True statements: Philosophy Forums

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

True statements

Page: First 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Last

True statements

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/13/09 - 01:11 AM:	#491
Willowz wrote: Why stick with goats? Why is the goat so special? How about:"...those who do not agree with the common-sense idea that everything is a cockroach?" I guess I better move this post into "Everything is Goat" Because, obviously, everything is a goat Therefore, all roaches are goats. So to say that everything is a roach is to say that everything is a goat. Apply Occam's razor, and obviously everything is not a cockroach.
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: 617

Posted 07/13/09 - 01:45 AM:	#492
Banno wrote: Because, obviously, everything is a goat Therefore, all roaches are goats. So to say that everything is a roach is to say that everything is a goat. Apply Occam's razor, and obviously everything is not a cockroach. What is the moral of goatism? You said in the goat thread: " It has always been goats; it always will be goats. Then, now and forever." -What is the philosophy lying under this? The real question for me is: "Why do these goats eat? Why are the so hungry that they eat another?
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/13/09 - 08:52 AM:	#493
Banno wrote: But Cheshire makes a very important observation: one cannot posit the subjective without also positing the objective. That is incorrect. When one states what one observes there is inherent truth in it. I see a dog means that I see a dog and it cannot be denied. The objective truth behind how I see the dog and why cannot be posited. It is suggested that there must be something of an objective truth behind myself and the dog existing in order to posit what I see but since we don't know anything of the nature of that there is nothing posited, only implied. The implication can be utterly ignored without changing the truth or the fact that I see a dog. If you attempt to posit the objective, you will fail. You will only posit the subjective observation that there appears to you to be something objective. One can imagine and suggest the objective, minus any human observation, but nothing useful can be done with it. The conversation would be very brief and empty. It is possible that something objectively exists that is outside of human awareness. Yep. The end.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 07/13/09 - 09:21 AM:	#494
Banno wrote: As for truths "representing the way things actually are", I hope that we might agree that truth at the least ought not represent the way things actually aren't! Or is this what you are suggesting? And since you define "objective" as "not subjective", the whole issue seems to rest on what you mean by "subjective". So, what does "subjective" mean in your system? I think the "the earth is flat" is a good example of subjectivity in action. Here the literal position of the observer causes a difference between the truth and the observation. At the time of observation the majority opinion would also favor subjective error. In science subjectivity can arise from favoring one hypothesis over another. Subjectivity can also result from a lack of information or understanding or willingness to critically examine ones own beliefs. Mostly subjectivity is the result of being human and subject to human error. In more general terms; subjectivity is a context relative to the person. Edited by Cheshire on 07/13/09 - 09:39 AM
Or not.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/13/09 - 09:26 AM:	#495
Banno wrote: What I have the most trouble with, is why we ought search for immutable truth at all. It is THE truth behind everything we think. It is the man behind the curtain instead of just the projection and smoke and mirrors of the Wizard of Oz. It is an ideal. It isn't so much that we ought to search for it. Like perfection and infinity we can never find it. The only reason I use it is to make the distinction between the truth that objectivists wish to posit and the truth that we actually have to work with. The ideal of something unattainable represents the opposite be which the attainable is defined. We understand that we live in a finite universe because we know what infinite means. We understand it to be imperfect because we know what perfect means. We understand the truth to be mutable because we know what immutable truth means. Why is it so much more important than truth? It is not. It is only there for distinction and the fact that you are willing and able to make that distinction pleases me. That means that we can both see the truth for what it really is rather than one of us being deluded about it and trotting out ideal truth instead. Moreover, if we are to seek it, we ought have at least some idea of what it is. That is all we have, some idea. It represents something we cannot ever have or know or see, just as perfection does. However, we know what perfection means. We can never achieve it. We know this. It doesn't stop us from striving for that ideal. However, if someone walks up with a work of art and declares that it is perfect do you take him to mean that there is not a single flaw in it or that he is satisfied with how beautiful it is? so what is an immutable truth? It would be one that is inarguable and will hold forever. It is a truth as God would see it, not as we would. If God said the sky is purple you would have to accept that this is the truth regardless of how you see it. Slight aside: On Sunday the preacher was giving us a very nice sermon and I was nodding in agreement with his sentiments right up until the moment that he declared that (in context) he would only ever speak God's truth and not his own opinion. Boom, he lost me and I started shaking my head in pity for his delusion. No matter how you slice it or where you believe it comes from the truth that you speak is always your opinion. Presumably an immutable truth is one that does not change. You don't have to presume. That is the very definition. But that can't be right, since we do have access to truths that do not change: those of mathematics, for example, or even the statement "I am writing this post", suitably indexed... Mathematical truths are inventions. The immutable truth of them is recursive. 1+1=2 is only true because we assign value to the symbols 1 and 2. We make that true by design. The same is true for your statement, "I am writing this post". It is not made true by the cosmos so much as by you observing it, believing it and constructing the correct symbolism to express that you believe it to be true. As for truths "representing the way things actually are", I hope that we might agree that truth at the least ought not represent the way things actually aren't! Or is this what you are suggesting? And since you define "objective" as "not subjective", the whole issue seems to rest on what you mean by "subjective". The point is that we cannot express THE truth in the sense of the way things really are, objectively. We can only ever express the truth in the sense of the way we see things, subjectively. So, what does "subjective" mean in your system? Human perception. How we see things. You see, the introduction of this juxtaposition is a trap; once set, one seems obligated to make the distinction as clear as possible. But I fear that the distinction, like that between "here" and "there", does not lend itself to this sort of treatment. I disagree. I think the distinction is very clear. There is hypothetical objective reality, which we cannot describe since we do not have access to the proper perspective. Then there is subjective perception, which we do have and which we can work with and discuss. The former being hypothetical and the latter being practical makes a very clear distinction. This is why I keep dragging you back to the terms you are using. they are the philosopher's tools, and we ought keep them clean. This is why I am straining for saintly patience in going back and forth with you seeking your understanding of the inherent cleanliness and appropriate use of the philosopher's tools in what I am proposing here. I do not want to attempt to discuss truth in an idealized sense because that is a full stop. An ideal can be posited but cannot be dissected or discussed. If I say, "That is perfect.", and it actually is (which of course is impossible but bear with me) then the only possible discussion would be your agreement. If it were possible for someone to posit immutable truth then none of us would have any choice but to agree with it forever and ever amen. 'It is immutably true that I am a phenomenal guitar player!' Everyone on Earth would simply have to agree. So far that hasn't happened. Hell I don't even agree. I just think I don't suck. If we are going to deal with truth we have to establish what we are dealing with. What we are dealing with is what humans believe to be true. That is the jumping off point. Someone coming along with what is "actually true" is bringing a ball to the game that nobody can throw and the game stops.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/13/09 - 09:32 AM:	#496
Cheshire wrote: I think the "the earth is flat" is a good example of subjectivity in action. Here the literal position of the observer causes a difference between the truth and the observation. At the time of observation the majority opinion would also favor subjective error. In science subjectivity can arise from favoring one hypothesis over another. Subjectivity can also result from a lack of information or understanding or willingness critically examine ones own beliefs. Mostly subjectivity is the result of being human and subject to human error. Bingo. Well stated.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 617

Posted 07/13/09 - 11:36 AM:	#497
oag wrote: It is possible that something objectively exists that is outside of human awareness. You said it yourself. I can't do any better than that.
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 07/13/09 - 12:14 PM:	#498
The example of the "earth is flat" is one in which subjectivity produced an error, not a limit. We didn't have to leave earth to discover it was curved. People simply needed to remove the subjectivity of their position by making multiple observations from different points. Our observations concerning the earth are still subjective, but with some major errors eliminated in our understanding. In eliminating errors we move at least closer too unobstructed truth. I think we can achieve objective truth even by ideal standards, but we may never know we actually have it, by the same standards. It is the difference between "We can not know" and "We can not know we know". I think this best represents the difference in our two ideas. It may not result in an agreement, but I find a mutual understanding just as valuable.
Or not.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 07/13/09 - 02:40 PM:	#499
I believe the question of justification is still on the table. I think true statements should be justified to a reasonable degree. I would suggest that the degree be rational. Requiring to much justification prevents the production of true statements, while too little tends to really muddy the water.
Or not.

enl1ghtened
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 20

Posted 07/13/09 - 03:01 PM:	#500
Truth: Information provided by one who believes it to be accurate, with the intention to provide accurate information. Lies: Information provided by one who believes it to be false, and provides it with the intention to disinform another. To misinform would mean a lack of intent. To disinform is to intentionally provide false information. Truth and trust: To trust someone is to have a connection of purity, as to accept the information from an other's mind as equal as the information provided by one's own mind. Equality is One

Page: First 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Last

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