Silencing or locking up or torturing people you see as heretics because they have beliefs or practices that don't match yours. — leo

Yeah. You’re just axe-grinding against ‘religion’. It’s understandable, not wanting to believe in God, but there’s really no need pretending people who do are looking to “torture people” who believe different. It shouldn’t need pointing out that evil isn’t exclusively done by religious believers.

You take this holier-than-thou attitude with your appeal to emotion using an extreme example — leo

Well yeah, I should hope I am “holier-than-thou”. Your attitude seems to be we should let people do what they like, including murdering their children, so long as they can provide an excuse. Then presumably - with the world crashing down around you - you say, “Well it’s not actually crashing down,” and get upset with anyone who tries to re-establish some order.

Where do you see prevarication coming from? — Mww

I thought you were evading the question (of the regress).

It does seem to be the case that if truth is only in the mind there isn’t a foundational reason for judging it. You have to make an appeal to the theories of analytic philosophers, which is to make an appeal to their reason, then reason in general. But why judge reason to be a foundational reason for judging truth? You’re left suspended unless you posit that truth isn’t a judgement, but something we discover.

As I said, it's mistaken in the different person's view. If I have the same judgment as one of them, I'm not going to think they're mistaken. I'll think the other person is.

No need to match because facts are always already in propositional form. If you disagree then give me an example of a fact that is not in propositional form. — Janus

And this would mean so long as the fact is objective, the proposition is objectively true?

Ahhhh.....I see what you mean. Yes, well, the human cognitive system is for the most part purely speculative in its fundamental operations. So it may be said reason is judged to be the foundational reason for judging.....a roundabout way of overstating the obvious. It is, after all, absurd to posit we don’t think as a matter of course; it’s what we do. If it is natural for us to think, it is just as natural to claim reason is the be-all end-all of the human mental apparatus, for reason is nothing if not merely the elaboration of the act of thinking. That should be foundation enough, and perhaps the proof of it is that it’s negation is impossible, but on the other hand is encountered the intrinsic circularity of reason investigating itself.

The idea of truth by discovery presupposes truth is a property in itself. Even if it is, as long as humans are involved, things like meaning and value enter the scene, and we’re right back where we started. Still, if you like your objective truth.......go for it.

It’s not that I like my objective truth (although I do); it’s that you’re left without an explanation of truth unless it is objective. You end up asserting reason allows us to judge what is true, just because it does. I, however, can posit discoverable, transcendental truth, which isn’t a property of anything but is rather something that everything participates in. Our role is to discover what does and does not participate.

Very well, but are you not then left with the need to show how it is true that something has participated in it? In effect, would you not have to judge whether that something has participated? To say something about X is true because it has participated in truth is just an ill-disguised tautology, is it not? It really doesn’t tell you anything.

.......left without an explanation of truth unless it is objective — AJJ

Truth can be properly defined, but I’m not sure that’s the same as an explanation of it. I’m not sure truth being something we discover the participation in, as being any more so. To say truth is that a cognition conforms to its object is irreducible, and perhaps therefore sufficient for an explanation?

You’re just axe-grinding against ‘religion’ — AJJ

not wanting to believe in God — AJJ

pretending people who do are looking to “torture people” who believe different — AJJ

It shouldn’t need pointing out that evil isn’t exclusively done by religious believers. — AJJ

Your attitude seems to be we should let people do what they like, including murdering their children, so long as they can provide an excuse. — AJJ

with the world crashing down around you - you say, “Well it’s not actually crashing down,” — AJJ

get upset with anyone who tries to re-establish some order. — AJJ

All of this is in your mind, not mine. You're the epitome of the problem I see with objective truth. You believe your idea of what I think and what I feel is objective truth, rather than your own projections and your own misconceptions. You don't know my intentions. You know nothing about me, you just have what you believe. And I think self-righteous narrow-minded people like you are responsible for making the world I see a worst place to live in, so I won't stop pointing out that your beliefs are not objective truth, they are your point of view. And regarding what you say about me, your point of view is pure crap, because even if I don't know objective truth, I at least know what I think, whereas you don't.

Very well, but are you not then left with the need to show how it is true that something has participated in it? — Mww

Yes, but our judgements in my view cannot coherently be described as “truth”, but only true or false.

Truth can be properly defined, but I’m not sure that’s the same as an explanation of it. I’m not sure truth being something we discover the participation in, as being any more so. To say truth is that a cognition conforms to its object is irreducible, and perhaps therefore sufficient for an explanation? — Mww

You’re always left with something to justify. Why judge truth on the basis of a cognition conforming to its object being irreducible?

Transcendental truth takes some explaining, sure, and I think Aquinas’s Fourth Way deals with that. But perhaps that leads to a deficient explanation also.

All of this is in your mind, not mine. — leo

Is it?

You're the epitome of the problem I see with objective truth. — leo

Am I?

You believe your idea of what I think and what I feel is objective truth, rather than your own projections and your own misconceptions. — leo

Do I?

You don't know my intentions. You know nothing about me, you just have what you believe. — leo

Don’t I? Do I?

And I think self-righteous narrow-minded people like you are responsible for making the world I see a worst place to live in, so I won't stop pointing out that your beliefs are not objective truth, they are your point of view. — leo

Do you? Won’t you? Are they?

And regarding what you say about me, your point of view is pure crap, because even if I don't know objective truth, I at least know what I think, whereas you don't. — leo

Is it? Don’t you? Don’t I?

Perhaps the meanings of my words are totally different to your own interpretation. Why believe I said what you think I said?

No need to match because facts are always already in propositional form. — Janus

The only fact that's in a propositional form is the fact of a proposition being thought.

All other facts are not in propositional form.

Propositions are the meanings of statements.

The fact of my computer keyboard sitting on my desk is not the meaning of a statement. It's my computer keyboard sitting on a desk.

(I didn't see your post until now, by the way. I don't know if I don't receive some notifications that I have a reply, or if I just don't notice all of them sometimes.)

I don't see the mere existence of disagreement as a problem. Some people think their heads are made of glass. They are wrong. No problem there. — PossibleAaran

They are wrong to you. Maybe they don't mean the same thing by "glass". Or maybe they mean to say that they have a bone disease such that their head is fragile like glass. Maybe they have experiences where their head feels like it's made of glass. And so they think their head is made of glass, because to them it describes better what they experience than saying it is made of a skull and so on.

Here is the interesting part. I don't think my thoughts and perceptions depend on reality in some "unknown way". Its actually very well understood. See the biology of perception. Any way, even supposing that my perceptions do depend on reality in some unknown way, it does not follow from this that my perceptions don't show me the way things are. The way that they depend on reality might be compatible with them revealing the way things are.

Do you have an argument in mind for the claim that we can't tell how things objectively are? Perhaps you could make it clearer? — PossibleAaran

Your thoughts and perceptions do not model yourself, they model your thoughts and perceptions of yourself. I think you can agree that with your eyes you don't see yourself as you are, you see a perception of yourself. When you look at other people, you don't see what they perceive or what they think, so you don't see them as they are, they do not reduce to their body, you see an image of them. So when you attempt to model how their perception works, you're not actually modeling how their perception works, you're modeling your image of how their perception works. That's why I say you don't have access to the way things are, you model things within your perceptions and thoughts that do not show you the whole picture, so your models are not models of the whole picture.

Otherwise if you think your perceptions show you the way things are, then you should believe that other people do not perceive nor think anything, because otherwise you would see their perceptions and thoughts in your perceptions.

You just keep going on with your misconceptions about my point of view.

I don't see much point in continuing to clarify my view to you, because indeed you really don't care to understand what I say, your self-righteousness has taken over. If you cared to read the thread I already addressed what you believe makes my position incoherent.

In my view we share a common reality to some extent, I believe I am right about what I'm saying about you, and I believe you and I don't interpret words differently, that's my personal truth, and I act on it. Maybe others would have a different point of view about the situation, but I have my own. My idea that there is only personal truth leads me to be open-minded, to listen and try to not impose my point of view onto others. However if you shit on my point of view, if you don't change your course despite my warnings, then expect consequences, I am nice but not too nice. Not much I can do on a forum (maybe mods could warn you?), but in other conditions your incessant arrogance wouldn't get you far. But I think you know that, I happen to believe from our previous exchanges that you know very well what you are doing.

And before you characterize me as a tyrant, I am very open to discussing things calmly and respectfully, when I'm disrespected not so much. In my view you understand that you are disrespecting me, so stop pushing, when I've seen enough you have to deal with me. Then maybe at that point you'll tone down the self-righteousness and start listening a bit more. Others who believe in objective truths that don't match yours might not be as nice as I am with you.

We can continue this in private if you want, you're just shitting on the thread otherwise.

Bloody hell mate. Well being threatened is quite unpleasant, even anonymously across the internet, so I will leave you alone now and ask you do the same for me.

our judgements in my view cannot coherently be described as “truth” — AJJ

Agreed. Judgements are not described as truth. A state of affairs empirically, or analytic propositions a priori, are described as truths.
———————-

Why judge truth on the basis of a cognition conforming to its object being irreducible? — AJJ

I guess because its negation is absurd. If I see a cat on a mat, and I judge the cat is not on the mat, such that I can say the proposition “the cat is on the mat” is false, after I’ve perceived it to be so, I am what the aforementioned passage indicated: I’m just plain stupid.

“The moon is made of green cheese” is a valid proposition, and before anybody got there to determine what the moon is actually made of, no judgement is intellectually valid about the truth of the proposition**. Silly, yes; exemplary foolishness, yes; truthful?.....unknown, because the criteria for establishing the truth of the moon’s composition has not been met. Now that it is known with certainty what the moon is made of, even though I have no direct experience of it, there is still empirical evidence available to me, which satisfies the logical criteria for the affirmative judgement that the proposition “the moon is made of dirt and rocks and stuff” falsifies the proposition “the moon is made of green cheese”.

** Feynman advanced a similar proposition in his “sum over histories” paradigm, when he said because we don’t know which path the particle took on it’s way to it’s exhibition, we can just as honestly say it went every path available to it. Which are, of course, infinite.
—————————

I shall leave you with your medieval transcendentalism, preferring the continental Enlightenment version, myself. As you say....we all speak from our personal prejudices.

Agreed. Judgements are not described as truth. A state of affairs empirically, or analytic propositions a priori, are described as truths. — Mww

I accept those are truths, yeah. I just think their truth is based on their participation in the transcendental truth.

I guess I think all definitions of truth are ultimately arbitrary unless it’s grounded in the transcendent, and unless we take the final cause of reason to be the discovery of it. But yeah, we believe what we want.

There is that, but humans always seek truth, yet have no access to the transcendent. So if truth somehow reside in, or is predicated on, that which we have no contact outside our idea of its possibility, truth itself can be no more than possible. Which relegates logic and mathematics to being dead in the water. Seems to me the best way to relieve truth’s arbitrariness, is to predicate it on something a little more available to our reason.

There is an argument that the final cause of reason, that which is itself unconditioned, giving irreducibility its ground, suggests the transcendent domain logically. But we live in the phenomenal domain, so what we think truth is should be derived from it or its manifestations alone. Even then, we still have things we can’t explain with empirical principles.

Sucks to be us, don’t it?

I don’t believe our minds (immaterial in my view) are part only of the phenomenal world. At least I think the reasoning is something along those lines; I’m not very familiar with it, so there’s my current prejudice I guess.

Agreed. Judgements are not described as truth. — Mww

On my view truth is a judgment.

Yeah, there’s always been a philosophy built on that idea, from Anaxagoras to Hegel. Could be, I dunno. I guess it depends on what one chooses for his bottom line.....some basic assumption from which all else is given rise, everything from usefulness to mere possibility. The logical laws of thought come to mind, as being absolute, irreducible, necessary truths.

We have yet to evolve from our proclivity to imagine what experience cannot teach.

I think it can teach more than it’s typically given credit for, but either way I’m fine keeping that particular proclivity.

On my view truth is a judgment. — Terrapin Station

OK, I accept that. I’d rather go with truth is a cognition. Judgement is always the means, truth is only one of three possibly ends, along with falsity and indeterminacy. Cognition is that part of the whole operation we’re actually aware of, usually as an image. While there’s no harm in saying truth follows from a judgement, that’s not the same as saying truth is a judgement.

It’s the same as saying “I understand what you mean”. Saying I understand is just a shortcut for the whole mental process, a simple version of “what you just said about X conforms exactly to what I think about X”. We say truth is a judgement because the most obvious capacity for arriving at a truth is to judge something internal and related to it, but overlooked is the fact there are certain analytic propositions, necessarily true, for which no judgement is at all required.

Put the proverbial shoe on the other existential foot, and we have the problem of synthetic propositions, which all correspondence theories entail by definition, which in their turn require a judgement regarding the subject/predicate correspondence contained by the proposition itself, for the truth which may or may not follow from it with respect to a certain condition in the empirical world. If one is to claim truth is a judgement, it is only with synthetic proposition does the claim carry any weight, but at the same time stands to be easily dismissed as an insufficient claim.........if one digs deep enough into the metaphysical weeds.

Take your water bottle; it’s dry and dusty down there.

Are we drawing a distinction between what my report is existentially dependent upon and what I'm reporting upon?

If facts are true propositions/statements, then the approach you've taken has some purchase.

What if facts are events(what's happened and/or is happening)?

All sorts of things happen that are not in propositional form.

I think we agree here. — creativesoul

I've been trying to avoid responding here beyond offering brief comments because time is precious for me at the moment. So I'll keep it as short as possible. There are two senses of 'fact': facts as verbal statements and facts as ostensive ontological propositions or conceptions of states of affairs. States of affairs are propositional in the sense that they are always given, even prior to their expressions, in the form that 'such and such is the case'. The verbal propositional equivalent is just the expression of what is already recognized to be the case. The fact need not be expressed, but it is always already in propositional form by virtue of its recognition as fact nonetheless.

And this would mean so long as the fact is objective, the proposition is objectively true? — AJJ

As I understand it all facts are objective. The idea of a "subjective fact" seems incoherent. (Unless something like a "fact about a subject" is meant, but such a fact is an objective fact about a subject. We don't need to say "objective fact", though because facts just are objective; objectivity is implicit in the very idea of fact).

There are two senses of 'fact': facts as verbal statements and facts as ostensive ontological propositions or conceptions of states of affairs. — Janus

:brow:

Those aren't the only senses...

Verbal statements can be false. Propositions can be false. Conceptions can be false.

Facts cannot.

I’d rather go with truth is a cognition. — Mww

Please do. Spell it all out. A true one?

I will. I've come a long way, I deeply care about people and about the world, so when I'm told that I don't, when my intentions/feelings/thoughts get misrepresented repeatedly, when my ideas get ridiculed without being properly considered, I end up reacting like that.

I used to think like you that there is objective truth, but I've found too much that doesn't fit that view. That doesn't mean people can't agree on things, that doesn't mean it's fine to let people suffer, in my view we are responsible for how the world is, we are responsible for how we treat others, we are responsible for how we educate our kids. And obviously there are some who don't agree with that, so why should I say that my view is objective truth? Many don't live by that view. It's my truth however.

I see the concept of objective truth as responsible for a lot of suffering, because people who believe they hold objective truth are not able to listen to others anymore, they attempt to impose their truth onto everyone else, because they feel justified, no matter the consequences. And they don't feel responsible for what they do, because they see themselves as being guided by something independent of them, rather than by their own will.

On the other hand I don't see the concept of personal truth as dangerous in itself. What's worse, parents who believe it is their personal truth that rat poison is good for their kids, or parents who believe it is objective truth? In the first case you might change their minds, in the latter case you can't.

And people's points of view will clash whether they call their point of view personal truth or objective truth. But again, if they see their point of view as personal then they can listen, if they see it as objective truth then they see the other side as wrong anyway.

It seems it was objective truth to you that those who don't believe in objective truth are fine with chaos and murder and suffering and letting people do whatever without interacting with them in any way, and in my view that's why you wouldn't listen to what I said, you specifically said "I don't buy your claimed motivation", you couldn't hear me over the sound of your objective truth, and that's what I see as the real danger.

We don't see with our eyes what others perceive and think, but we can learn about it by listening to them, not just hear the sounds they emit or read their words but really listen, attempt to understand their point of view, put ourselves into their shoes, and in my view that's how we can realize the world is much greater than the one we see with our eyes. While if we believe that we have objective truth we just live within our own bubble, we are disconnected from one another and from nature, and then we destroy one another and nature.

Those aren't the only senses...

Verbal statements can be false. Propositions can be false. Conceptions can be false.

Facts cannot. — creativesoul

What other senses of 'fact are there?

What relevance does the fact that verbal statements, propositions and conceptions can be false have to facts being in propositional form?

Facts cannot be false, all three things you mentioned can.

Reports of that which has happened and/or is happening(events) are in propositional form. Facts are what's happened and/or is happening(events).