Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is your statement true?
Again, is your statement true?
For a 50+ page scholarly article just on the correspondence theory of truth see:
The Correspondence Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Sorry did you say "True" was primitive?
Why appeal to sophistication instead of engage the definition to gain understanding and agreement if possible?
Your goading seems to be aimed at appeals to emotion.
There are meaningful differences in the theory of truth and epistemology. If we don't come to some agreements we will not make any progress knowledge-wise.
If you want to defend a post-modern idea of truth then by all means give an argument for why it is true that there is no such thing as truth.
"Standard" here is a red herring. To the extent a statement reflects reality, it is "true".
Such a thing as a meter is an agreed upon standard of communication. A thing is as long as it is. It is truly that length. It is what it is. Is it a meter? Only in as much as our standard for meter matches it's length.
"Standard" here is a red herring. To the extent a statement reflects reality, it is "true".
Such a thing as a meter is an agreed upon standard of communication. A thing is as long as it is. It is truly that length. It is what it is. Is it a meter? Only in as much as our standard for meter matches it's length.
I understand you, I think, but I'd say it's a quibble. If I say "there is a rock in my front yard", I'm comfortable saying that that statement reflects reality. I can also say that there are "two trees in my front yard" say that that statement reflects reality without contradicting myself. I suspect most people wouldn't have a problem with this. I won't flinch, however, if you insist on restating that these statements are aspects.Don't you mean to say, Tinker, that a statement reflects "an aspect of reality," rather than reality in general? Otherwise, it seems to me that the semantics involved on your side here might imply that if one has made a statement which is seen to be true, then there's nothing else that might also be said about that same aspect of reality. I could be wrong, but it seems odd to me to think that a true statement of any kind, all by itself, would be sufficient in extent for us to stop making further 'true' statements about that same aspect of reality upon which we are focused.
Or, am I just reading too much into your true statement about the nature of truth expressed by a true statement?
Statements can't reflect reality, because statements are derivative patterns that exist in a network of functional mechanism of the mind that builds models of reality.
Does your statement above reflect reality? If not, what significance does it have regarding reality? It certainly sounds like you are making an observation about reality, and not merely about some "network of meaning" that is "detached from reality". How seriously should I take your statement as being about reality as it really is?
eudaimonia,
Mark
I understand you, I think, but I'd say it's a quibble. If I say "there is a rock in my front yard", I'm comfortable saying that that statement reflects reality. I can also say that there are "two trees in my front yard" say that that statement reflects reality without contradicting myself. I suspect most people wouldn't have a problem with this. I won't flinch, however, if you insist on restating that these statements are aspects.
I.e., yeah, I think you're reading too much into it.
Does your statement above reflect reality? If not, what significance does it have regarding reality? It certainly sounds like you are making an observation about reality, and not merely about some "network of meaning" that is "detached from reality". How seriously should I take your statement as being about reality as it really is?
I think even the weaker style Kantianism is vulnerable to attack. I could and would argue that the idea of "categories of thought" necessarily refers to something about the thing-in-itself instead of reality as we perceive it, but I think a degree of caution is still very much warranted. (I sympathize, but ultimately disagree, with @devolved's position.)
There's been a good two centuries of thought after Kant, and plenty of people used Kant's ideas in such a way that turned Kantianism on its head in context various models of reality.
But, I think we could zero in on you suggesting that categories of thought refers to things. Well, if we really break it down, then thoughts and things are both events in reality that we idealize as objects. In short, these are patterns, and these are vastly different patterns that exist in different contexts of process of reality.
Mind structures reality, at least subjectively.
Even granting the Kantian distinction between noumena and phenomena, you cannot invoke the concept of categories of thought at all without saying something substantial about reality as it actually is.
Mind structures reality, at least subjectively. That is all well and good, but it is not a subjective statement. We can step outside of our web of self-referential concepts far enough to know that processes that structure reality are an objective element of the external world. Perhaps we cannot say anything else about these processes without running into conceptual traps, but we can at least know that structuring processes exist beyond our already structured subjective realities. This is not a pattern; it is knowledge of the noumena.
Therefore, I would say that the phenomena itself is not entirely separate from the noumena, since the latter gives rise to the former, and our ability to look back and grasp reality gives us a window into it, even if that window is mediated by mental images and concepts.
The fact that those mental images and concepts exist by itself says something about external reality. To deny this is also to say something substantial about the noumena, which you are not allowed to do.
All I can do is invite you to learn logic and catch up to the rest of us.
"True" is a primitive notion. Otherwise we could only say that "true" means "not false" and "false" means "not true."
We can only have circularity or undefined foundations. There's no other option.
Your insistence that you are right and that 100% of all mathematicians and logicians on earth are wrong about a topic you never even heard of is what I would call the pinnacle of "errorgance."
I'm not sure how we can know that, unless you equivocate axiomatic assumptions with knowledge. I think these would be in the category of necessary beliefs that provide foundations for knowledge.
You'd have to elaborate on what you mean by "we can step outside of our web of self-referential concepts". In which way? By means of consensus? Why would that be different? You can appeal to some reliability in context of consistent perception, but how would that be stepping outside of that network?
If you have 20 black and white cameras that all consistently reproduce black and white image... would that mean that world lacks color beyond the shades of grey?
Consider a statement like "Сейчас идет дождь". It's meaningless to you. It's meaningful to me, but it doesn't reflect my current perception of reality. It may reflect a certain context of reality given that the perception context to which statement is linked to is present, but it's not at this time.
Rest of you who? Whoever you are referring to... that would be an extreme minority in any case.
1) No, that's not the only thing you could say, and I've already shown you the alternative.
2) It would only be the case if you subscribe to deflationism, which you don't seem to be. So the above leaves me puzzled. There are plentiful theories of truth, and the concept of correspondense tends to be central to how we generally refer to that concept.
Yes, but truth is not one of these. It can only exist on circular foundation of concepts that it links as far as conceptual relationships go, otherwise it's a meaningless concept. Is it true that apple is a fruit? Yes, because we nominally defined an apple, and we nominally define a fruit. The concept of truth is that of correspondence between those nominally-defined concepts.
It exists to communicate conceptual coherence.
Again, perhaps if you ascribe to deflationism theory that would not be the case. Do you?
What are you talking about? Lol. Are you really saying that 100% of mathematician and logicians are deflationists or that none doubt the viability of infinite set theory as foundational? Really?
I would not dispute this claim, but I am trying to point out that it itself is a claim about the noumena: that a form of structuring takes place prior to our subjective experience.
Except in that we have very direct knowledge of how specific colors appear to us, which is knowledge that simultaneously refers to the phenomenal and the noumenal, given that our phenomenal experiences are part of the noumenal whole. The fact that the noumenon somehow gives rise to a phenomenal experience of color is also another thing we can say about the noumenon itself.
This doesn't mean that knowledge is impossible, but just that it might well be unspeakable.
Well, that's an assumption that you and I may have, but it doesn't need to reflect reality. Noumenal may not give rise to phenomenal. It could be the opposite. Or it could be that one merely observes the other just like we passively observe movies and live thought experiences of actors on the screen, etc.
I think we are in agreement here, hence my initial objection that language doesn't reflect reality but reflects a contents of thoughts. Do you disagree with that objection?
This doesn't work. If the phenomenal gives rise to the noumenal, then the phenomenal is the noumenal, and the Kantian thing-in-itself doesn't exist at all. Which means we lose the distinction between phenomenal and noumenal and still have access to reality as it actually is.
Similarly, unless you are a type of dualist and think that the phenomenal is fundamentally simple and self-given, I'm not sure how the idea that one merely observes the other makes any sense at all. If you grant the phenomenal this type of independence, then it becomes an equally fundamental aspect of reality as it actually is and indistinguishable from the noumenal. There really is a point at which this sort of extreme subjectivism just collapses into incoherence.
I'm not sure. I don't really know what your objection actually is. I would think it self evident that words do not necessarily reflect reality, but I would be cautious of too subjectivist an approach to language, since basic words are referential. I don't need to speak more than 20 words of Greek for the statement πίνω το νερό to be meaningful to me.
...but then we have to question the linguistic structure of what you "mean" specifically (even if not exactly?) when you say "it's meaningful to me."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?