He's not understanding that correspondence needs to occur or obtain somehow, and I'm focusing on just how it occurs or obtains. He's not addressing that. He just keeps taking for granted that it works without wanting to analyze how it works. — Terrapin Station

The above is what you said. I’ve just demonstrated I understand your argument. I’ve made objections to your argument and offered my own explanation on how correspondence obtains. I don’t know what dilemma you’re referring to, but assume it’s buried somewhere in your tragic misunderstandings and refusal to engage properly with what I say.

I don’t know what dilemma you’re referring to, — AJJ

Right. And that's the problem. You can't address it if you're not even clear on what I'm asking you to address.

I've explained this a number of times. The dilemma is that correspondence/matching--whatever we want to call it that amounts to the same thing--has to work some way. It needs to be some process that occurs, or some property that obtains in something . . . somehow. We need to be able to describe how it works, or just what the property is (or properties are). I gave you a couple examples of the sort of answer that addresses this dilemma from "your side"--from a perspective claiming that correspondence can occur mind-independently, and I talked about what the problems with those answers are for this particular issue.

I've explained this a number of times. The dilemma is that correspondence/matching--whatever we want to call it that amounts to the same thing--has to work some way. It needs to be some process that occurs, or some property that obtains in something . . . somehow. We need to be able to describe how it works, or just what the property is. I gave you a couple examples of the sort of answer that addresses this dilemma from "your side"--from a perspective claiming that correspondence can occur mind-independently, and I talked about what the problems with those answers are for this particular issue. — Terrapin Station

I’ve given my explanation several times of how correspondence obtains. You ignore it and assert your own view. I’m sorry mate that I wan’t giving you the answers you wanted (the ones you already had responses to); I didn’t know that’s how arguments work.

I’ve given my explanation several times of how correspondence obtains. — AJJ

No, you said things like "S proposes a description and then the description corresponds with a fact" (paraphrasing, obviously). That doesn't address how the description corresponds with a fact, especially not mind-independently. You're leaving the actual correspondence part unanalyzed.

Here's an example quoting you:

"That proposition describes/represents a particular cat being on a particular mat by using words with those particular meanings/referents. "

What I'm asking you is how a description/representation corresponds with the cat being on the mat?

How do the meanings/referents correspond to the cat being on the mat?

You're giving an alternate description of what a proposition is and then just claiming that the proposition corresponds without analyzing what correspondence actually IS.

No, you said things like "S proposes a description and then the description corresponds with a fact" (paraphrasing, obviously). That doesn't address how the description corresponds with a fact, especially not mind-independently. You're leaving the actual correspondence part unanalyzed. — Terrapin Station

Yeah. I accuse you of ignoring my explanations and your response is to “paraphrase” my explanation in a way that ignores all of it.

See above. I quoted you and explained that you're not addressing what I'm asking you.

You didn’t quote my explanation. You’re still ignoring that.

I quoted one of them. This is a quote from an earlier post of yours that you believe is describing how it works: "That proposition describes/represents a particular cat being on a particular mat by using words with those particular meanings/referents."

And don’t think I don’t notice when you ignore important points of mine as well.

All I care about is that you think about and address what I'm asking you to think about and address. I want you to be able to realize something about an ontological point.

No. That wasn’t my full explanation. You’re ignoring that.

Thank you mate for caring about what I think, but I’d like to stop this now.

Because the thing they’re matching is not in a person’s mind. I’ve been asking the whole time: What role does a person play in correspondence, beyond thinking up the proposition?

Checking whether a proposition matches is beside the point. What I’m saying is they can match whether anyone checks or not. There’s an independent reality in play; if a proposition conforms to it then it’s true regardless. A proposition conforming to reality would mean it described a specific event, such as a particular cat being on a particular mat, with that event being a reality. — AJJ

Do you believe that objective reality can be known in any way or not?

If not, what point is there in talking about what conforms or doesn't conform to it?

If yes, how? If your thoughts and perceptions belong to that objective reality but you don't know in the first place how that reality influences your thoughts and perceptions, how can you know whether your thoughts and perceptions conform to objective reality?

It seems to me we can't know anything about it, so if we stop thinking about what reality independent of us is like then the conundrum disappears. Instead we only talk about what we experience, and when what we say conforms to what we experience according to us then that's our truth, and when it doesn't conform then that's a lie. Doesn't all the confusion disappear that way?

I wonder why there is such a need to know what reality independent of us is like. We're part of the reality, so it isn't independent of us, so why think about what reality would be like if we weren't there, what's the point? We're there.

We're shaping reality, so I think it would be more productive to think about how we're shaping reality, and how we can shape it, rather than about what it would be like without us. It's like we want to believe we don't exist, that we have no influence, that we're just passive observers, as if we were already dead, but we're alive, so let's think and act like it.

So correspondence requires thought on your view? — Terrapin Station

Indeed, and in a very specific way. The presupposition of truth(correspondence), the attribution of meaning, and thought/belief are irrevocably entwined. Truth and meaning are existentially dependent upon a creature capable of thought/belief. Both emerge onto the world stage via a creature capable of drawing correlations between different things, and all of this happens prior to language.

Terrapin's view neglects the actual distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. He also adopts the conventional conflation between propositions and belief. His notion of judgment is metacognition at work.

Judgment is not truth. If it were, there could be no such thing as mistaken judgment. Judgment is belief, not truth. Truth is presupposed within both.

The words that indicate that he understands that correspondence can't occur outside of making a judgment about it. — Terrapin Station

Sure it can, and must. Lest there could be no mistakes made. The statement is true regardless of any particular individual's belief/judgment about it and/or whether or it it is worthy of being called "true".

I don’t want the confusion to disappear. Knowing what’s true is important, and so is being unsure of things. It doesn’t seem coherent to say there is no objective truth, and I assume it can be known; I don’t know how a person could consistently live otherwise.

thanks for the concise answer to a very basic notion. I agree with this completely. Most post modernists dismiss many important things and then they have a handful of things that they feel are important, but God forbid anyone argue with the post modernist's list of important things.

Cheers, it’s nice to be agreed with from time to time.

the good news is that many of you post modernists have the rest of your lives to realize the double standard of the post modernist position. As to the older people, i blame a lack of understanding in the 1960s (when post modernism took off in the societies of the world) to blame for the older man's acceptance of it.

Ignorance and bad choices make us better people than those who know full well between right and wrong and do the bad choice anyway.

We all need to forgive ourselves and move on with our lives. For those of you who are going to attack me on this last sentence, i would like to remind you that emotional health is a universal concept (keyword: universal) and also is paramount to a healthy culture.

If we aren't willing to put extremely bad people out of thier misery (for whatever reason) then i believe we should give them a way to be happy every day using practical means.

if i say nothing matters and then i have somethings that i hide that are in fact important. That is a contradiction.

If i say some things matter, but still hold that some things matter alot. That is not a contradiction.

apathy can sometimes be a good thing and sometimes be a bad thing, but we need to be consistent with other people when arguing about what is important or not important.

Judgment is not truth. If it were, there could be no such thing as mistaken judgment. — creativesoul

I just want to address this first. On my view, a mistaken truth-value judgment is either (i) a different person having a different judgment about the relationship of a proposition to a state of affairs--it's mistaken in the different persons' views, or (ii) the same person having a different judgment at a later time, where they feel they should have had the later judgment at the earlier time (and it's mistaken in their view, but perhaps the revision is what's mistaken in other persons' views at that point).

Of course, part of making the judgment in question, if we're using correspondence theory, is the person in question's perception of facts, where facts are not usually belief-dependent (the exceptions are facts re what someone believes).

So, on your view, this can't account for mistaken judgments because?

I don’t want the confusion to disappear. Knowing what’s true is important, and so is being unsure of things. It doesn’t seem coherent to say there is no objective truth, and I assume it can be known; I don’t know how a person could consistently live otherwise. — AJJ

If you assume it can be known, then how? Can you give any example of such objective truth?

You can live consistently by your truths, that's what people do. Some believe in a higher truth that doesn't depend on them, but again I simply see that truth as their truth.

Is it objectively true that the Sun won't suddenly disappear tomorrow? How could you know? I don't live by objective truths I cannot know, I live by my own truths. And in my view others do the same, it's just that sometimes they believe their truth applies everywhere, to everyone, for all eternity, regardless of whether others disagree with them.

What I wonder is why do you so badly need a truth that doesn't depend on you? What are you afraid of?

if i say nothing matters and then i have somethings that i hide that are in fact important. That is a contradiction. — christian2017

To say that in my view there is no objective truth is not to say that nothing matters, it is to say that some things matter to me, and what matters to others is not necessarily the same as what matters to me. Why would something not matter to me just because it doesn't matter to everyone?

To say that in my view there is no objective truth is not to say that nothing matters, it is to say that some things matter to me, and what matters to others is not necessarily the same as what matters to me. Why would something not matter to me just because it doesn't matter to everyone? — leo

Despite the growing popular opinion, humans must work together and agree on some things in order to make a society work. Common values is important to some extent.

If you assume it can be known, then how? Can you give any example of such objective truth? — leo

By thinking about and examining the world. I think that “something exists” is an example of objective truth.

You can live consistently by your truths, that's what people do. Some believe in a higher truth that doesn't depend on them, but again I simply see that truth as their truth. — leo

What I was saying was you can’t live consistently as if there’s no objective truth. You have to behave as if certain things are objectively true, such as that rat poison affects the body differently to aspirin.

What I wonder is why do you so badly need a truth that doesn't depend on you? What are you afraid of? — leo

I’m afraid, or troubled anyway, by you lot; because I think you’re motivated in your belief by a desire to avoid right and wrong.

Correspondence: whether or not, and the manner in which, a proposition relates to a state of affairs;
Proposition: a declarative subject/predicate linguistic construction;
State-of-affairs: a given condition of some physical domain.

A subject/predicate linguistic construction is a rational capacity;
The condition of any physical domain is given by the human sensory capacity and is the ground of experience;
Therefore, that a proposition relates to a state of affairs is the relation between reason and experience.

All rational constructions are the determinations of the understanding;
All intuitions are the representations of the sensory capacity;
Therefore, the relation between reason and experience is the relation between intuition and understanding.

It follows necessarily that correspondence, re: whether or not, and the manner in which, a proposition relates to a state of affairs, must be determined by a human faculty that is not intuition nor understanding, and is called the faculty of judgement and is a spontaneous determinant. If the judgement is such that an intuition conforms to a conception, it is affirmative and the cognition which follows from it is true, and serves as a definition of truth, insofar as a cognition absolutely must conform to its object. If the judgement is such that the intuition does not conform to the conception, the judgement is either negative or undetermined, but in either case, no affirmative cognition is at all possible, and therefore no truth is given. Truth follows from a judgement, but a judgement does not necessarily offer truth, even if it is always the means to the possibility of it.

In addition, it is clear the advocate of the correspondence theory should have an ontological theory to support his truth claims, in order to justify, at least, his consideration of whatever a physical state of affairs might be. It is equally clear any ontological theory must use the correspondence theory it is trying to support, in order to claim any such state of affairs actually does in fact obtain, and the use of subject/predicate propositions is the form of such claim.

Bottom line........truth is what we think it is, until it becomes contradictory to maintain the thought. The truth about an object is the only permissible sense of the term “objective truth”, because all truths are, when properly critiqued, merely thought, hence predicated on a rational condition alone. Proofs of them, on the other hand, have their own predication.

“And now you know the RREEESSSSTTT of the story”.

“And now you know the RREEESSSSTTT of the story”. — Mww

Oh my! Now we know too much!

(An intelligent and well-educated (MA) young (28) acquaintance, male, drew a blank on Groucho Marx. Had no idea who he was, had never heard of him.)

The cup is on the table. Person A judges that false. Person B judges that true. According to you, both are mistaken.

You're conflating truth and belief.

The cup is on the table. Person A judges that false. Person B judges that true. According to you, both are mistaken. — creativesoul

They're not judging anything about the cup being on the table per the conventional analytic philosophy sense of truth-value that I'm using. They'd be judging something about a proposition, which could be the proposition "The cup is on the table," and that proposition's relation to the cup being on the table.