Truth

145678Next
  • creativesoul
    7.6k
    We don't know how things really are, we only know how we believe them to be...Isaac

    Isn't this just a rehashing of Kant?

    In order to know that we do not know how things are, we must already know both... how things are and what we believe about how things are. We must perform a comparative analysis between the way things are and what we believe about the way things are. But if we do not know how things are, we cannot possibly perform this comparison.

    It's untenable.
  • creativesoul
    7.6k
    Correspondence with fact/reality is presupposed in within all thought and belief.

    Correspondence is existentially dependent upon belief formation. That is not to say that in order for a statement to be true, it must also be believed. Rather, it is to point out that all statements are existentially dependent upon belief. All belief presupposes it's own correspondence somewhere along the line.

    This is shown by the redundancy of adding "is true" to statements of thought and belief.

    Truth is correspondence 'between' thought and belief about the world and/or ourselves, and the world and/or ourselves.
  • Isaac
    2k
    In order to know that we do not know how things are, we must already know both... how things are and what we believe about how things are. We must perform a comparative analysis between the way things are and what we believe about the way things are.creativesoul

    No. If we have no reasonable grounds or mechanism by which the two could be assumed to be the same then we must conclude that they would only be so by chance. A perfectly reasonable default hypothesis therefore, is that they aren't. Put that to some experimental testing showing overwhelmingly the extent to which our experience of the same object differs and you have, what is currently the leading theory on perception. We do not perceive reality directly. Not even close.
  • creativesoul
    7.6k
    Now it's Stove's worst argument?

    The leading theory of perception? Is it physicalist? Does it include notions like perception that is informed by language as well as perception that is not?

    Meh.

    Gibberish.
  • Janus
    8.8k
    It's possible the answer to all these questions is actually in your last paragraph, but if so, I'm afraid I couldn't make any sense of it, so I'd be grateful for a re-wording.Isaac

    Interesting. So you're saying that 'believing' is one attitude we can have toward a proposition's content, but there's some other attitude we can have toward it which you're saying is the one we use to apply the label 'true'? Do you have a name for this other attitude? When does it kick in?Isaac

    It doesn't matter that I might not know what the actuality is. When I make a statement about what is true, my intention is to say what is true, not merely to say what I believe is true. On a "meta-level" what I am saying may be merely an expression of my belief (it also may happen to be an expression of the truth, even if I can never be certain that it is). But that "meta-caveat" is not the same thing as the logic that is inherent in the intention underlying truth-statements. You are conflating the two.Janus

    Apologies if my wording is not clear to you. The name for the "other attitude" is 'acknowledgement that my belief could be wrong if it happens not to accord with reality'.

    If I could be wrong in believing that Donald Trump is POTUS, then this possibility is contingent upon there being an actual state of affairs: Donald Trump being or not being POTUS at the time in question, that would make my belief true or false.
  • Janus
    8.8k
    We do not perceive reality directly. Not even close.Isaac

    This assumes that there is a reality to be perceived or not perceived directly, no?
  • Isaac
    2k
    If I could be wrong in believing that Donald Trump is POTUS, then this possibility is contingent upon there being an actual state of affairsJanus

    Not necessarily. It depends if you take a pragmatic definition of 'wrong' or not. Being 'wrong' can amount to nothing more than having a theory which is superseded by a more useful one. I'm not saying that there is no state of affairs, by the way, I think there is. I'm just saying that being 'wrong' need not be contingent on there being one.

    Donald Trump being or not being POTUS at the time in question, that would make my belief true or false.Janus

    So, if 'true' is a property of a belief, and a belief is a state of affairs in the brain, a 'true' belief should be distinguishable from a 'false' one one, no? For a belief to have the property of being 'true' (unless we're invoking dualism) it would have to have some physical difference from a false one.

    Better, I think, to have 'true' as a category of beliefs, not a property of them. Far less problems with dualism. But if 'true' is a category of belief, then nothing about the real world determines what goes in that category, it's a human-made one. We decide what's in and what's out. Like 'blue'.

    This assumes that there is a reality to be perceived or not perceived directly, no?Janus

    Yes. I make that presumption. I don't think we could provide much by way of justification, but I also don't think we're capable of doubting it.
  • Gregory
    546
    "Of course , innerworldly beings in the sense of what is real, as merely objectively present, can still remain covered up. However, what is real, too, is discoverable only on the basis of a world already disclosed. And only on this basis can what is real still remain concealed." Heidegger
  • creativesoul
    7.6k
    ...a belief is a state of affairs in the brain...Isaac

    This is dead wrong.
  • Banno
    7.1k
    It's a planet we can't in principle know about, in the past or during the heat death of the universe where it's expanded to the point that it's impossible to travel there. Or it's cloaked by the Romulans.frank

    So it's like the chairs at the end of the universe.

    But that debate disappeared long ago.
  • Gregory
    546
    People are allowed to inflict pain on someone to give them sexual pleasure,.But up to a point because there is a discrete difference between enjoying sex and being suicidal. There is no soul though because truth is relative, coming from within since it is unsubstantial
  • Banno
    7.1k
    Thank you for sharing, Gregory.
  • Baden
    9.2k


    To my next party, you are invited.
  • frank
    4.2k
    So it's like the chairs at the end of the universe.

    But that debate disappeared long ago.
    Banno

    Did it? Ok then.
145678Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.