	#53
Dunamis wrote: Communication is based on the assumption that the proponderance of beliefs that you, and others hold, are true. Communication simply cannot exist without this. I find that suspiciously similar to 'preponderance of beliefs is the necessary condition of any communication' which sounds transcendental. I am only very briefly acquainted with Davidson; is he offering some sort of transcendental argument, i.e. the one that establishes the conditions which are to be satisfied for communication to exist? I hope not and that seems somewhat unlike the purely analytic philosopher he seems to be. I would appreciate if you provided some explainations on this. There even were rumors of transcendental Wittgenstein on this forum, but so far I've not encountered, regrettably, anything elaborate on that matter.

Jehu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 702

Posted 03/15/07 - 03:44 PM:	#54
Nonblack Raven wrote: Ahhmmm, exactly why not? How exactly does assuming we are all of us, making common assumptions, differ from assuming a preponderence of common beliefs, at least about what you call common assumptions? I suppose that the question hinges on what precisely is meant by the term ‘belief’. I understand the term ‘belief’ to mean, ‘a firm opinion or conviction’, however, when I say that this is what I hold the term to mean, I am not asserting a personal opinion, but a verifiable fact; for one need only refer to ones dictionary to see that it is so. Plus you have completely failed to address the issue of how we learn a new term or ostensively define a term (and in any possible system, some terms must be ostensively defined) without having common beliefs? The way that we learn a new term is quite simple. If the term is one that is already in common use, then we need only study its definition in our standard dictionary, for a definition is an expression of the essence of a term. However, in the case where the term is not yet in wide use, then we must either find someone who knows what the term means, and have then provide a definition, of study the thing to which the term refers directly. The way that the process work is also quite simple. The definition of a term (thing) represent an expression of the essence of the thing, that is to say, that set of subsidiary things which are essential to the designated thing’s being what it is. For example, A Bicycle is “a vehicle with two wheel held in a frame, one behind the other, propelled by peddles and steered by handlebars attached to the front wheel.” Now, admittedly, this is only a rudimentary description of a bicycle, however, it is sufficient to enable someone to recognize one, even though they had never actually seen one; provided that they understand each of the terms employed in the definition. If they do not, then they can simply refer to the definitions of those terms that they do not understand, which will be defined in even simpler terms, and so on, until such a time as they reach a level of simplicity where one is are able to completely understand the definitions. Now, I know that this is not exactly how we learn most of our language, but it is essentially the same thing, for the definitions that we find in a dictionary represent the very same meanings that a word evokes within the linguistic population as a whole; and so unless we are raised in some severely isolated location, with its own unique vernacular, then we will learn to associate a term with the same meanings as the other member of our linguistic group. Dunamis wrote: The reason why I can interpret what you mean is because the host of coherent beliefs that govern your speech are predominantly true. That is, they are about the world in a coherent fashion. Belief, for Davidson, is inherently verdical. In the end, this is Davidson's final reply to the skeptic: the skeptic must already understand what belief is (that is that it is inherently verdical), in order to doubt it in the first place. Look, why do people making language so difficult. I have a certain mental structure (concept) in mind that I wish to communicate to you, and so I utter the word ‘cat’, and because we have all agreed in advance (by convention), that whenever I or anyone else utters the word ‘cat’ , that they will hold a similar concept in their mind; and so we are able to communicate that which is otherwise an entire private affair – our thoughts. You see, words are nothing more than pointers, and their meaning lie, not I the words themselves, but in their conventional usage.
It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is the true reality.

Nonblack Raven
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 1239

Posted 03/15/07 - 06:01 PM:	#55
Jehu wrote: I suppose that the question hinges on what precisely is meant by the term ‘belief’. I understand the term ‘belief’ to mean, ‘a firm opinion or conviction’, however, when I say that this is what I hold the term to mean, I am not asserting a personal opinion, but a verifiable fact; for one need only refer to ones dictionary to see that it is so. Very well, how exactly can we understand a dictionary, as I thought you already admitted, without having "firm opinions or convictions", or beliefs about the meaning of most of the words in the dictionary? Now I am perfectly open to the possibility that dictionaries are useful things, without the view that all issues of meaning can be settled by dictionaries. Do you think all Platonic dialoges are silly for their long debates on the meaning of terms like knowledge or justice, because they could simply have consulted a dictionary? Do you think all useful distinctions in the use of a word can be found in dictionaries? Given the significant differences in dictionaries, which dictionary is definitive in this sense? In spite of the incredible importance you attach to dictionaries, I wonder how much time you have actually spent carefully reading and comparing different dictionaries. Added on edit: Do I really need to list all of the vareity of dictionary definitions of belief to show that almost none are "a firm opinion or conviction"? In fact, given the uncommonness of this definition as the primary definition of belief, I am sort of curious where you got it from. For that matter, in looking up belief, did you not notice that, as for most words, there are multiple defintions? Edited by Nonblack Raven on 03/15/07 - 06:42 PM
NBR

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 03/15/07 - 11:26 PM:	#56
Jehu wrote: Look, why do people making language so difficult. I have a certain mental structure (concept) in mind that I wish to communicate to you, and so I utter the word ‘cat’, and because we have all agreed in advance (by convention), that whenever I or anyone else utters the word ‘cat’ , that they will hold a similar concept in their mind; and so we are able to communicate that which is otherwise an entire private affair �" our thoughts. You see, words are nothing more than pointers, and their meaning lie, not I the words themselves, but in their conventional usage. Because that account of language is dead wrong.
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...

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 03/15/07 - 11:44 PM:	#57
If the meaning of any and every word is given by the concept to which it refers, then every word is the name of a concept. But not every word is a noun. Therefore not every word is a name. therefore not every word is the name of a concept.
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...

Dunamis
Darchism

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
Total Topics: 60
Total Posts: 2749

Posted 03/16/07 - 10:27 AM:	#58
Ibn M wrote: I find that suspiciously similar to 'preponderance of beliefs is the necessary condition of any communication' which sounds transcendental. Absolutely not. There are no categories that do the parsing of the world, for Davidson there is no "conceptual scheme" . Communication is just something that we do. I am only very briefly acquainted with Davidson; is he offering some sort of transcendental argument, i.e. the one that establishes the conditions which are to be satisfied for communication to exist? I hope not and that seems somewhat unlike the purely analytic philosopher he seems to be. I would appreciate if you provided some explainations on this. No. He is really more concerned with the role truth and meaning plays in the constitution of speech communities. There is no categorical agreement. There even were rumors of transcendental Wittgenstein on this forum... Yikes! Wittgenstein has much Kantian influence it seems, and further exposed himself to this possibility by talking like a Zen monk, suitably gnomic. Edited by Dunamis on 03/16/07 - 11:17 AM
Tractatus theologico-politicus [is a] work forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil and issued with the knowledge of Mynheer Jan de Witt. - Church Council of Amsterdam If no man ever thinks alone, then we might say that to know really is to think ever less by oneself - Balibar

Dunamis
Darchism

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
Total Topics: 60
Total Posts: 2749

Posted 03/16/07 - 10:29 AM:	#59
Jehu wrote: Look, why do people making language so difficult. I have a certain mental structure (concept) in mind that I wish to communicate to you, and so I utter the word ‘cat’, and because we have all agreed in advance (by convention), that whenever I or anyone else utters the word ‘cat’ , that they will hold a similar concept in their mind; and so we are able to communicate that which is otherwise an entire private affair ��" our thoughts. You see, words are nothing more than pointers, and their meaning lie, not I the words themselves, but in their conventional usage. Whew. Now that we have gotten all that out of the way, perhaps we can close down the "Philosophy of Language" forum and post that handled down wisdom at its head, like a gravestone. As I pointed out, the Quinian/Davidson example makes use of neither "concept" nor "convention".
Tractatus theologico-politicus [is a] work forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil and issued with the knowledge of Mynheer Jan de Witt. - Church Council of Amsterdam If no man ever thinks alone, then we might say that to know really is to think ever less by oneself - Balibar

Dunamis
Darchism

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
Total Topics: 60
Total Posts: 2749

Posted 03/16/07 - 10:38 AM:	#60
Banno wrote: If the meaning of any and every word is given by the concept to which it refers, then every word is the name of a concept. But not every word is a noun. Therefore not every word is a name. therefore not every word is the name of a concept. Come on now, we both know that you have in your Cartesian Theatre the concept of "of", "by", "to" and "it", and that you use these "pointers" to connect those floating concepts to the "conventions" to which we all agree. Your "mental structures" of "of, by, to and it" are lining up nicely with our "conventions".
Tractatus theologico-politicus [is a] work forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil and issued with the knowledge of Mynheer Jan de Witt. - Church Council of Amsterdam If no man ever thinks alone, then we might say that to know really is to think ever less by oneself - Balibar

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.