kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 12:04 pm
@Stringfellow,
Stringfellow wrote:
Statements are true or false based on their content. Arguments are valid or invalid based on their form. That's logic. I'm saying logic deals with true and false as they concern fact. But they are in the province of reason which is part of our psychology and it is IMHO hubris to think that our reason points to the Truth or certainty of things we cannot know. Here I mean ontology. This is a truth Socrates dealt with when he used his dialectic to try and pin down Justice, Truth, Beauty, Love, etc.,. But his tact was the dialectic and the dialectic tries to nail something down to knowledge, which again is psychological. The question of Truth as it stands ontologically is something we can only point to with some rational certainty. It is the allusion. And personally, I agree with Nietzsche that the dialectic is a weapon used when no other weapon is left. It is best used by lawyers, not philosophers, and personally leaves me mistrustful as to all metaphysical questions. I leave you to your path of inquiry and me to mine.


If you are not interested in logic (or reason, broadly speaking) then how can you know whether your philosophical beliefs are true, or are worth-holding? You may not be interested in that, but, if you are not, then how can you be on a path of inquiry?
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
0 Replies
 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 03:50 pm
@de Silentio,
'Truth' requires 'belief' as existence requires Perspective.
'Belief' that there is Truth, or belief that you 'know the truth'.

'Truth' is a cognitive notion in whatever form it appears to one personally, a concept that, by definition, requires 'belief' to exist (for you).

But by 'belief/thought/ego' we'd have no notions of Truth whatsoever.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 05:06 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
'Truth' requires 'belief' as existence requires Perspective.

But by 'belief/thought/ego' we'd have no notions of Truth whatsoever.


I don't know how existence require perspective, but there were germs in the 15th century as there are now, but no one believed it.
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 05:25 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;34846 wrote:
I don't know how existence require perspective, but there were germs in the 15th century as there are now, but no one believed it.

No one 'believed' it since no one knew it since there were no germs in the 15th century.
Germs were not yet perceived, defined. Germs did not yet exist.
Illness was, then, caused (another 15th century concept, 'causality'..) by demons, witches, evil spirits, god's displeasure, bad karma, etc... Just ask any 15th century physician, layman, priest...
Hermes9
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 07:07 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:

Give Plato a break. Let him be. ... doesn't do to speak ill the dead, no longer here to answer to us.

Guys go philosphical when some mean ***** gets the better of them. That is the way of it. C'est la vie.

--- RH.

It is not necessarily ill or undue to speak ill of the dead. It is often well to be critical of past present and future. But we must look at things for what they were or are or may be, as in context, however this certainly leaves open many questions of interpretation, as no doubt noted profusely in this thread. This does hereby acknowledge that they may not be accessible to answer to our charges, and that they may well be beyond accountability for them.

People may go philosophical on many types of occasions, but I acknowledge that it is often under conditions of some perceived adversity, be it defeat or victory or otherwise.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 08:46 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
No one 'believed' it since no one knew it since there were no germs in the 15th century.
Germs were not yet perceived, defined. Germs did not yet exist.
Illness was, then, caused (another 15th century concept, 'causality'..) by demons, witches, evil spirits, god's displeasure, bad karma, etc... Just ask any 15th century physician, layman, priest...


Germs did not exist in the 15th century? Then what caused the Black Death? I think you must mean that germs were not believed to exist in the 15th century. But that, of course, does not mean they did not exist. Before there were people, there were stars, and the Sun. But, no one believed that the Sun and the stars existed. But they existed, nevertheless.
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 09:03 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;34877 wrote:
Germs did not exist in the 15th century? Then what caused the Black Death? I think you must mean that germs were not believed to exist in the 15th century. But that, of course, does not mean they did not exist. Before there were people, there were stars, and the Sun. But, no one believed that the Sun and the stars existed. But they existed, nevertheless.

Sorry, science does not support your assertions.
First, 'belief' has nothing to do with it. It's all about perception/observation.
It makes no difference whether you 'believe' what you see or not. The point is that you 'see' it, perceive it.
Second, though i'm not going into all the science involved (you can do your own research if interested, there's more good science every day), I will ask you, though, for any indisputable evidence in support of your claim. Any evidence at all. And, if you somehow find something from then and happen to find a germ on it, that only shows that there is something, Now!, that you identify as a 'germ'. Had they seen it then, they might have called it 'Satan's thumbprint', and that would be what it was, for them! For you, Now, it might be a germ, because 'germs' have become a part of existence when first observed. Definition/observation is existence. There was no dark side of the moon 'till the 60s!
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 09:19 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Sorry, science does not support your assertions.
First, 'belief' has nothing to do with it. It's all about perception/observation.
It makes no difference whether you 'believe' what you see or not. The point is that you 'see' it, perceive it.
Second, though i'm not going into all the science involved (you can do your own research if interested, there's more good science every day), I will ask you, though, for any indisputable evidence in support of your claim. Any evidence at all. And, if you somehow find something from then and happen to find a germ on it, that only shows that there is something, Now!, that you identify as a 'germ'. Had they seen it then, they might have called it 'Satan's thumbprint', and that would be what it was, for them! For you, Now, it might be a germ, because 'germs' have become a part of existence when first observed. Definition/observation is existence. There was no dark side of the moon 'till the 60s!


Now!, that you identify as a 'germ'. Had they seen it then, they might have called it 'Satan's thumbprint', and that would be what it was, for them! For you, Now, it might be a germ, because 'germs' have become a part of existence when first observed. Definition/observation is existence. There was no dark side of the moon 'till the 60s!


But what that means is only that they believed it was Satan's thumbprint, not of course that is was Satan's thumbprint. And, of course, I believe it was a germ, but, in fact, it was a germ. The germ theory of disease has been confirmed over and over again, and, in fact, germs have been seen under a microscope. Of course there was a dark side of the Moon before the 60's and everyone knew about it. No one had seen it. And, there was a Moon before people were on Earth, but, of course, there was no one to know such a thing, since there was no one to observe the Moon. Why do you think that definition/observation is existence? Whose definition or observation? Do you think that before you observed your parents they did not exist? Or do you think that your great-great-grandparents did not exist because no one you have known have observed them?
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 10:26 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;34890 wrote:
But what that means is only that they believed it was Satan's thumbprint, not of course that is was Satan's thumbprint. And, of course, I believe it was a germ, but, in fact, it was a germ.

'Believers' often accept their 'beliefs' as 'facts, while contrasting 'beliefs' of others are seen as 'delusions'.
What makes your understanding/belief any more 'fact' than theirs? They thought their 'beliefs' facts just as you seem to.
A 'fact' is equivalent to a 'belief'!

Quote:
The germ theory of disease has been confirmed over and over again, and, in fact, germs have been seen under a microscope.

Only recently. Once observed, they are brought into existence.
That witches caused crop failure and disease was proven over and over again, also!

Quote:
Of course there was a dark side of the Moon before the 60's and everyone knew about it.

You need to learn some science if you wish to have discussions of current thoughts on existence.
Food for thought;
Quantum Consciousness . Stuart Hameroff
An interesting discussion on the physics forum here; Is the Moon there when nobody looks at it?
A bit of understanding of the works of Bishop Berkeley might also help;
and here.
Reality: The Grand Illusion
On the Quantum Psychodynamics

Some food for thought, to give you a clue where I'm comming from (if interested in understanding).

Quote:
Why do you think that definition/observation is existence?

All the evidence points to this.
Everything (perceived) exists.
Existence is Context.
Everything exists in it's context.
Dualism/definition is context.

Perceiver and perceived are one.
We are the existence that we perceive, each moment.

Quote:
Whose definition or observation?

Yours.
Mine.
Every possible Perspective, all together in sum total, define the observed existence/omniverse, at any moment.

Quote:
Do you think that before you observed your parents they did not exist?

They were observed by other Perspectives.
Before they were perceived by some Perspective, they did not exist. Where are the parents of my great great 100 times great grandchildren? They do not Now! exist.
Perception by only one Perspective is sufficient to claim existence for the perceived. One perceiver of the FSM brings it into existence. There is nothing in existence that has not been Consciously perceived. No evidence available or possible without perception.
Please, read and understand some of Berkeley's writings before continuing this conversation. Not that I agree with all that he says, but the 'flavor' is certainly there, and has not been, yet, refuted.

Quote:
Or do you think that your great-great-grandparents did not exist because no one you have known have observed them?

Can we, please, have a pleasant discussion without being insulting?
Or is this some attempt at 'moving the goalposts' or 'straw-man'?
What does me 'knowing' anyone personally have to do with anything?!
Not a thing!
Either way, I'll just let this pass as irrelevent (unless you wish to support it as relevent, for some reason...).
Peace
Stringfellow
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 11:12 pm
@de Silentio,
Plato was a keen logician but even he realized his lacking in that area and would then turn to myth or poetry...something we lost touch with in the Cartesian Modern age of certainty.

In Timaeus Plato leaves the path of logic to wander in the uncharted land of poetic. It is here he calls Truth "an eternal now,unchangeable [and] forever inexpressible." He speaks of comparing the "copy to the original" and here he makes the analogy to the relation of belief and truth. I find it personally compelling:

Quote:
"But when [we] express only the copy or the likeness and not the eternal things themselves, the need only be likely and analogous to the former words. As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates,amidst the many opinions about ...the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough is we adduce probabilities...and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and inquire no further." (Tim. 29c)
When we come to such places where belief must suffice for knowledge of truth, Plato says the only way to know anything in certainty is to ask God, and that is denied to us.

S.
0 Replies
 
Richardgrant
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2008 05:41 pm
@de Silentio,
For me to undersand truth beauty, love, etc, becomes a whole different concept as I come to realize that I live in a mirror imaged, thought wave universe, where every thing that I see out there is a clear reflection of who I am. My senses deceive me 100%. There is no way my senses would be able to prove anything.
0 Replies
 
jgweed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2008 05:58 pm
@de Silentio,
I would hazard a reply, if I could be certain that posts were real and from another human such as I.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2008 06:56 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
'Believers' often accept their 'beliefs' as 'facts, while contrasting 'beliefs' of others are seen as 'delusions'.
What makes your understanding/belief any more 'fact' than theirs? They thought their 'beliefs' facts just as you seem to.
A 'fact' is equivalent to a 'belief'!


Only recently. Once observed, they are brought into existence.
That witches caused crop failure and disease was proven over and over again, also!



All people who believe something accept their beliefs as true. Otherwise, they would not hold those beliefs in the first place. But that does not mean that all their beliefs are true. Only that they think they are true. It often turns out that what a person believes is true is false. Since I know that like all people, I am a fallible human being (which means that I am prone to make mistakes) so although I have no idea which ones of my beliefs are false (otherwise, of course, I would not hold such beliefs if I thought they were false) nevertheless, I also believe that at least some of them are false. But, as I have said, which of them, I don't know. For if I did, I would not hold those beliefs.

A 'fact' is equivalent to a 'belief'!


I used to believe that Rio de Janeiro was the capital of Brazil. But that was false. Brasilia was the capital of Brazil. Therefore, it was not a fact (true) that Rio was the capital of Brazil. So, here is a case when a belief was not equivalent to a fact.

Certainly, observation of germs did not bring germs into existence, since they could not have been observed unless they already existed. And, besides, if the germs were not observed until much later, what caused disease before they were observed? Do you think witches caused disease before they were observed, and then, after they were observed, witches stopped causing disease, and germs took over the job?
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2008 08:32 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;35103 wrote:
All people ...and germs took over the job?

Did you read and understand the links that I was generous enough to provide for your edification?
It appears not...
Sorry...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2008 08:38 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Did you read and understand the links that I was generous enough to provide for your edification?
It appears not...
Sorry...


But the question for you is whether when I believed that Rio was the capital of Brazil it was a fact that Rio was the capital even if it wasn't.
And, another question for you is whether it could be true that germs sprang into existence when they were observed (by whom) if in order to be observed they must exist; and whether if witches caused disease, then how is it possible that when we discovered germ theory, germs suddenly took over from the witches.

I don't see that I have to read anything in order for you to be able to respond to those questions. When you have done so, then we can talk about my readings.
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2008 10:38 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;35137 wrote:
But...

When one proficient and knowledgeable in elementary addition and subtraction finds the need to argue about a term in advanced theoretical physics, it is SOP to refer the 'argumentative' person to go and further his education before wasting my time!
I was even generous and thoughtful enough to refer you to a few sites that would have given you some insight. I didn't expect a thank you or any other common curtesy. It was a labor of 'compassion' (misdirected as it might have been). Your rejection of the profered sites, and willful ignorance (definition of 'stupid', no?) tell me that it was a "pearls before swine" thing and I will waste no more time with you.
Good day.
0 Replies
 
Stringfellow
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 02:18 am
@de Silentio,
Plato shows how one can have a false belief as well as a true belief. But one can only have true knowledge, not false knowledge. (Timaeus) And we can plug in the values as have been shown in previous posts e.g., 2+3=5.

But when we get into the question of knowledge, then things become a bit less clear. Socrates says that one knows something by perceiving it and that two different people may perceive something differently. Such as a cold wind blowing is cold to one person and not to another. (Theaetetus) In the Republic we see truth "as akin to wisdom", but then wisdom can be "ascribed only to a god"(Phaedrus)

It is easy, as has been shown, to nitpick Plato to find contradictions. And given my own unfinished reading of his works, I can only say what I think about that which I have read about these things (and I think it best to read the author and judge for yourself). So IMO there are truths which we can know and truths which we can only believe. And those that are simplest will be the ones we know and those that are difficult are those we will believe. Still it is true that both knowledge and beliefs can be shown to be false, (or Socrates would say what we thought was knowledge really turned out to be a belief if it is shown to be false.) And here we can think of many examples in science. But are all forms of geometry superceded by new ones, and if so are they false beliefs and not knowledge? And how about Newtonian Physics given quantum physics?

The key may be to see truth and belief both as within and without our realm of perception. For "A man may sometimes set aside meditations about eternal things, and for recreation turn to consider the truths of generations, which are probable only; he will thus gain a pleasure not to be repented of, and secure for himself a wise and moderate pastime." (Timaeaus)
0 Replies
 
Richardgrant
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 09:37 am
@de Silentio,
For me beliefs are all related to the material world of effect and are all fear based. as I let all my beliefs go the symptoms in the body disapeared, where I now enjoy excellent health, a clear mind, with good eye sight, not needing to wear glasses. Knowledge can only be gained from understanding cause, any normal person can do this, where the effect world is very complex, because it is governed by the five senses
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 09:51 am
@Richardgrant,
Richardgrant wrote:
For me beliefs are all related to the material world of effect and are all fear based. as I let all my beliefs go the symptoms in the body disapeared, where I now enjoy excellent health, a clear mind, with good eye sight, not needing to wear glasses. Knowledge can only be gained from understanding cause, any normal person can do this, where the effect world is very complex, because it is governed by the five senses


I believe that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. How is that fear-based?
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
Richardgrant
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 02:21 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
I believe that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. How is that fear-based?
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

Kennethamy, If you believe that Quito is the capital of Equador, that will be true for you. The same as believed the symptoms in my body were real because I believed them to be so, when I discovered the beliefs were all fear based I gave them no more thought and let them go, My symptoms in the body disapeared also, where I now enjoy excellent health, and have no beliefs at all. true knowledge comes from knowing the cause of creation.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Truth and Belief
  3. » Page 17
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 01:55:11