True statements: Philosophy Forums

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

True statements

Page: First 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Last

True statements

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/12/09 - 03:28 AM:	#471
Willowz wrote: I'm just saying that absolute certainty of everything is not a reasonable argument for a human. So being certain of some things is OK?
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: 616

Posted 07/12/09 - 03:38 AM:	#472
Yeah, that sounds more realistic.
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: 6293

Posted 07/12/09 - 03:45 AM:	#473
Cool. I wonder what things we might both be certain of. I would bet that we agree about more than we disagree about...
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

stax
The daedal philosopher.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: A transcendental plane of reality, Australia.

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 36

Posted 07/12/09 - 04:32 AM:	#474
Truth will always be subjective. It would be true for one to say they are seeing green- their knowledge of green, informed by experience, which is informed by perception and perception informed by the senses. Then if another person says its red, who is to dispute this person's viewing of red, when the other sees green? Thus what is true for one is not for the other. Our knowledge of green has been informed by the hierarchy mentioned before and because each person's hierarchy has been affected differently in the sense data received- it would be correct to say that knowledge affected by experience determines OUR truth. Edited by Bobard on 07/12/09 - 06:50 AM. Reason: Capitalization
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Arthur Schopenhauer "To convince someone of the truth, it is not enough to state it, but rather one must find the path from error to truth." Ludwig Wittgenstein "Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open." Ludwig Wittgenstein

worldlogicleague
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 90

Posted 07/12/09 - 06:54 AM:	#475
stax wrote: it would be true for one to say they are seeing green- their knowledge of green, informed by experience, which is informed by perception and perception informed by the senses. then if another person says its red, who is to dispute this person's viewing of red, when the other sees green? If your kid came to you and said the grass is red, you wouldn't be concerned about a sickness, because you know with a high probability that the grass is green via induction? You see it green, they and them and them see it green, so it most probably is green meaning reflecting light in the green spectrum which average (virtually all) humans can see. This is a good example of both the power and limitatations of inductive reasoning. It can't ever reach absolute certainty. But it can produce truths which are of high enough probabability that it can be acted on, which is its highest purpose in everyday life. The grass is green. Therefore, have the kid medically checked out! Edited by worldlogicleague on 07/12/09 - 07:02 AM

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 07/12/09 - 10:19 AM:	#476
Banno wrote: 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. Thanks, I learned something. Banno wrote: 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 don't think all truths need justification, if my beliefs are constantly being justified, then how will I find my mistakes? No, Achilles can't use logic to justify logic. Banno wrote: I think you can be certain that you are now reading this post. Do you? Absolutely, super-extra, hyper- certain.
Or not.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 616

Posted 07/12/09 - 12:08 PM:	#477
Banno wrote: Cool. I wonder what things we might both be certain of. I would bet that we agree about more than we disagree about... I'm sure we are both certain about our existence and presumably the existance of other people. If so then any other things we disagree about are irrelivant.
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: 6293

Posted 07/12/09 - 02:06 PM: Subject: Enter the goat	#478
Willowz wrote: I'm sure we are both certain about our existence and presumably the existance of other people. If so then any other things we disagree about are irrelivant. Then you do not think we need to do something about those who do not agree with the common-sense idea that everything is a goat? I am not in favour of the persecution of those who fight against goatism. Live and let live.
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

stax
The daedal philosopher.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: A transcendental plane of reality, Australia.

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 36

Posted 07/12/09 - 06:55 PM:	#479
stax wrote: it would be true for one to say they are seeing green- their knowledge of green, informed by experience, which is informed by perception and perception informed by the senses. then if another person says its red, who is to dispute this person's viewing of red, when the other sees green? If your kid came to you and said the grass is red, you wouldn't be concerned about a sickness, because you know with a high probability that the grass is green via induction? You see it green, they and them and them see it green, so it most probably is green meaning reflecting light in the green spectrum which average (virtually all) humans can see. then that is a problem of universals. the quantifying of green via spectrometer (or whatever) would reveal your seeing something at X nm, but who is to say that the boy's not seeing red? The spectrometer only tells you the length of the wave in nanometers, NOT what you are SEEING. This provides a fallacy as there is a definite difference in quantitative and qualitative assertions. Quantitive relies on objective means and is an analytic statement, whereby the definitions of its whole are all accepted and provide a new definition. AKA Facts Qualitative relies on perception, and the establishing of the hierarchy I spoke about before; where one of the steps of the hierarchy is informed incorrectly, a different truth is acquired. This is a good example of both the power and limitations of inductive reasoning. It can't ever reach absolute certainty. But it can produce truths which are of high enough probabability that it can be acted on, which is its highest purpose in everyday life. The grass is green. Therefore, have the kid medically checked out! only by consensus of the people is something green. and a consensus doesn't mean its correct, just because the majority of people see it as green, it may not be. PS: thankyou for replying, i've always wanted to have in-depth discussions on this topic. this is such a great forum. Edited by stax on 07/12/09 - 07:38 PM
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Arthur Schopenhauer "To convince someone of the truth, it is not enough to state it, but rather one must find the path from error to truth." Ludwig Wittgenstein "Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open." Ludwig Wittgenstein

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/12/09 - 07:34 PM:	#480
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? Once again, and hopefully for the very last time for those who have just arrived on the short bus, I have not said anywhere, in any way, that there is no objective reality. One possibility for that objective reality is that I am all of it. I could be a singular consciousness awash in nothingness and generating, as well as interacting with, a picture of reality within my own mind. Without another being or another perspective to inform me that this is the case I have no way to confirm or deny it. Another possibility is that I am a BIAV and that objective reality is something akin to the scenario in the Matrix movies. I have not denied the existence of objective reality. I have said on numerous occasions that it cannot be denied any more than it can be confirmed. The reason for that is that we cannot have the proper perspective to accomplish either. It is like pointing at a married couple and declaring that they are in love or not. It can't be done. We can't know. So if the discussion has nothing to do with the existence of an objective reality or not then what are we talking about? We are talking about the simple fact that we can never know the true nature of objective reality. We can only ever pick what seems to us to be the most probable explanation for it and choose to believe that this explanation represents the way things really are. It may or may not but we will never know. It doesn't matter which one we place our faith in because when we are not busy imagining what objective reality might be, we are busy dealing with how reality subjectively presents itself to us.

Page: First 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Last

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