True statements: Philosophy Forums

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

True statements

Page: First 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Last

True statements

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/11/09 - 05:08 AM:	#461
Banno wrote: 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. I use the word absolute in the correct places. I ajm not certain that you actually, objectively exist so you being certain of what you did and telling me about it doesn't confirm any epistemic truth. As for making sense of metaphysics, that is an idealistic final goal. That is like saying you have solved all conundrums and found all wisdom. That does explain your smugness. If you are content to rest on your laurels and feel you have no more to explore and nothing left to learn then good on ya. I'm going to take my uncertainty and continue to explore the unknown and ponder the possibilities within.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 610

Posted 07/11/09 - 05:21 AM:	#462
Banno wrote: Is it? I wonder if we are just putting too much into it. In that case I invite you to this topic:http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/ending-the-conceptual-war-35811.html
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/11/09 - 05:31 AM:	#463
Willowz wrote: 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. Once again, and hopefully for the last time, stop focusing on whether or not God exists. We don't know that. It is irrelevant to the God's eye view that I proposed. It is nothing more than a way to represent an actual objective point of view, from outside of reality. It is the deus ex machina POV that is used when setting up an example of the existence-without-awareness argument. For example: A tree falls in the forest but there is no one there to witness it. OK how do we know that a tree fell then? We know because you just said so. You also said that you weren't there to witness it. You are giving yourself a God's eye view of the tree falling. You know it fell because you created the scenario, the tree, the action. If your example is ,'You encounter a tiger in India...', you are, again, the deus ex machina able to place me in India facing a tiger. Please stop getting your atheist panties in a bunch over the mention of God. My point does not require His actual existence. That's not the point. You make it sound as if we humans are special beings who prove the existence of everything. We are special beings as we are the only ones who consider and discuss the existence of anything. In discussing the existence of something we have to be aware of it. I have to know what a unicorn is in order to understand that it is a made up creature. I have to know what a tiger is in order to understand that the big, striped cat I see at the zoo is a tiger. Dogs don't wonder about whether something exists objectively or not. They react to whatever appears real to them. We are different in that we may react immediately to what appears real but we can know up front that something can't possibly be real and ignore it. My dog is afraid of thunder because she cannot comprehend what it is, how it exists and the fact that it can't hurt her. The tree would care less if an ant came up it's bark. I hate when people misuse that expression. What you meant to say was that the tree couldn't or wouldn't care less. If it would care less that denotes a level of caring. Besides, that point is irrelevant. After you die, do you think that everything what you saw while living, will disappear? In a manner of speaking yes. My temporal reality will cease. I will no longer see or remember anything so I and my experience, and my memories will disappear. Life will go on with of without human beings. That is a statement of belief, faith. It is a statement of how you see things. I happen to see things the same way but that doesn't mean it is true. Everything might just be a figment of my imagination and die with me. Aren't we arguing whether conscious is necessary for existence? No. The cogito takes care of that satisfactorily I think. I know that I exist. Conscious may be necessary for your existence, but you don't know if the same applies for trees, planets, etc. It does apply. In order for those things to exist in my reality I have to be conscious of them. Things that I am not aware of are not part of my reality. My reality is the only one I can talk about. I cannot step outside of myself, be God for a day and know another (objective) reality. I can only ever know mine. I can only ever tell you how I see things. When any of us take the deus ex machina POV and describe something hypothetically we are still describing it in terms of how we would see it. We can't say how God might see it because we can't know that. The point I'm trying to make is that attempts to state things beyond what a human can experience are hypothesis, speculation, fantasy, imagination, etc. When you talk about reality you are only talking about your perception of it, your conscious awareness of things.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 610

Posted 07/11/09 - 07:11 AM:	#464
oag wrote: Once again, and hopefully for the last time, stop focusing on whether or not God exists. We don't know that. It is irrelevant to the God's eye view that I proposed. It is nothing more than a way to represent an actual objective point of view, from outside of reality. It is the deus ex machina POV that is used when setting up an example of the existence-without-awareness argument. I never said anything about god! You brought him up. Neither did I impose that I took a gods eye view on that tree: From my post #452 wrote: Walking along a road I saw the same tree that fell. Deduction does the rest. I'm trying too use logic to prove the existence of that fallen tree. Not some god POV. We know because you just said so. We "believe". You also said that you weren't there to witness it. I didn't have to witness it too know it happened. You know it fell because you created the scenario, the tree, the action. I don't know who created The scenario. I live in This scenario. I see and reason This scenario. Anything other then that what I see is out of my conscious reasoning. Still that does not mean that things out of my conscious view don't exist. Are you implying that everything must apply to cogito ergo sum? Please stop getting your atheist panties in a bunch over the mention of God. My point does not require His actual existence. Please stop putting god there, where he isn't needed. We are special beings as we are the only ones who consider and discuss the existence of anything. ...and you are positive about that? Dogs don't wonder about whether something exists objectively or not. They react to whatever appears real to them. Did your dog tell you that? My dog is afraid of thunder because she cannot comprehend what it is, how it exists and the fact that it can't hurt her. ...and we are alike your dog. We don't know if objective reality exists or not. In a manner of speaking yes. My temporal reality will cease. I will no longer see or remember anything so I and my experience, and my memories will disappear. After my dog died the world went on. After I die the world will go on. Am I special enough that the world will end when I die?...No. That is a statement of belief, faith. It's a rational presumption. I happen to see things the same way but that doesn't mean it is true. Everything might just be a figment of my imagination and die with me. So, now what are we talking about? Your subjectivity? In order for those things to exist in my reality I have to be conscious of them. So are you living in your subjectivity and think that everyone should think like you do. You could as well say:"I know everything and should not be reasoned with". Things that I am not aware of are not part of my reality. My reality is the only one I can talk about. I can only ever know mine. My, my, my... "I reject reality and accept my own"? Maybe you are trying to say that? You aren't using rationality just beliefs. Edited by Willowz on 07/11/09 - 09:13 AM
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 07/11/09 - 09:39 AM:	#465
oag wrote: I use the word absolute in the correct places. I ajm not certain that you actually, objectively exist so you being certain of what you did and telling me about it doesn't confirm any epistemic truth. As for making sense of metaphysics, that is an idealistic final goal. That is like saying you have solved all conundrums and found all wisdom. That does explain your smugness. If you are content to rest on your laurels and feel you have no more to explore and nothing left to learn then good on ya. I'm going to take my uncertainty and continue to explore the unknown and ponder the possibilities within. I don't understand how a subjective reality could be possible if there is no objective reality. Can you explain how that could be?
Or not.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

Posted 07/11/09 - 03:51 PM:	#466
oag wrote: I use the word absolute in the correct places. I ajm not certain that you actually, objectively exist I am not at all sure what "actually, objectively exist" might mean when juxtaposed to "exist". The adverbs don't appear help in any way. Indeed, they appear simply to dissipate and confuse. I have offered a rebuttal to your anti-realist account. It is a rebuttal with a long history, and one I have been exploring for several years, in this forum and elsewhere. The rebuttal is that you are asking too much of language when you put adjectives such as "actually" and "objectively" in front of words like "exist". Since I am typing on a computer, it would be obtuse to ask if the computer I am typing on exists, but the answer would be apparent. If you wish to insert the words "actually" or "objectively" then you ought give a coherent account of why those words are needed, and what they do. Would you be so kind? I will do my best to show that your account is not coherent. I hope that this is what you want. You in turn can do your best to show me the error of my ways. Best wishes, Banno
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 - 04:10 PM:	#467
Cheshire wrote: Thinking about true statements, we use true statements every day in the sense we make decisions. Even without thinking our mind decides "green = true, go=true", with a high degree of accuracy. So, why are these discussions always so grey, when as Banno observed we just "get on with it", because we all really understand it the same intuitively? Going back at least to Descartes, and arguably beyond, there is a tradition of doubt in philosophy; it was thought that the task of the philosopher was to find firm ground, a foundation from which indubitable truth might grow. I think that the ordinary language philosophers of the last century showed this tradition to be in error. They did this by demonstrating how language cannot be understood as a set of independent rules, but is embedded in the social world we inhabit. Roughly, the argument is that one cannot doubt without a background of certainty, because the doubt is itself phrased in a language that is embedded in the world. Consider, for a moment, that "cogito ergo sum" only makes sense if you understand latin; And think of all that that understanding implies. Descartes did not need to go nearly so far to achieve certainty. Cheshire wrote: A statement is true when all know alternative possibilities are falsified. A statement is true about the future when there is a high degree of probability. To believe something you must think it is possible. You appear to be supposing that all truths need to be justified. Are you sure of this? Take a look at what the tortoise said to Achilles; does Achilles really have to provide a justification for his use of modus ponens? I think you can be certain that you are now reading this post. Do you?
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 - 04:36 PM:	#468
Cheshire wrote: I don't understand how a subjective reality could be possible if there is no objective reality. Can you explain how that could be? Let's look at what might be an analogous situation. Suppose you asked me to stand over there, gesturing with your hand, and you said you would stand here. I move over to where you indicated, and ask "here", or moving a bit to the right, "or here?" You say "it doesn't matter - that will do" I say "Ah! but what do you actually mean by 'over there'? I want to be absolutely certain that I am in the right spot!" I imagine you would stop paying attention to me, and look something like this: - and with good reason. But when philosophy students like Oag or Willowz do the same sort of thing with "subjective" and "objective" and "true" and "real" others nod knowingly and agree... There are no private languages; so there is no private world. If that is what "subjective" means, it is a muddled notion. Hope that makes sense; looking forward to objections. Edited by Banno on 07/11/09 - 04:50 PM
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

emanswen
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2007

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 174

Posted 07/11/09 - 10:06 PM:	#469
I didn't read this whole thread but just noticed a couple of minor (and relatively unimportant) points in what I did read. Banno wrote: Putting this more general, "P" is true if and only if P Tarski suggested something like this as a general definition of truth, namely, (For all P) 'P' is true if and only if P but rejected it as it cannot account for sentences named by methods other than quotation marks. For example, consider the following T sentence: The sentence formed by the concatenation of the letters, 't', 'h', 'e', space, 'c', 'a', 't', space, 'i', 's', space, 'o', 'n', space, 't', 'h', 'e', space, 'm', 'a', and 't', is true if and only if the cat is on the mat. The above general definition does not have this T sentence as a consequence and is therefore inadequate. Schlitz wrote: The sentence of ML, ' "Snow is white" is true iff snow is white. ' says that 'Snow is white is true' is true whenever 'Snow is white' is true. This is confused. "Snow is white is true" is grammatically ill-formed and makes no sense; if this sentence is to make sense, "Snow is white" must be enclosed in quotation marks. Then you would be saying that, The sentence of ML, ' "Snow is white" is true iff snow is white. ' says that ' "Snow is white" is true' is true whenever 'Snow is white' is true. Which is fine, except that, strictly speaking the ML sentence you are talking about does not say that; it says nothing about the sentence "'Snow is white' is true'; it only says something about the sentence "Snow is white". Indeed it could only say something about the sentence, "'Snow is white' is true" if it were in the metametalanguage.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 610

Posted 07/12/09 - 03:13 AM:	#470
I'll fix this situation a bit: Let's look at what might be an analogous situation. "Two people are in a room with no walls and reference points(The whole room is white)." Suppose you asked me to stand over there, gesturing with your hand, and you said you would stand here. I move over to where you indicated, and ask "here", or moving a bit to the right, "or here?" You say "it doesn't matter - that will do" I say "Ah! but what do you actually mean by 'over there'? I want to be absolutely certain that I am in the right spot!" I imagine you would stop paying attention to me, and look something like this: - and with good reason. I'm just saying that absolute certainty of everything is not a reasonable argument for a human. That does not mean I reject the idea of god. I choose not to look at my past memories and use them as my own look at reality. I would one day like too look at every object as it deserves to be seen. Edited by Willowz on 07/12/09 - 03:26 AM. Reason: more info
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Page: First 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Last

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