Being true is Davidson's focus. — creativesoul

And what does it mean for a statement to be true? Is it enough to say, yep looks like the sun is setting!

Of course. It's just an example sentence. Let's stay on track. — ZzzoneiroCosm

But I think it illustrates why the truth of a statement is not quite so simple.

Hu? So when you say that the sun is setting, you are never talking about the actual sun? — Banno

It's a fact that the sun does not set. The reason we have that as part of our language is because of an outdated astronomy where the word usage originated.

But then we have an object (the sun) allowing us to put the sentence to use. Davidson says "nothing, no thing..." — ZzzoneiroCosm

We have an appearance of a setting sun. The actual fact of the matter is the Earth's rotation.

Why is being pedantic about this important? Because we're talking about truth.

Consider saying, "The stick is bent when in water". That would be false. Same thing here.

SO the sun is not the thing that makes "the sun is setting" true... — Banno

Particularly since it's not true that the sun does set when speaking of the actual sun.

Why do we need them? Folk seem to just get on with using language without the help of epistemologists. Why shouldn't it just be that we use words to talk to each other, and that's it? — Banno

Because maybe as Socrates demonstrated, people don't really know what they're talking about.

Yeah, we do. We know "the sun is setting" is true if the sun is setting. SO if the sun is setting, then "the sun is setting" is true. — Banno

Unless the sun doesn't set, but rather only appears to do so. Then it's not true on a literal reading of the statement, which people used to believe.

There are many such statements in ordinary language which aren't strictly true. And people may or may not believe them. "My heart longs for you my darling!" But no, it doesn't really. It just pumps blood.

Because you end up being a Randian if you advocate such a view on the matter. Being rich then becomes a matter of 'fact' or 'natural right'. — Wallows

It's not the being rich part, it's the allowing people to attempt to become rich. Some of it is luck and who you know. Some of it is starting out with money. But some of it is innovation. And we want people to be free to start their own businesses and try out new ideas. Also, if you do start out with wealth, it's better for the economy if you invest it and fund business adventures than it is to just sit in a bank account.

Nothing about being rich is Darwinian in nature. Is that what you have in mind? — Wallows

I'm not making blanket statements. But also, what's wrong with the Darwinian part when it comes to being rich?

Now note I'm not saying that's good for being poor or huge wealth imbalances, I'm just asking about financial success. We can use progressive taxation to address that.

So, I'm sensing some conservative undertones here. — Wallows

Is there something wrong with that?

What is god for the individual is good for the economy as a whole, is that correct? — Wallows

It can be.

Circular, but, I get the point. So, then if not being lucky, then maybe talent or knowledge? — Wallows

So let's restrict the domain to sports. If you want to become a rich athlete (starting off as a youth), it's certainly possible. But it takes a tremendous amount of work. You don't just luck into it by occasionally playing a sport as you're growing up.

Now luck certainly enters it with injuries, timing and where you go to play college or what club or what not. And some people are more marketable than others, and get offered nice endorsement deals.

But none of that happens without trying.

OK, but that sounds like luck to me. — Wallows

To an extent. You also don't get to be lucky if you don't try. But I'm not against increasing taxes on the wealthy. I'm against the idea of equal outcome. We're not all equal in ability.

So, being or becoming rich is a sort of inside thing? I — Wallows

Sometimes, but also it's being able to pursue an idea at the right time, and being willing to risk failing. And then succeeding enough to garner recognition. Silicon Valley has a motto of failing fast and often, and real artists ship their product. It means get your stuff out there and be ready to pivot.

Not everyone is willing to do that, and they're okay with just a normal job. And then there are people who wreck their lives or don't care to bother.

So while we can certainly criticize the various issues around wealth imbalance, we also don't want to disincentive people from being skilled and creative and increasing the economic pie.

I have no interest in living in a society in which we're all equally poor.

Makes me wanna puke, if anyone actually believes that. — Wallows

Some would end up poor or rich like they were before, because they have/don't have the habits, skills and connections to do so. It's not all luck or birthright.

If you took all of Musk or Beezos' money, do you think they just end up homeless? Or do they go and pitch some ideas to venture capitalists and start a new business?

Lottery winners and plenty of athletes often blow their money in a few years, because they don't understand how to maintain their wealth and invest wisely.

Which domain sets out what all thought and belief consists of? — creativesoul

I don't really know what "consists of" means here. Do you mean the nature of thought and belief? Because I would say mental since it hasn't been successfully reduced to something else. Do you mean what thought and belief point to? Because then a lot of the time it will be the world. Do you mean the social aspect of it? Are you asking whether they are public? Some of the time, yes. But not always.

So... the mental is the domain which clearly sets out what all human thought and belief consist of? — creativesoul

Are you talking about what thought and belief refer to? Or are you talking about the nature of thought and belief?

Where else would they be? On paper? In the cloud?

Which domain clearly sets out what all human thought and belief consists of? — creativesoul

The mental?

I wonder, what does the realist say about abstracts/mathematics; is it something human's created, or did it always exist and we just uncovered/discovered its truth... ? — 3017amen

A realist about mathematics is a Platonist. You can be a nominalist or a quietest about such matters and still be a realist about the world. Realism about one domain doesn't entail you to be a realist about another.

Regarding the world, you can have color realists, ordinary object realists, scientific realists and what have you. It just depends on one's ontology.

With that being said, the realist’s position is undermined by groundbreaking discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics which subsequently serve as evidence that go against the realist’s assertion that “knowing makes no difference to what is known.” — PessimisticIdealism

Yeah, but that doesn't apply to the macroscale.

Then the question is how can we be certain, not how do we know things? — Harry Hindu

Well, that depends on whether knowledge requires certainty.

When you observe your experiences it seems pretty clear that there is an external world because it would be a different experience if there wasn't. You might say that there'd be no experience at all. — Harry Hindu

But that external world might be a brain in a vat, a simulation, a dream in God's mind, etc. if we take into account skeptical possibilities.

I'm not quite clear on what the problem is. Don't we acquire knowledge from observations? We don't know anything until we observe it. So the answer is observe it and then you will know. — Harry Hindu

The problem is that our acquisition of knowledge doesn't lead to certainty. Which is usually fine for everyday living, but has issues when doing philosophical inquiry. If we want to know what's real, then we have to deal with skepticism.

That is, even if an individual doesn't perceive the world as it really is, what the individual perceives is influenced by some real things that influence his perception, so the individual perceives what the world really is like when these real influences are taken into account, but the thing is of course the individual doesn't perceive these real influences as long as they mess with his perception. — leo

That makes sense. But then when the individual wants to know what the world's like independent of anyone perceiving it, questions about realism, epistemology and science come into play. And they might want to know this because they think there is a world that's more than just humans perceiving it.

So for example if the individual wishes to know how humans came to be, they have to go beyond human perception to an explanation that gives rise to our individual human perceptions.

So, there's clearly a difference between the world and our thought and belief about it? — creativesoul

Also between our perception of the world and how it is. Science tells us this in a thousand ways.

Seems to me like we do not subject accounts we know to be perception to a supposition of it being an illusion... so I suspect we might be closer to the naive realists than you might think. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well, with vision we see solid objects and not the mostly empty space they're made of, or all the EM radiation passing through them. We see them as colored. And we seem them from a certain location happening over a certain time interval we can experience (so not nanoseconds).

So that image (or sequence of images) is not exactly what an object is.

Set it out... this difference between world and.... what, exactly are you claiming must be different than the world? — creativesoul

Our experience of the world including perceptions and thoughts.

Our image... as retinal? — creativesoul

That wasn't my metaphor, but visual perception is part of it.

Who's arguing for naive realism? — creativesoul

Sometimes the ordinary language approach seems to be defending a version of naive realism. The point is that we can't just say the world is how we perceive and think it and leave it at that. It's certainly not enough to say that ordinary word usage captures reality.

And the world... — creativesoul

It's obviously somewhat different than the appearance, or naive realism would have gone unquestioned. The "appearance" also includes our conceptualizations of the world.

Yes, basically that's it, although the visual metaphor bothers me a little, because one might argue we're being fooled by thinking only in terms of vision, where illusions can occur. With these sorts of questions, it's important to keep in mind our entire experience of the world, less we be mislead by a metaphor.

But I agree the world is a kind of appearance to us, different from what it is, to some extent, at least.

Ask Pfhorrest

The problem with ordinary objects isn't that we name them, it's that they don't map neatly onto our scientific understanding of the world.

Nope, that's also special pleading: fundamental particles and patterns are just as much things we name as mountains. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm a scientific realist, so I'm going to have to draw the line there. We don't understand electrons in terms of something more fundamental, unless string theory turns out to be true. That's not the case with ordinary objects.

Stop using it to do things we cannot do with it. — creativesoul

You mean don't use mountains when doing philosophy?

You realise this is special pleading: the objects matter, rocks, snow and dirt are equally things we have named. If there is a problem with the things we call mountains existing before we name them, the same would be true of matter, rocks, snow and dirt. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, but I was focusing on mountains. We could just say only the fundamental physics stuff exists and the interesting patterns it makes. A chair is just a bunch of particles arranged chair-wise would be one way of saying that.

Well, it's a problem with how we're talking about the world and/or ourselves. Typically, I fix such problems by changing how I talk. — creativesoul

One way would be to stop using the word mountain. But that process might result in a radical revision of language.

My point was how we layer on accumulated knowledge and regard it as if it is our natural intuitive attitude. — I like sushi

Yeah, like how we all know ordinary matter is mostly empty space with electromagnetic bonds holding molecules together tightly enough so that we can't see or put our hands through it without smashing it.

But that wasn't the conception of solidity before atomic theory developed, excepting those from the atomist school of philosophy.

I agree that that's the real problem. Where we will inevitably disagree is how to solve the problem. — creativesoul

What's the solution? Analysis of how the word mountain is used?

Nietzsche would be an alt-right troll and Putin supporter?

As regards total failure, Davidson claims "we cannot make sense of [it]." Perhaps taken to imply the impossibility of total failure. To say "we cannot make sense of [it]," is not to say "it cannot occur." It can possibly occur regardless of our ability to make sense of it. Davidson concedes that though it may be impossible to "make sense" of a "total failure of translatability" neither is it the case that "all speakers of language...share a common scheme": — ZzzoneiroCosm

This reminds me of some of Stanislaw Lem's science fiction work where there is a total failure to communicate. In the Solaris novel, which has been made into two different movies, an alien ocean has been discovered that is a living organism and exhibits some kind of intelligence, but there is a total failure to communicate with it because it is so alien, and the humans cannot get past their own human concepts to make the leap. However, the ocean may face the same problem when it starts recreating other humans from memories of the research crew, including the main character's deceased wife. This is very disturbing and upsetting to the researchers, and it ultimately explains nothing as the physical imitations don't know why they were created by the ocean.

I recall reading that was the Greeks conception of how vision worked. But maybe it varied across cultures and philosophical schools. We do experience vision as if we're looking out through our eyes at the world. It's just that the scientific understanding is also there to correct us. Similar to watching "sunsets" and "sunrises" or not feeling Earth's movement.