• "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."
    What does "not-P is true" mean according to the deflationist?Luke

    I can can't speak for others, but I'd say it means the same thing (roughly) as not-P.

    It's true that it's not raining.
    It's not raining.
  • Chimeras & Spells
    Does anyone really fear death given its inevitability and the fact sleep comes for us every night?

    As social animals, if we are hardwired for anything, it is to defend against threat to our tribal identity. We are quick and reckless in our willingness to sacrifice ourselves for that.

    The impact of exponential growth seemed a issue that any simpleton could understand when I was doing ecology in the 1970s. By about 2000, I had already concluded that folk weren’t going to react.

    Changing the world seems easy compared with being asked to change your self - to challenge the unconscious roots of your standard issue modern world identity.

  • The Space of Reasons
    I'll take that to mean 'I'm playing'. I recommend buddhism.Bartricks
    Mr Bloom watched her as she limped away. Poor girl! That’s why she’s left on the shelf and the others did a sprint. Thought something was wrong by the cut of her jib. Jilted beauty. A defect is ten times worse in a woman. But makes them polite. Glad I didn’t know it when she was on show. Hot little devil all the same. I wouldn’t mind. Curiosity like a nun or a negress or a girl with glasses. That squinty one is delicate. Near her monthlies, I expect, makes them feel ticklish. I have such a bad headache today. Where did I put the letter? Yes, all right. All kinds of crazy longings. Licking pennies. Girl in Tranquilla convent that nun told me liked to smell rock oil. Virgins go mad in the end I suppose. Sister? How many women in Dublin have it today? Martha, she. Something in the air. That’s the moon. But then why don’t all women menstruate at the same time with the same moon, I mean? Depends on the time they were born I suppose. Or all start scratch then get out of step. Sometimes Molly and Milly together. Anyhow I got the best of that. Damned glad I didn’t do it in the bath this morning over her silly I will punish you letter. Made up for that tramdriver this morning. That gouger M’Coy stopping me to say nothing. And his wife engagement in the country valise, voice like a pickaxe. Thankful for small mercies. Cheap too. Yours for the asking. Because they want it themselves. Their natural craving. Shoals of them every evening poured out of offices. Reserve better. Don’t want it they throw it at you. Catch em alive, O. Pity they can’t see themselves. A dream of wellfilled hose. Where was that? Ah, yes. Mutoscope pictures in Capel street: for men only. Peeping Tom. Willy’s hat and what the girls did with it. Do they snapshot those girls or is it all a fake? Lingerie does it. Felt for the curves inside her déshabillé. Excites them also when they’re. I’m all clean come and dirty me. And they like dressing one another for the sacrifice.

    Is it possible that that player Shakespeare, a ghost by absence, and in the vesture of buried Denmark, a ghost by death, speaking his own words to his own son’s name (had Hamnet Shakespeare lived he would have been prince Hamlet’s twin), is it possible, I want to know, or probable that he did not draw or foresee the logical conclusion of those premises: you are the dispossessed son: I am the murdered father: your mother is the guilty queen, Ann Shakespeare, born Hathaway?
    —The soul has been before stricken mortally, a poison poured in the porch of a sleeping ear. But those who are done to death in sleep cannot know the manner of their quell unless their Creator endow their souls with that knowledge in the life to come. The poisoning and the beast with two backs that urged it King Hamlet’s ghost could not know of were he not endowed with knowledge by his creator. That is why the speech (his lean unlovely English) is always turned elsewhere, backward. Ravisher and ravished, what he would but would not, go with him from Lucrece’s bluecircled ivory globes to Imogen’s breast, bare, with its mole cinquespotted. He goes back, weary of the creation he has piled up to hide him from himself, an old dog licking an old sore. But, because loss is his gain, he passes on towards eternity in undiminished personality, untaught by the wisdom he has written or by the laws he has revealed. His beaver is up. He is a ghost, a shadow now, the wind by Elsinore’s rocks or what you will, the sea’s voice, a voice heard only in the heart of him who is the substance of his shadow, the son consubstantial with the father.
    He Who Himself begot middler the Holy Ghost and Himself sent Himself, Agenbuyer, between Himself and others, Who, put upon by His fiends, stripped and whipped, was nailed like bat to barndoor, starved on crosstree, Who let Him bury, stood up, harrowed hell, fared into heaven and there these nineteen hundred years sitteth on the right hand of His Own Self but yet shall come in the latter day to doom the quick and dead when all the quick shall be dead already.
    —A father, Stephen said, battling against hopelessness, is a necessary evil. He wrote the play in the months that followed his father’s death. If you hold that he, a greying man with two marriageable daughters, with thirtyfive years of life, nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita, with fifty of experience, is the beardless undergraduate from Wittenberg then you must hold that his seventyyear old mother is the lustful queen. No. The corpse of John Shakespeare does not walk the night. From hour to hour it rots and rots. He rests, disarmed of fatherhood, having devised that mystical estate upon his son. Boccaccio’s Calandrino was the first and last man who felt himself with child. Fatherhood, in the sense of conscious begetting, is unknown to man. It is a mystical estate, an apostolic succession, from only begetter to only begotten. On that mystery and not on the madonna which the cunning Italian intellect flung to the mob of Europe the church is founded and founded irremovably because founded, like the world, macro and microcosm, upon the void. Upon incertitude, upon unlikelihood. Amor matris, subjective and objective genitive, may be the only true thing in life. Paternity may be a legal fiction. Who is the father of any son that any son should love him or he any son?
    —Man delights him not nor woman neither, Stephen said. He returns after a life of absence to that spot of earth where he was born, where he has always been, man and boy, a silent witness and there, his journey of life ended, he plants his mulberrytree in the earth. Then dies. The motion is ended. Gravediggers bury Hamlet père and Hamlet fils. A king and a prince at last in death, with incidental music. And, what though murdered and betrayed, bewept by all frail tender hearts for, Dane or Dubliner, sorrow for the dead is the only husband from whom they refuse to be divorced. If you like the epilogue look long on it: prosperous Prospero, the good man rewarded, Lizzie, grandpa’s lump of love, and nuncle Richie, the bad man taken off by poetic justice to the place where the bad niggers go. Strong curtain. He found in the world without as actual what was in his world within as possible. Maeterlinck says: If Socrates leave his house today he will find the sage seated on his doorstep. If Judas go forth tonight it is to Judas his steps will tend. Every life is many days, day after day. We walk through ourselves, meeting robbers, ghosts, giants, old men, young men, wives, widows, brothers-in-love, but always meeting ourselves. The playwright who wrote the folio of this world and wrote it badly (He gave us light first and the sun two days later), the lord of things as they are whom the most Roman of catholics call dio boia, hangman god, is doubtless all in all in all of us, ostler and butcher, and would be bawd and cuckold too but that in the economy of heaven, foretold by Hamlet, there are no more marriages, glorified man, an androgynous angel, being a wife unto himself.
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."
    One can believe that P is true..
    One can believe that they approve of P?Luke

    I believe that you think are making a point here, but to me you are lost in a misunderstanding. Perhaps it's the complexity in the pronoun use.

    Bob believes P is true while not-P is true.
    Bob believes P but he's wrong.

    This is not the same as 'Bob believes that Bob endorses P, despite not P,' for this discusses Bob's belief about Bob and not his belief about P.

    'P is true',if spoken by Bob, is roughly equivalent to Bob saying 'P' or endorsing 'P' when said by someone else, perhaps with a 'yes indeed.'
  • The Space of Reasons
    Are you a philosopher, or are you just playing games?Bartricks

    Gerty MacDowell who was seated near her companions, lost in thought, gazing far away into the distance was, in very truth, as fair a specimen of winsome Irish girlhood as one could wish to see. She was pronounced beautiful by all who knew her though, as folks often said, she was more a Giltrap than a MacDowell. Her figure was slight and graceful, inclining even to fragility but those iron jelloids she had been taking of late had done her a world of good much better than the Widow Welch’s female pills and she was much better of those discharges she used to get and that tired feeling. The waxen pallor of her face was almost spiritual in its ivorylike purity though her rosebud mouth was a genuine Cupid’s bow, Greekly perfect. Her hands were of finely veined alabaster with tapering fingers and as white as lemonjuice and queen of ointments could make them though it was not true that she used to wear kid gloves in bed or take a milk footbath either.
    Her every effort would be to share his thoughts. Dearer than the whole world would she be to him and gild his days with happiness. There was the allimportant question and she was dying to know was he a married man or a widower who had lost his wife or some tragedy like the nobleman with the foreign name from the land of song had to have her put into a madhouse, cruel only to be kind. But even if—what then? Would it make a very great difference? From everything in the least indelicate her finebred nature instinctively recoiled. She loathed that sort of person, the fallen women off the accommodation walk beside the Dodder that went with the soldiers and coarse men with no respect for a girl’s honour, degrading the sex and being taken up to the police station. No, no: not that. They would be just good friends like a big brother and sister without all that other in spite of the conventions of Society with a big ess.
    And she saw a long Roman candle going up over the trees, up, up, and, in the tense hush, they were all breathless with excitement as it went higher and higher and she had to lean back more and more to look up after it, high, high, almost out of sight, and her face was suffused with a divine, an entrancing blush from straining back and he could see her other things too, nainsook knickers, the fabric that caresses the skin, better than those other pettiwidth, the green, four and eleven, on account of being white and she let him and she saw that he saw and then it went so high it went out of sight a moment and she was trembling in every limb from being bent so far back that he had a full view high up above her knee where no-one ever not even on the swing or wading and she wasn’t ashamed and he wasn’t either to look in that immodest way like that because he couldn’t resist the sight of the wondrous revealment half offered like those skirtdancers behaving so immodest before gentlemen looking and he kept on looking, looking. She would fain have cried to him chokingly, held out her snowy slender arms to him to come, to feel his lips laid on her white brow, the cry of a young girl’s love, a little strangled cry, wrung from her, that cry that has rung through the ages. And then a rocket sprang and bang shot blind blank and O! then the Roman candle burst and it was like a sigh of O! and everyone cried O! O! in raptures and it gushed out of it a stream of rain gold hair threads and they shed and ah! they were all greeny dewy stars falling with golden, O so lovely, O, soft, sweet, soft!
    — Joys
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."

    Perhaps it'll help if I make the variable use of 'I' clearer.

    One can believe that P is true while in fact not-P is true.
    One can believe P despite not-P.
    One can believe P and still be wrong.

    He endorses P.
    He claims P.
    He claims P is true.
    He assents to P.
    He agrees that P.
    He affirms P.
  • The Space of Reasons

    You are either serious, which is concerning, or majestically committed to the bit.
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."

    I use endorse this way: to approve openly. In this context, I equate it with repeating or (re)asserting P.

    'These fries are cold.'
    'Yes indeed.'

    'These fries are cold.'
    'These fries are cold.'

    'These fries are cold.'

    'I can believe P is true although not-P is true.'

    This can be translated as: you can believe you endorse P although you endorse not-P?Luke

    'P is true' is not replaceable context-independently by 'I endorse P.' Instead you should just use 'P' as the replacement. You can probably so replace 'I claim P is true' by 'I endorse P.'

    Your proposed translation might work for 'I can believe that I claim P is true although not-P is true.'
    This can be shortened: 'I can believe that I claim P though P is false.'
  • The Space of Reasons
    I have taken you by the hand and shown you what a reason is. It is a directive. And directives have a director. And that director is Reason. And Reason is a person, because directors are persons. And now you know what Reason is.Bartricks

    Why not choose a standard religion like most people ? It'd be less lonely. I see that you think you have a case or an argument, but you don't. It's textbook bewitchment by language. When they say it's raining, what is it exactly that rains ? Does the royal We trip you up too ?
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."

    Yes. I say indeed that calling P true is endorsing it, repeating it, asserting it.

    This can be translated as: you endorse P although you endorse not-P?Luke

    I think not. You ignore the crucial word 'believe.' To believe P is true is just to believe P.
    I can believe P although or despite ~P.

    I can think/believe/assert that it's true that plums are in the icebox without it being true that plums are in the icebox. (The grammar of 'believe' is not the grammar of 'true.')
  • The Space of Reasons
    And can't an entire tribe of us, no matter its size, be mistaken about what it thinks it has reason to do?Bartricks
    Yes, we can be wrong. Speaking of which, you seem to be lost in the woods yourself.
  • The Space of Reasons
    Are you saying that now that no tribe exists I no longer have any reason to do anything or believe anything?Bartricks

    Oh you can still speak English and feel guilty on that island all by yourself. Once the top is set spinning, you can take away that hand that set it going. There were a guy who lived as a hermit for 30 years, stealing food from vacation cabins, basically living like a rat. He just walked off the 'set' one day, a young man...
  • The Space of Reasons
    How can a tribe issue a directive? Tribes are not persons.Bartricks

    They have not one mouth but many. Who decides what the words you used to ask that question mean ? Do you believe there is a single authority ? 'Language is received like the law.' You just assilimiated the norms for using English as a child. You never bothered to ask who made them up. It'd be silly to name just one person of course. Either of us might launch a meme if we get lucky.

    Now we can discuss another example: democracy. Some tribes elect legislators to create the law, judges to interpret the law, and still others to enforce the law.

    Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

    The individual states of the United States do not possess the powers of external sovereignty, such as the right to deport undesirable persons, but each does have certain attributes of internal sovereignty, such as the power to regulate the acquisition and transfer of property within its borders. The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
  • The Space of Reasons

    The tribe as a whole is the director, if you must embrace a noun to match the verb. Be wary, however, of being dragged by the surface of language into grand metaphysical-theological hypotheses. Reason is deeply and gloriously entangled with human autonomy. There's a special perversity in trying to wring some non-human Divinity from the fragile triumph of the Enlightenment. We are that 'divinity' (or its replacement, just as we were its model in the first place), and rational norms are precisely those which are not exterior to us. I am free to the degree that I myself endorse the constraints that bind me, because I understand the reasons for them. We impose laws on ourselves, both for practical reasons and to manifest the best in us. Humanism is already the 'religion' of Reason, for 'Reason' is just our Geist or spirit or authority. To take reason as an authority is just to take ourselves as authorities in a particular way, namely 'without the contingent, subjective conditions that distinguish one rational being from another. ' What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The law for me is the law for you.

    Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding [= reason] without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. Sapere aude! [Dare to be wise!] Have courage to make use of your own understanding [= reason]! is thus the motto of enlightenment.

    Reason must subject itself to critique in all its undertakings, and cannot restrict the freedom of critique through any prohibition without damaging itself and drawing upon itself a disadvantageous suspicion. For there is nothing so important because of its utility, nothing so holy, that it may be exempted from this searching review and inspection, which knows no respect for persons [i.e. does not recognize any person as bearing more authority than any other—GW]. On this freedom rests the very existence of reason, which has no dictatorial authority, but whose claim is never anything more than the agreement of free citizens, each of whom must be able to express his reservations, indeed even his veto, without holding back. (A738f/B766f, translation slightly modified)

    It is requisite to reason’s lawgiving that it should need to presuppose only itself, because a rule is objectively and universally valid only when it holds without the contingent, subjective conditions that distinguish one rational being from another. (5:21)
    — Kant

    To think for oneself Kant describes as the maxim of unprejudiced thought; its opposite is passivity or heteronomy in thought, leading to prejudice and superstition.[25] To think in the place of everyone else is the maxim of enlarged or broad-minded thought. And always to think in accord with oneself is the maxim of consistent thought (5:294). Although the last maxim sounds more straightforward, Kant is careful to emphasize its difficulty: it “can only be achieved through the combination of the first two and after frequent observance of them has made them automatic” (5:295). Consistency does not just involve getting rid of obvious contradictions in our explicit beliefs. It also requires consistency with regard to all the implications of our beliefs—and these are often not apparent to us. To achieve this sort of law-likeness in thought depends both on the genuine attempt to judge for oneself and the determination to expose one’s judgments to the scrutiny of others. In other words, it involves regarding oneself, first, as the genuine author of one’s judgments, and second, as accountable to others. As we might also say, it represents a determination to take responsibility for one’s judgments.
  • The Space of Reasons
    But what is a norm? Is it not a directive?Bartricks

    Directive is a synonym, yes.
    Common normative sentences include commands, permissions, and prohibitions; common normative abstract concepts include sincerity, justification, and honesty. A popular account of norms describes them as reasons to take action, to believe, and to feel.

    Note that I can explain my actions by saying that I'm just following the rules. I explain paying taxes gladly perhaps in terms of my perceived responsibility to the less fortunate or simply to pay my fair share for public goods like roads.
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."
    What does the second instance of "true" mean in the statement above?Luke
    I can simply think that P is true (believe P) with P not actually being true.Pie

    To say that P is not true is to assert the negation of P , or ~P. Or that's what makes sense to me. (I'm allowing for the possibility of a belief being wrong here.)


    I can believe P is true although not-P is true.

    I can believe P while actually ~P.

    I can be wrong about my belief P.
  • The Space of Reasons

    I would just use the word 'norm.' One ought to avoid contradicting oneself. That's a norm governing reason itself. This norm is so basic that it's maybe even tied up with the very concept of a self. A self-contradicting person is like two or more people trying to share a single body.
    Note that norms are often expressed with 'one,' as in 'one ought to tip at least 20%.' One is one around here. One is unified and coherent and not self-contradicting.
  • The Space of Reasons
    Being rational is a about how responsive one is to the rational impressions one's faculty of reason generates in oneself.Bartricks

    I agree with you about responsiveness or sensitivity. I'm not sure 'impressions' isn't misleading.
  • The Space of Reasons
    I don't understand the terms being employed and those quotes make no sense to me at all. That is, I don't know what Brandom is talking about.Bartricks

    Let me jump in. Brandom is updating Hegel who himself was extending/fixing Kant.

    Humans (largely) no longer experience the norms governing them to be either imposed by God or fixed like the laws of nature. We are self-consciously our own masters. We have grown up as a species, and we have to figure out all by ourselves what's a good bedtime and whether it's OK to eat 5 eggs every day.

    Brandom is concerned with rational norms. He presents a scorekeeping notion of rationality. We all keep each other honest by tracking each other's claims. One of the big rules is that we don't contradict ourselves. Since our original beliefs make us responsible also for their implications (and so many other beliefs that have not even occurred to us yet), we are constantly finding our system of beliefs in need of repair. We have to drop this one or that one.

    A big thing to note here is that I can believe something that contradicts your beliefs as long as it doesn't contradict my own. Individuals matter. We are not some big blob. I can call you out for a belief that I myself endorse...because for you it involves contradiction, while it doesn't for me.

    Another big issue here is mutual recognition. Words don't mean whatever 'I' want them to mean. Their use by the tribe as a whole is authoritative. But I might be able to make a case for a new use so that my use even becomes standard. The tribal norms have no definite location or representative. We feel our way in to them and obey and enforce (and ever so slightly modify) them simultaneously.
  • Metaphors, Emojis, and Heiroglyphics
    How do we know that we’re smarter than machines? Machines are texts translated into material processes.Joshs

    Turing machines are very limited kinds of texts.

    I think the experts in the field can be trusted that they haven't achieved the dream. I did low-level research in this field myself (so I'm neither expert nor total outsider.) It's demystifying. SGD is just a crude but surprisingly effective search through parameter space, glorified curve fitting.

    Perhaps some alien species already has managed something more exciting. Perhaps our own species will in the future.
  • The Space of Reasons
    Right, but as above, what can we say, and how do we justify what we say, about the justifiability of claims that lie outside the logical or empirical contexts?Janus

    I was thinking earlier about violence, silence, reasons. Violence and silence are intended to represented two states of communication breakdown. While people are still talking, I expect that they will sometimes talk exactly about what they do and do not have to justify. Until patience is exhausted or consensus is reached, they're will be disputed territory.

    So, you mention self-knowledge; how do I know that I am knowing myself, that is how do I tell that the ideas I have formed about myself are justifiable?Janus

    It might be like figuring out if you are driving on the correct side of the road. Norms are enforced more or less gently. A young man might think he's a great violinist and continue to fail to impress those who recognize such talent professionally. A humble young woman might think she's only mediocre at math and continually amaze her teachers with her genius. Probably both will move toward correction. No man is an island. We've evolved to work together, respond to censure and praise.
  • The Space of Reasons
    In logical contexts what is warranted is what is valid, In empirical contexts what is most directly warranted is what is observable.Janus

    We do have to be careful, though, because observation is theory-laden.

    In essence, basic statements are for Popper logical constructs which embrace and include ‘observation statements’, but for methodological reasons he seeks to avoid that terminology, as it suggests that they are derived directly from, and known by, experience (2002: 12, footnote 2), which would conflate them with the “protocol” statements of logical positivism and reintroduce the empiricist idea that certain kinds of experiential reports are incorrigible.
    Popper therefore argues that there are no statements in science which cannot be interrogated: basic statements, which are used to test the universal theories of science, must themselves be inter-subjectively testable and are therefore open to the possibility of refutation. He acknowledges that this seems to present a practical difficulty, in that it appears to suggest that testability must occur ad infinitum, which he acknowledges is an operational absurdity: sooner or later all testing must come to an end. Where testing ends, he argues, is in a convention-based decision to accept a basic statement or statements; it is at that point that convention and intersubjective human agreement play an indispensable role in science:
    Then there is the less determinable criteria of what makes sense in terms of our causal understandings of how things work. What would be the criteria for warrantability in metaphysics or aesthetics?Janus
    At some level of complexity, I think our historicity becomes central. Whatever we propose forces a reevaluation of the past (generalized retrodiction). We need to explain our proposed revised history as a story of progress and a making explicit of a reality that was already there. We put the hypothesized object or conceptual shift 'back in time' and relive our pasts with a new X-ray vision. I imagine a detective getting hunch and playing it out, looking for confirmation or contradiction. This is also like carefully fitting a candidate belief into a network of previous investments at minimum cost perhaps.

    Doing the prospective work of coming up with a new revision [to a set of conceptual commitments] and doing the retrospective work of coming up with a new recollection that exhibits it as the culmination of an expressively progressive process in which what was implicit is made gradually but cumulatively more explicit are two ways of describing one task. Coming up with a "new, true, object," i.e., a candidate referent, involves exhibiting the other endorsed senses as more or less misleading or revelatory appearances of it, better of worse expressions of it. What distinguishes the various prospective alternative possible candidates revisions and repairs of the constellation of senses now revealed as anomalous is just what retrospective stories can be told about each. For it is by offering such an expressively progressive genealogy of it that one justifies the move to a revised scheme. — Brandom
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."
    If "true" means only "endorsing P", then that's all there is to the truthLuke

    'P is true' does roughly the same thing as 'P'. So yes. Truth is so basic that's there's nothing to say about it, except that there's nothing to say about it. That's the theory anyway, which looks rightish to me.
    how can a justified belief be false?Luke

    Let's say that there's a strong consensus reached, after months of discussion, among the most prestigious virologists that a certain dangerous mutation is impossible (not just very unlikely but inconceivable.) 'Yes, Dr. Jones, it's true that such a mutation cannot happen here.' Given their unchallenged expertise, they are justified in believing this mutation will not occur. So perhaps are their brighter grad students, who can follow the relevant arguments. Nevertheless the mutation occurs.

    Perhaps a team of oncologists, after extensive tests, give a patient only weeks to live ('it's true what Dr. Smith says, and you indeed have only a few more weeks')...but then he 'miraculously' recovers.

    In what sense could we "still be wrong" about P if to say that P is "true" is merely to endorse it?Luke

    I can simply think that P is true (believe P) with P not actually being true.
  • Wading Into Trans and Gender Issues
    The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex.Hanover

    Actually I agree. There's something apparently curiously reactionary in wrapping oneself in the very stereotypes once viewed as oppressive. Progressives tend to tolerate nontraditional expressions of personality as long as they don't harm others, even at the cost of occasional incoherence.

    If a biological male embraces typically masculine traits, he might be called toxic, at least by certain progressives. If a trans man does so, he will likely be celebrated for courage, probably by the same progressives. It's a bit like the generalization of drag, but it's important to recognize the earnestness involved.

    Sartre and Marx are probably useful here. The self is becoming liquid, a consumer and labor product more and more distant from traditional limitations. What did it mean for us to all have digital avatars representing us, being able to constitute ourselves with self-selected pictures and phrases ? We are and are not what we present. Free artists of ourselves, self-marketing products, we long also to have fate and not just choice, to be something (really a man, really a woman). Your androgynous angels are something like symbols of freedom, while embracing reactionary gender roles is a symbol of fate. (We might emphasize that cis people have been doing it all along and loving it. )
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."
    That's not about endorsing P. That's about P being true or false regardless of our endorsement.Luke

    To call P true is different than to call P warranted. To call P true is basically to assert P, express belief.
    While there are many assertions that seem to be either true or false, that seems like a separate issue to me.
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."

    I added to the post two posts above, in case that helps.
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."
    Yes. But how do you reconcile that with this:Luke

    Where's the contradiction ?
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."
    That's not about endorsing P. That's about P being true or false regardless of our endorsement.Luke

    If I claim that P is true, I am expressing a belief, correct ? What if I said that P is justified, but I still don't think it's true ? I'd be saying that standards dictate its acceptance but that I still refuse to endorse it. This might even take the form of a confession. Perhaps I think I ought to be swayed by the evidence but can't sincerely assert P.
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."
    How does the deflationary theory offer a better account of truth than other theories?Luke

    As I see it, the hypothesis is something like...truth is primary, like unmitigated assertion. It's as if language was initially too simple for doubt or qualification. The vervet monkey's eagle-cry means 'there is an eagle coming to eat out!'

    Vervet monkeys have four confirmed predators: leopards, eagles, pythons, and baboons. The sighting of each predator elicits an acoustically distinct alarm call.[18] As infants, vervets learn to make the variety of calls from observation alone, without explicit tutelage.

    Eventually we learn to doubt. We learn to mitigate claims, call them beliefs, attribute them to individuals in order to explain them, and just generally take a new distance from them. From this POV, truth is so basic that it's hard to talk about, like being perhaps.
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."
    To my way of thinking if I'm looking at plums in the icebox, I don't believe they are there, I see them there, I know they are there.Janus

    In such a case, I think you'd be justified using 'know,' not only as an expression of certainty but also in the sense I'm suggesting of being prepared to defend or explain the claim. Noninferential reports about everyday objects from a reliable source are strong support. 'I saw those plums with my own eyes. They were in there.' We can imagine a scientist recording a measurement. This is what Sellars what call 'language entry,' the connection between 'direct experience' and public concepts.

    On the other hand, such reports from an unreliable and perhaps insane person would not be accepted. I might be sure that I am sane while others are not so sure. I could even be reliable in everyday situations but be suspected as my claims became less ordinary. I could swear I saw a ghost or an angel or heard the voice of God.
  • "What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer."

    According to you, the meaning of "true" is independent of anyone's beliefs or judgments.Luke

    In general, concepts have public meanings, however imperfectly grasped or exploited by this or that user. I'm suggesting that grammar of 'true,' or at least the part of it relevant here, is different than that of 'justified' or 'warranted' or 'likely.' 'True' is primitive or absolute in its simply endorsing P. It's confusingly, brutally simple.
  • Wading Into Trans and Gender Issues
    If this person's existence makes any of you angry, I suggest the problem is with you, not him.Baden

  • The Space of Reasons
    He thinks that we institute norms that govern our attitudes by engaging in a special kind of process: recollection [Erinnerung]. Recollection retrospectively rationally reconstructs the prior applications of a concept, picking out an expressively progressive trajectory through them. To say that the rationally reconstructed tradition is “expressively progressive” is to say that it takes the form of the gradual emergence into explicitness of a determinate conceptual content, which provides a norm governing applications of that concept. That content is exhibited as having been all along implicit. Each application reveals some contour of the concept.

    The process of recollection adopts an essentially retrospective perspective: “The owl of Minerva flies only at dusk….” It is this process that turns a mere past into a history, something with the edifying narrative structure of a tradition: a past as comprehended. It is “Reason’s march through history.” The idea of recollective rationality is one of Hegel’s Big Ideas.
    The key to understanding the way Hegel moves beyond the basic Hegelian normative statuses socially instituted by synchronic reciprocal relations of recognitive attitudes consists in appreciating the orthogonal diachronic historical dimension of recognitive processes. It is in particular the recollective phase of diachronic recognitive processes that explains the attitude-transcendence of normative statuses. That includes the special cognitive representational norms according to which representing attitudes are responsible for their correctness to standards set by what counts as represented by those representings just in virtue of exercising that distinctive kind of authority over them. Discursive norms, both practical and cognitive, are understood according to the categories of Vernunft as features of essentially social and historical recognitive processes, developing in tandem with the attitudes that articulate them. Understanding operating according to the categories of Verstand is blind to both the social and the historical dimensions of conceptual norms.
    Forgiving recollection can be understood on the model of the institutional common or case-law jurisprudential practices mentioned earlier. There, the current judge rationally reconstructs the tradition by selecting a trajectory of prior precedential decisions that are expressively progressive, in that they reveal the gradual emergence into explicitness of a norm (the content of a law) that can be seen to have implicitly governed (in the dual sense of serving as a standard and having the precedential attitudes be revealed as subjunctively sensitive to it) all the decisions (attitudes) in the reconstructed tradition. It is that norm that then justifies the current judge’s decision. The norm that is seen as emerging from the rationally reconstructed tradition of decisions sets the standard for normative assessment by future judges of the current decision, which claims to be subjunctively sensitive to that very norm. So the recollecting judge subjects herself to (acknowledges the authority of) the norm she retrospectively discerns. The more of the prior decisions the recollection rationalizes and exhibits as expressive of the norm, the better the recollective warrant that norm provides for the current decision. Whatever residue there is of decisions that cannot be fit into the retrospectively rationally reconstructed tradition as precedentially rationalizing and expressive of the norm, increases the scope for criticism of the current decision by future judges, who may or may not acknowledge it as correct and itself precedential. For the only authority the decision has derives from its responsibility to the tradition of prior decisions.

    Forgiving (recollectively recognizing), on this account, is hard work. It cannot be brought off with a single, sweeping, abstractly general gesture: “I forgive you for what you did.” One could always say that, but saying it would not make it so. Besides commitment to practically affect the consequences of the doing one is forgiving, one must produce a concrete recollective reconstruction of the deed, under all of its intentional and consequential specifications. Recollection is a making—the crafting of a distinctive kind of narrative—that is successful only insofar as it ends up being recognizable as having the form of a finding. Doing that seems perverse, but it is giving contingency the normative form of necessity. Recollection is the narrative genre in which the rationalization of decisions appealing to common or case law also belongs. One must recruit and assemble the raw materials one inherits so as to exhibit a norm one can endorse oneself as always having governed the tradition to which one oneself belongs, with which one oneself identifies—a tradition that shows up as progressively revealing a governing norm, making ever more explicit what was all along implicit. The expressively progressive tradition discerned culminates (for now) in the consequential specification of the doing that is the recollection itself.
    The responsibility the individual tragic heroic agent takes on himself is accordingly spread out and shared. The doing of each (in one sense) is now in a real sense the doing of all (in another, recognitively complementary sense). For all share responsibility for and authority over each action. The distinctive role played by individual agents is not obliterated, for the responsibility and authority acknowledged by and attributed to the initiating agent is different from the reparative and recollective responsibility and authority acknowledged by those who take up the burden of forgiving the agent. Every deed now shows up both as a practical contribution to the content of all that came before it, and as acknowledging a recollective responsibility with respect to all those deeds. The temporally extended, historically structured recognitive community of those who are alike in all confessing the extent of their failure to be norm-governed, acknowledging their responsibility to forgive those failures in others, confessing the extent of their efforts at recollective and reparative forgiveness, and trusting that a way will be found to forgive their failures, is one in which each member identifies with all the others, taking co-responsibility for their practical attitudes. It is the “‘I’ that is ‘we’, the ‘we’ that is ‘I’.”
  • Metaphors, Emojis, and Heiroglyphics
    Our machines dont have to be algorithmic and mathematical. They are that way because we used to assume human cognition was that way.Joshs

    What else do you have in mind if not life itself ? We are the semantic computers that we'd like to be able to build out of something else than our own flesh. The easy route for generating general intelligible is just parenthood. This brings an ethical issue to mind. If we succeed too well, we might be guilty of attempted slavery. What do we want these things for ? Probably to work, possibly also as pets.
  • Metaphors, Emojis, and Heiroglyphics
    The evolution of our thinking machines doesnt simulate a past natural evolutionary process.Joshs

    The problem is that we are smarter than are machines still. They can crush us at narrowly specified tasks, yes, but we haven't been able to breath life into them. One might naturally ask how life (our general intelligence) was breathed into us. Evolution (which some describe as an algorithm) created us from something simpler, step by painful step by step. So far as I know, that's our only hint.

    Note that AI started with grand plans for a human-like Turing-test-passing conversationalist. It was forced to settle for less. It's not that we just realize that we should ask for more. We always wanted to play God and create the ADAM-9000.
  • The Space of Reasons
    Subjective is what things are 'for us' and objective is what things are 'in themselves' - with the clarifying comment that things as they are in themselves are 'the form of empirical reality'. Presumably this is the constellation of material inferences+events which plays a representational role in how we do stuff.fdrake

    This quote from A Spirit of Trust might add something.

    Doing the prospective work of coming up with a new revision [to a set of conceptual commitments] and doing the retrospective work of coming up with a new recollection that exhibits it as the culmination of an expressively progressive process in which what was implicit is made gradually but cumulatively more explicit are two ways of describing one task. Coming up with a "new, true, object," i.e., a candidate referent, involves exhibiting the other endorsed senses as more or less misleading or revelatory appearances of it, better of worse expressions of it. What distinguishes the various prospective alternative possible candidates revisions and repairs of the constellation of senses now revealed as anomalous is just what retrospective stories can be told about each. For it is by offering such an expressively progressive genealogy of it that one justifies the move to a revised scheme.

    The disparity of the senses (appearances, phenomena, ways things are for consciousness) that is manifest prospectively in the need to revise yet again the contents-and-commitments one currently endorses, and the unity of referents (reality, noumena, ways things are in themselves) that is manifest retrospectively in their gradual emergence into explicitness as revealed by an expressive genealogy of the contents-and-commitments one currently endorses, are two sides of the same coin, each intelligible only in a context that contains the other.
    — Brandom
  • The Space of Reasons
    And in that regard reading those relationships of conceptual inference, whether material or nonmaterial, as psychological events will probably be a misreading.fdrake

    As far as I can tell so far, we should look for concepts in the structure of both our verbal and non-verbal 'doings.' We 'perform' concepts, or rather concepts are like a second-nature structure in our doings, some of which can be made explicit and modified.
  • The Space of Reasons
    I imagine that relations of material inference can only be learned with reference to, or in derivation from, stuff which has been seen and done.fdrake

    "Because he didn't want to get wet, he put up his umbrella." We can think of the very meaning of 'wet' and 'umbrella' as existing 'within' our allowing such inferences. We would not say (could not understand) "He wanted to keep his feet dry, so he took off his boots in the snow." To me this is like Saussure's system of differences without positive entities, except that the nexus is explicitly inferential.
  • The Space of Reasons
    The space of reasons includes individuals making claims. But what is a self ? Does it make sense without a world, without others, without a language shared with others in a world with that self ?
    Because "the Concept is Time" and "man is Time," the basis for humanity's comprehension of the historical unfolding of the empirically existing concepts, which describe the real, is to be located in our existential experience. The key to this experience is the struggle for recognition; and the key to recognition is death as the possibility of the "absolute refusal of recognition". But for Kojève, Hegel's concept of 'death' is insufficiently distinguished from natural death.

    The main point of Hegel's dialectic of recognition - as opposed to Heidegger's existential analysis whereby a Being individualised by its anticipation of death is considered, by virtue of its throwness, to be 'with-others' - is that "self consciousness exists for a self-consciousness". If this is true, then as a self-interpreting, self-conscious being, Being's individuality cannot be derived from its anticipation of death independently of its relations to others. Rather, Being must first, or simultaneously, be constituted as a self-conscious being through its relation with others, in a dialectic of recognition, in order that it may become the kind of being which is capable of anticipating its death as the end towards which it is thrown, and hence of constituting itself existentially as a being-towards-death. This disrupts the whole ontological problematic of being and time, for it challenges the foundational status of Heidegger's description of Dasein - a being for whom being is 'there' in the fundamentally inquisitive form of the question of the meaning of being - revealing it as a dogmatic presupposition of Heidegger's inquiry; the result of a prior commitment to 'the question of the meaning of being' which falls outside the scope of the inquiry's own critical procedures.

    On the Hegelian model, being can only be 'there' in Heidegger's sense of presenting itself as the object of inquiry for a fundamentally self-interpreting entity, if this entity has previously been constituted as an entity of this kind, through a process of mutual recognition. Furthermore, it is only through this process of mutual recognition constitutive of Dasein's consciousness of itself as a self-interpreting being that Dasein can acquire a sense of death in the first place. The point for Hegelians is not only that Being is first and foremost a being-with-others, but that its being with others is constitutive of a death which, while ultimately grounded ontologically in our inscription within cosmological time, nonetheless derives its existential reality from the form of our relationship to it. Heidegger's analysis may register that it is by the deaths of others that that 'mineness' of death is confirmed, but it provides no account of whence this thing called 'death' comes, or what its existential anticipation has to tell us, ontologically, about the character of Being as a social being. In Hegel's analysis on the other hand, the dual priority of recognition over the anticipation of death appears explicitly in the depiction of the 'struggle for recognition' in which each must risk their life in order to be recognised by the other as a self-conscious being - the process leading up to the notorious master-slave dialectic.

    The master and slave are allegorical forms, typifications of power relations inherent in the structure of recognition. What they mark is, on the one hand, the necessarily social character of all self-consciousness, and, on the other hand, the contradiction between dependence and independence that self-consciousness beings must consequently experience outside of an association 'in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all'; or, as Hegel puts it, 'an absolute substance which is the unity of the different independent self-consciousness which, in their opposition, enjoy perfect freedom and independence'.

    The presentation of this struggle as a trial by death is somewhat obscure. In order to know itself as a consciousness, consciousness must know itself as both subject and object of knowledge at the same time. But without another self-consciousness, this is impossible, since any relation of consciousness to itself which is modelled on its relations to objects can only oscillate between an assertion of its independence from itself as the object of knowledge, and a supersession of this independence which establishes the self-certainty of the knowing subject only at the cost of demonstrating its dependence on the negated object: therefore "self-consciousness achieves its satisfaction (the satisfaction of its desire to supersede itself as an object) only in another consciousness."

    The duplication of self-consciousness, their mutual recognition, and hence their mutual dependence (replacing dependence on an object) are thus all shown to be conditions of the possibility of self-consciousness, and hence, conditions of the possibility of Dasein as a self-interpreting being for whom being is in question.
  • Inductive Expansion on Cartesian Skepticism
    The chirps aren't about anything. They're just chirps.Tate

    Are you sure you aren't a self-hating behaviorist ?