• Judaka
    1.7k
    Truths can be arranged in such ways that the arrangement itself requires a different kind of analysis than asking whether the truths arranged are in fact true. Most philosophical positions follow a similar template; introduce some truths, explain what they mean and then make your point. It should be understood that all three of these steps require you to make decisions that make your position implicitly personal. It is not a flaw, it is an unavoidable consequence of intelligence, that you are able to arrange truths, interpret them and argue the meaning of what you've brought forward is an amazing thing. And it cannot be contested by truth alone.

    Most of this should be obvious when pointed out in isolation but I feel it's necessary because it's not understood when people are being passionate about their positions.

    Relevant Truths

    When talking on a subject, I cannot possibly introduce every bit of information with any kind of relevance, I have to decide what is most important but no true piece of information is less true than another piece. We need to accept that it is impossible for me to include every piece of information, therefore what I choose to be relevant can have wildly different implications for my subsequent conclusions.

    Besides deciding, I cannot decide if information is relevant if I am not aware of it.

    Characterisations

    The way truths appear to interact can have a lot to do with how characterisations add to the information we have alongside the truth. The truth is distinct from how we characterise it, yet, the truth is shaped by how we characterise it, as it merges with the characterisation. The man becomes the "angry" man or the system becomes the "unfair" system. The truth of the angriness of the man or unfairness of the system is one where people can reasonably disagree yet there is a fundamental difference between a system and an unfair system. I am not saying there is no such thing as anger or unfairness but just because you see something that way, that doesn't mean you can ignore the factors which helped you to arrive at that conclusion.

    Interpretation

    What it means for something to be true is separate from the actual truth itself. This should be self-explanatory but for instance, that I am a man is a fact but what it means to be a man is a matter of interpretation. We can reasonably disagree on the interpretation without disagreeing on the fact.

    Emphasis

    All true pieces of information are equally true but they aren't equally emphasised, whether for your point or in general. What emphasising a fact does, why it's being done and whether it should be done are all valid questions that don't challenge the truth of the piece of information being emphasised.

    Narrativization

    Through which truths are made relevant or important or are known, to how they're characterised or interpreted, a unique story is created. Yet what truths are made relevant or known, how they're characterised and interpreted, all of it happens differently depending on who is telling the story. We can disagree on what is fair, what is reasonable, what is lopsided and because how the story is arranged can all be reasonably disagreed upon, how it should be evaluated can be reasonably disagreed upon as well.

    It is not about people making mistakes, being unreasonable, fallible, biased or whatever else. You are either aware of your involvement in how you have organised the truths, characterised them and interpreted them or you are deludedly believing that the result is also a truth and not something you have created. Even without ever disagreeing on what is true, you can arrive at a near infinite number of different conclusions by arranging the facts differently. Thus the question becomes, how do I judge a good conclusion from a bad one.

    That is not something I'll discuss here but what is nonsense is to defend the arrangement by the truth of what you've arranged. It doesn't address any of the aforementioned choices you've made that have created the arrangement - none of which ever challenge what is and what is not true.
  • JerseyFlight
    782
    This are some important points here. I like the direction of your thinking.
  • creativesoul
    12k
    Looks like that line of thinking is built upon conflating several different notions of "truth" all into one.
  • creativesoul
    12k
    True belief is prior to language. True belief corresponds to reality. That correspondence is truth. Correspondence is prior to language.

    We do not gather and arrange truth - as if it were something that exists in and of itself - that can be placed into different arrangements, like many things can... flowers. Correspondence is not like that.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    You're going to have to rephrase yourself, I don't follow.
  • creativesoul
    12k
    The truth can be arranged...Judaka

    No it cannot.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    Fair enough, I will rewrite that.
  • JerseyFlight
    782
    The truth can be arranged...Judaka

    This is a most interesting notion. It takes my mind to a further question, which is that of the value of truth arrangement, pending such a possibility. What is clear to me is that if truth can be arranged, then this means it can be controlled to some extent, which is most interesting. The onus would fall upon us to construct the most intelligent arrangement possible. In all simplicity, this was Marx's direction of thought.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    "The truth" was perhaps more abstract than I was going for but conceptually it is simple enough to understand. That there are truths is less important than why a particular piece of information matters, what it means, what the implications of it are, does it tell the full story, who is bringing it up and for what, what should be done about it and so on. If you don't create your own reasons, you will only end up adopting someone else's and that may not best serve your interests.
  • creativesoul
    12k


    So, I'm guessing that by "truths" you're talking about true claims, assertions, statements, or some such...

    Is that about right?
  • creativesoul
    12k
    Ok.

    It is not a flaw, it is an unavoidable consequence of intelligence, that you are able to arrange truths, interpret them and argue the meaning of what you've brought forward is an amazing thing. And it cannot be contested by truth alone.Judaka

    And what does the term "truth" mean here? The same as before but singular? A true statement?
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    Yes, "truths" is just a plural of "a truth" which is something with the quality of being true.
  • creativesoul
    12k
    Ok. Substitution then results in the following...


    It is not a flaw, it is an unavoidable consequence of intelligence, that you are able to arrange truths, interpret them and argue the meaning of what you've brought forward is an amazing thing. And it cannot be contested by a true statement alone...




    The above replaces "truth" with "a true statement", which if a truth is a true statement, as you've claimed, that substitution ought be perfectly acceptable. The meaning ought not change at all. But...

    ...the problem is obvious, is it not?

    Our ability to arrange true statements, interpet them, and argue the meaning can most certainly be contested by a true statement alone.

    Right?
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    I agree that the conclusion of arranging truths, interpreting them and arguing their meaning can be contested by a true statement. I made an error in my last comment because I didn't read yours correctly. The "truth" here is referring to the literal state of things being true, if you think my language is confusing then I welcome suggestions on what you would have done differently.
  • fdrake
    6.6k


    I broadly agree with what you've written. Though I think that driving such a hard wedge between fact and interpretation is very close to skepticism.

    . Even without ever disagreeing on what is true, you can arrive at a near infinite number of different conclusionsJudaka

    How many relevant interpretations can there be of "Some people like petting cats."? If it is a mere fact, what can be disagreed upon regarding it without adding irrelevant detail through the interpretation?
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    I don't know precisely what you mean but it probably is scepticism, to some extent, what I've written, I believe it is the bedrock of nihilism. I don't know, you are baiting me into heavily derailing my own thread here.

    How many relevant interpretations can there be of "Some people like petting cats."? If it is a mere fact, what can be disagreed upon regarding it without adding irrelevant detail through the interpretation?fdrake

    True, we would require more complexity in order to arrive at a near-infinite number of different conclusions. I think that as humans, we are different in relatively meaningless ways in comparison to how we're the same. That is why I don't go into a discussion thinking that a near-infinite number of conclusions are likely to come up, I think people are likely to see things in just a few ways, it depends on the subject.
  • fdrake
    6.6k
    I don't know precisely what you mean but it probably is scepticism, to some extent, what I've written, I believe it is the bedrock of nihilism. I don't know, you are baiting me into heavily derailing my own thread here.Judaka

    I'm not baiting you into heavily derailing your own thread. Whatever the facts are, they don't justify any interpretation.

    I don't mean that just as snark. The point of saying it is that an intellectual commitment to nihilism that severs facts from interpretations is like a powerful acid. You can use it to destroy whatever you choose to, but as the above shows you can't function without the fungibility of facts and interpretations. You have to act as if the world is how you interpret it - that's what it means to hold beliefs about it.

    So such a hard wedge between fact and interpretation; even if true in principle, is useless in the practice of reasoning about things. Except as a selectively applied powerful acid.
  • fdrake
    6.6k
    So such a hard wedge between fact and interpretation; even if true in principle, is useless in the practice of reasoning about things. Except as a selectively applied powerful acid.fdrake

    And some part of me wonders if extremely strong skepticism is just another form of faith; doubting all that would change my mind. I could be skeptical of every other interpretation besides the one I have already.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    Facts don't justify interpretations, the rules for justification are negotiated or created. Sometimes what you are saying sounds like a valid way to argue against me, sometimes I am not convinced I actually believe what you're arguing against.

    I am not entirely convinced that if you paraphrased the position you are arguing against that it would describe my position.
  • creativesoul
    12k
    I agree that the conclusion of arranging truths, interpreting them and arguing their meaning can be contested by a true statement. I made an error in my last comment because I didn't read yours correctly. The "truth" here is referring to the literal state of things being true, if you think my language is confusing then I welcome suggestions on what you would have done differently.Judaka

    For a start, I would not use the term "truth" in so many different ways. It's called an equivocation fallacy. It causes confusion at best, and is a sure sign of self-contradiction at worst.

    What's the aim here with the idea of the arrangement of truth?
  • fdrake
    6.6k
    I am not entirely convinced that if you paraphrased the position you are arguing against that it would describe my position.Judaka

    (1) Facts have interpretations.
    (2) When someone writes an account of something, they make a choice regarding what is relevant to present.
    (3) The point (2) also applies to choice of facts.
    (4) There may be multiple interpretations of the same selection of facts.
    (5) When someone writes something fact based - IE which uses evidence - someone who reads it need not agree with the interpretations of facts while agreeing with all the facts.
    (6) Some people behave as if facts usually have only one interpretation.
    (7) That kind of behaviour is a delusion, since complexes of facts have multiple interpretations.

    In the background, though not explicated, you seem to have intuitions regarding the arbitrary connection between collections of facts and what interpretations those collections of facts support. Similarly, you seem to be conveying that it's a ultimately a matter of individual caprice to make any organisation of facts in support of any thesis. Individuals who are not aware of how they do that are deluded. People often write accounts that organize facts and posit them as relevant in this deluded manner.

    Seem about fair?
  • Echarmion
    2.7k
    I don't mean that just as snark. The point of saying it is that an intellectual commitment to nihilism that severs facts from interpretations is like a powerful acid. You can use it to destroy whatever you choose to, but as the above shows you can't function without the fungibility of facts and interpretations. You have to act as if the world is how you interpret it - that's what it means to hold beliefs about it.fdrake

    This "wedge" between fact and interpretation seems to be at the heart of a lot of philosophy in the post-enlightenment era. It could perhaps be said that Kant's critique of pure reason already contained the issue - in dormant form - when Kant introduced the "Ding an sich". It seems like Kant's reasoning, excluding the "realm of freedom", could be taken as a direct road to radical constructivism. Yet at the same time, it also seems self-evident that the outside world has a solidity that implies it exists "in and of itself".
  • Number2018
    560
    Thank you for your OP.
    Even without ever disagreeing on what is true, you can arrive at a near infinite number of different conclusions by arranging the facts differently. Thus the question becomes, how do I judge a good conclusion from a bad one.Judaka
    Can it be the effectiveness of one’s arrangement? If I understand you correctly, when one expresses her positions, views, or perspectives, the implicit ‘arrangement of truth’ has been inevitably involved. It brings many opportunities to disagree, oppose, contradict, or challenge the conclusion or the final statement. Yet, if the object of consideration is not
    some particular truth, we could find common ground on discussing the rules of the game.
    An effective, interesting game (arrangement) works if it produces specific effects and if it can be reapplied in different situations.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    Are you sure you want to accuse me of a fallacy? Those definitions I have given are pretty standard, truth and truths are different words. Do you want to say that my argument actually hinges on these definitions? Give me the words you want to have them replaced with and see how much my argument changes.

    What is the aim of the arrangement of truth? I have reasons for posting about it and caring about it but why it exists? There is no aim, it is just a natural consequence of intelligence.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    I have a small concern, how do you define interpretation? I use it here to say: explaining the meaning of something. If you agree with that and we are not talking about epistemology or using interpretations to strip a truth of its status as a truth, then I will be more comfortable about responding properly. I said I might agree with Skepticism but after doing homework on what that is, I don't agree with it, I would use the same criticism as you about it.

    As for the individual freedom to interpret just whatever.

    The rules for justification are negotiated, created or are implicit, there is no necessity for facts to justify or falsify interpretations by themselves. I have ways of measuring the success of my ideas besides their truth value but these ways are pretty common, there is no incentive for me to destroy everything, or at least try to, I think only conceptually it could work but in reality, I am not so in control.

    If someone beat me up and stole precious items from me, I could try to interpret this in a way that makes me feel good about it but as if it's that easy. Nobody would wish to be afraid due to such an incident, nobody would want to feel degraded by it but what can you do? You are not able to control your emotions or interpretations at will, you have to live with them. Before we are individuals, we are biological entities and with that comes rules, the rules of our nature and the nature of how things interact.

    It is very far away from up to individual caprice, we must play within the rules but the rules aren't followed because they're compelling just rather we have no choice. Within these rules, sure, there is no truth value to interpretation.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    I wholeheartedly agree with how you've paraphrased the concept and with how you suggest evaluating arrangements. I don't think it is the only valid answer but it is, in my opinion, the best one, as it is the most pragmatic. The subjectivity of the arrangement hardly detracts from its importance, we should decide what we are trying to achieve and then whether it is a good or bad thing to be trying to achieve and see what works best in the various contexts.
  • creativesoul
    12k
    Are you sure you want to accuse me of a fallacy? Those definitions I have given are pretty standard, truth and truths are different words.Judaka

    Yes. I definitely concur. They are different words. They're not the only such set though. Bird and birds. The difference is quantity. The latter is a plurality of the former. That's how it works, and my knowing that much is what grounded my earlier question to you; one which you initially readily agreed with, only to change your mind later after facing the consequences of that common sense use.

    Those definitions I have given are pretty standardJudaka

    Clearly not.

    You're attempting to claim that "truths" is not a plural form of "truth". If a truth is a true claim, as you also agreed, then truths are more than one true claim. On pains of coherency alone...


    What it means for something to be true is separate from the actual truth itself.Judaka

    The "truth" here is referring to the literal state of things being trueJudaka

    Those definitions I have given are pretty standardJudaka


    See the indication of another plurality above? Indeed, you've given different definitions of the same term. Multiple standards are problematic when they conflict with one another.


    To the first question at the top of the page...

    No. I do not, nor did I ever want to accuse you of a fallacy. I'm just telling you what some of the rules are. I'm not making them up. During the same argument one cannot just freely move between distinct and incompatible senses of the same term at their own whim and not get called out on it. It's unacceptable, incoherent, self-contradictory, nonsensical language use.

    The substitution method I've employed is the most reliable tried and true(hehehe) method for checking to see if an author is using more than one sense of the same term. Turns out that you were/are. The fallacy was there, and it remains, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge and/or admit of it. Acknowledging it would make you a better philosopher.

    I want to stress that what I'm saying is not negative a report of you. It's not about you, the author. It doesn't have to reflect poorly upon you as a person. It's about the writings that you're presenting openly on a public philosophy forum. Public forums are chock full of uncomfortable potential for everyone and/or anyone who so chooses to boldly go where they've never gone before... voluntarily opening themselves(their own belief) up to criticism.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    I made an error in accepting your substitution due to not properly reading your comment, but I admit that the previous edit had "the truth" where "truths" was appropriate. Therefore, I did make an error there and I corrected it but the error was never a component of my argument nor did it represent a belief of mine. Nor did I change my opinion because of your ideas about pluralities, not every error constitutes an opinion, it was simply an editing mistake.

    What it means for something to be true is separate from the actual truth itselfJudaka

    What I have said here is that the meaning of the truth (meaning) is separate from the truth (truth), which is pretty much just stating the obvious.

    I think my usage of truths and truth is pretty standard, but I am prepared to use a better way if I find one. Now I am prepared to take criticism but you are saying it's unacceptable, incoherent self-contradictory nonsensical language use. I am already listening, I asked if you had a better way of doing it, why then do you state so emphatically what a grievous error I've made? What is the purpose? It only gives credibility to the idea that you have interests outside of merely being helpful. Others have been able to perfectly paraphrase my position, therefore, it hasn't been quite as bad as you have put it.

    True, truths, truth, I am happy to accept that having words so similar which mean different things being used in such close proximity to each other could be confusing. I am not sure on what a better way of doing it might be, I am open to suggestions.
  • creativesoul
    12k
    SEP on Truth is a good starting point...
  • Number2018
    560
    What it means for something to be true is separate from the actual truth itself. We can reasonably disagree on the interpretation without disagreeing on the fact.Judaka
    I want to point out to what looks like one of your central presuppositions:
    one inevitably starts with what has been objective, neutral, or natural facts. (Please correct me if I misunderstood you.) Consequently, there is a gap and controversy between ‘actual truth itself,’ which is a set of particular conventional fixations of the meaning of apparent facts, and the truth that we come to after ‘arrangement of truth’ has been applied. That is why Fdrake argues that your OP could be considered as the expression of nihilism:

    The point of saying it is that an intellectual commitment to nihilism that severs facts from interpretations is like a powerful acid.
    So such a hard wedge between fact and interpretation; even if true in principle, is useless in the practice of reasoning about things. Except as a selectively applied powerful acid.
    fdrake

    Probably, to avoid the dichotomy between facts and interpretations, your concept of ‘arrangement of truth’ could be broadened to show that ‘facts’ do not merely belong to the descriptive order. The factual cannot be separated
    from sedimental practices and a practical relationship to the world. The factual meanings require
    norms governing our behavior. So, there are not two orders—the normative and the descriptive—but normative/descriptive complexes in which facts and values inextricably interpenetrate each other. Further, normativity is not a universal category given from nowhere.
    It is a historical product of struggles, conflicts, and politics. The fixation of the meaning of the
    essential factual is ‘an objective illusion,’ necessary to maintain a stable social order. The truth of the facts is no less subjective (or objective) and contingent (or necessary) than the truth of interpretations. Actually, both are produced and governed by the complex interplay of the social determinants.
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.