True statements: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » True statements » True statements

True statements

Page: First 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Last

True statements

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/10/09 - 12:14 PM:	#451
Cheshire wrote: To believe something you must think it is possible. That is all there is to it though. It is possible. It is not essential or necessary or objectively true. It is only a possibility and we believe it to be so highly probable that we simply accept it as a truth. Intuitively, practically and in every other way we simply accept that reality is precisely what it appears to be because we have no other choice. The catch is that we are only ever talking about how it appears to us. It is only in metaphysics and epistemology that we go further than that and try to discuss the nature of reality itself and how that might relate to our perceptions of it.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 610

Posted 07/10/09 - 01:23 PM:	#452
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing." oag wrote: It is no more possible to negate the existence of objective reality than it is to confirm it. The wiser man is one who knows that he doesn't know everything. Negating the existence of objective reality is practically saying: "I know everything". oag wrote: To elaborate, lets say that thing X exists out there beyond the reach of our telescopes. No human as yet has conscious awareness of its existence. By positing the hypothetical existence of X I am taking the God's eye view and saying that it does in fact exist. Let's step down from Heaven though and go back to the practical, non-hypothetical POV of actual human beings. We don't even know if God exists or doesn't exist. Saying "taking god's eye view" has no value. What exists, exists. Scientists usually don't believe in god, but they do take time every day to find more about "that-which-exists-with-or-without-conscious-awareness-of-its-existence". oag wrote: The point is that we must first have conscious awareness of something to ever posit that it does exist. ... "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" In this example a question is asked. Is it necessary for the tree to be heard by a conscious being so that it can prove it's existence? My answer: no. Why?... True existence is that what you see and do not see. It does not matter if conscious wasn't there to hear the tree fall or explode for the matter. The tree was there, then it fell. How do I know this? Walking along a road I saw the same tree that fell. Deduction does the rest. The point is it does not even have to prove it's own existence. It exists and that's it. Cheshire wrote: Hey Willowz, I agree the an objective reality is necessary for the existence of truth. How can there be a true statement if there is nothing to make a statement about? Is that accurate? Hi Cheshire, Yeah, that's fine.
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/10/09 - 07:48 PM:	#453
Willowz wrote: We don't even know if God exists or doesn't exist. Saying "taking god's eye view" has no value. God existence is not the salient point. It is the point of view to which I refer. I use the terminology of God's eye view because God is a well known conceptualization. He is conceived of as the creator of the universe and in order to do that He would have to exist prior to it, outside of it and have intimate knowledge of every last detail of how it works. What exists, exists. Yeah, that isn't particularly profound. Scientists usually don't believe in god, but they do take time every day to find more about "that-which-exists-with-or-without-conscious-awareness-of-its-existence". Again, the theistic leanings of any particular scientist are irrelevant. Also, I will once again and in perpetuity take umbrage to the use of that phrase. Scientists are not able to investigate anything of which they are not consciously aware. In this example a question is asked. Is it necessary for the tree to be heard by a conscious being so that it can prove it's existence? My answer: no. Why?... True existence is that what you see and do not see. It does not matter if conscious wasn't there to hear the tree fall or explode for the matter. The tree was there, then it fell. How do I know this? Walking along a road I saw the same tree that fell. Then you are consciously aware of it existing. If you never happened upon that tree you would not be aware of its existence. In order to state that it does exist anyway you have to take the God's eye view and declare, theoretically, what you wouldn't otherwise know. Deduction does the rest. Only after conscious awareness. The point is it does not even have to prove it's own existence. It exists and that's it. It exists because you say it does and you say it does because you have become consciously aware of its existence. What you are trying to establish is true objective existence independent of any mind. The moment you mention a particular tree that negates the independence from any mind. You can hypothesize a tree somewhere that no human mind will ever encounter but in order to posit that tree's existence, hypothetically absent your observation of it, you have to take a God's eye view. Is that more clear or did I just muddy it up even more? Edited by oag on 07/10/09 - 08:06 PM. Reason: quote tag malfunction

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

Posted 07/10/09 - 11:59 PM:	#454
This thread harks back to several earlier threads, so it might be a bit hard to see where I am leading. oag wrote: Cogito ergo sum. That is the one thing beyond Cartesian doubt...for you. That I am certain I exist is not the result of a deduction, Cartesian or otherwise. It is just something that is beyond doubt; there are plenty of others. it is unreasonable to doubt that I am writing this post, for example. Doing so throws so much out of the picture that the very idea of doubt comes unstuck. This is, in a sense, a corollary of the Tortoises thread. There are ways of understanding rules that are not themselves rules; these can be shown, but not stated. Hence the balls of paper.
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: 6290

Posted 07/11/09 - 12:14 AM:	#455
oag wrote: Nice straw man. I never said anything like this. We know plenty of things in a conventional sense that we have our individual perceptions of reality and we are sure of what is what. When I say that we don't know anything for certain, I am talking only in the epistemic sense that we cannot possess absolute certainty beyond Cartesian doubt. Do not set up a straw man by having me say that we can't know anything in any sense of the word because that is ridiculous. Good clarification. So you agree with me that we do know plenty of things, It's just that we don't have what you call "absolute certainty". Now I am certain that I just ate an anchovy pizza. I am also certainty that there is another one cooling while I write this. That you are not certain of what you last ate strikes me as odd, but perhaps you have a poor memory. It seems to me that you have learned to engage in a philosophical game that involves using the word "absolute" in funny places, and that all you need do to make sense of metaphysics is to stop playing that game.
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: 6290

Posted 07/11/09 - 12:23 AM:	#456
Willowz wrote: Has philosophy made you an angry and warped man? My wife thinks so. I differ. what is the truth here?
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

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 610

Posted 07/11/09 - 12:23 AM:	#457
oag wrote: God existence is not the salient point. [i]It is the point of view to which I refer[/b]. I use the terminology of God's eye view because God is a well known conceptualization. He is conceived of as the creator of the universe and in order to do that He would have to exist prior to it, outside of it and have intimate knowledge of every last detail of how it works. Yeah, that isn't particularly profound. Your practically saying that god exists and using his existence as an argument for the existence of everything conscious and unconsciously perceivable. Therefore if you now said that god doesn't exist then the argument:"that-which-exists-with-or-without-conscious-awareness-of-its-exis tence" fails. oag wrote: Again, the theistic leanings of any particular scientist are irrelevant. Also, I will once again and in perpetuity take umbrage to the use of that phrase. Scientists are not able to investigate anything of which they are not consciously aware. Who is the wiser: they who realize what they know, or they who realize what they don't know? oag wrote: Then you are consciously aware of it existing. If you never happened upon that tree you would not be aware of its existence. In order to state that it does exist anyway you have to take the God's eye view and declare, theoretically, what you wouldn't otherwise know. Only after conscious awareness. It exists because you say it does and you say it does because you have become consciously aware of its existence. That's not the point. You make it sound as if we humans are special beings who prove the existence of everything. The tree would care less if an ant came up it's bark. After you die, do you think that everything what you saw while living, will disappear? Life will go on with of without human beings. oag wrote: What you are trying to establish is true objective existence independent of any mind. The moment you mention a particular tree that negates the independence from any mind. You can hypothesize a tree somewhere that no human mind will ever encounter but in order to posit that tree's existence, hypothetically absent your observation of it, you have to take a God's eye view. Aren't we arguing whether conscious is necessary for existence? Conscious may be necessary for your existence, but you don't know if the same applies for trees, planets, etc.
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: 6290

Posted 07/11/09 - 12:25 AM:	#458
Minyun wrote: Willowz, you realise by ensuing this argument with Banno, you fall into his trap... I didn't make the trap. You guys do that all by yourself. But if you look carefully, I think I can see how you get out...
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

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 610

Posted 07/11/09 - 12:43 AM:	#459
There is no trap. Just a hard question.
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: 6290

Posted 07/11/09 - 12:49 AM:	#460
Willowz wrote: There is no trap. Just a hard question. Is it? I wonder if we are just putting too much into it.
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

Page: First 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Last

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