The necessary truth of any truth

Quote:

For let me assure you that I know that there existed a world before I existed, and a world after I cease to exist.

The speaker here seems to unaware of two points:
1. "Time" is a psychological construct, whence the concept "before".
2. Ontology (existence) and epistemology (knowledge) are inextricably enmeshed with each other.

The two points are linked via a consideration of the specifically developed human activity of "prediction and control".

Quote:

For let me assure you that I know that there existed a world before I existed, and a world after I cease to exist.

The speaker here seems to unaware of two points:
1. "Time" is a psychological construct, whence the concept "before".
2. Ontology (existence) and epistemology (knowledge) are inextricably enmeshed with each other.

The two points are linked via a consideration of the specifically developed human activity of "prediction and control".

What I am saying is that you need both to have a truth, which is why the truth about the moon changed from medieval times to now. Thanks to that, truth can evolve and we can today say that we know more about the moon the the medieval people did. However, their truth was different from ours, as the truth of future generations will be. I am no idealist, I am not saying we create reality or that each one has a different reality, precisely because for me truth is not a total objectivity.

guigus wrote:

What I am saying is that you need both to have a truth, which is why the truth about the moon changed from medieval times to now. Thanks to that, truth can evolve and we can today say that we know more about the moon the the medieval people did. However, their truth was different from ours, as the truth of future generations will be. I am no idealist, I am not saying we create reality or that each one has a different reality, precisely because for me truth is not a total objectivity.

Are you saying that what medieval people believed about the moon was then objectively true? And that if people at that time believed that the earth was flat, its flatness was then an actual state of affairs? Remember that educated people in the Middle Ages knew, like the ancient Greeks, that the earth was round; if ordinary people thought it was flat, does that mean that it was simultaneously true and false that the earth's flatness was an actual state of affairs "out there"? Surely not. But if you argue that a flat earth was "true for" ordinary people, while admitting that it had no external reality, you are committed to saying that there can be a truth without a true state of affairs. So it would not be the case that "all truths are true".

guigus wrote:

What I am saying is that you need both to have a truth, which is why the truth about the moon changed from medieval times to now. Thanks to that, truth can evolve and we can today say that we know more about the moon the the medieval people did. However, their truth was different from ours, as the truth of future generations will be. I am no idealist, I am not saying we create reality or that each one has a different reality, precisely because for me truth is not a total objectivity.

Are you saying that what medieval people believed about the moon was then objectively true? And that if people at that time believed that the earth was flat, its flatness was then an actual state of affairs? Remember that educated people in the Middle Ages knew, like the ancient Greeks, that the earth was round; if ordinary people thought it was flat, does that mean that it was simultaneously true and false that the earth's flatness was an actual state of affairs "out there"? Surely not. But if you argue that a flat earth was "true for" ordinary people, while admitting that it had no external reality, you are committed to saying that there can be a truth without a true state of affairs. So it would not be the case that "all truths are true".

ACB wrote:

guigus wrote:

What I am saying is that you need both to have a truth, which is why the truth about the moon changed from medieval times to now. Thanks to that, truth can evolve and we can today say that we know more about the moon the the medieval people did. However, their truth was different from ours, as the truth of future generations will be. I am no idealist, I am not saying we create reality or that each one has a different reality, precisely because for me truth is not a total objectivity.

Are you saying that what medieval people believed about the moon was then objectively true? And that if people at that time believed that the earth was flat, its flatness was then an actual state of affairs? Remember that educated people in the Middle Ages knew, like the ancient Greeks, that the earth was round; if ordinary people thought it was flat, does that mean that it was simultaneously true and false that the earth's flatness was an actual state of affairs "out there"? Surely not. But if you argue that a flat earth was "true for" ordinary people, while admitting that it had no external reality, you are committed to saying that there can be a truth without a true state of affairs. So it would not be the case that "all truths are true".

There is no such think as subjective reality. There is (and maybe that is what you mean) what people believe is real.But that is not subjective reality any more than if I happen to believe that Quito is the capital of Bolivia is that subjectively real. The term, "subjective reality" is just a misleading term for what it is that people believe is real. Subjective reality is not a kind of reality any more than a subjective diamond (something you think is a diamond) is a diamond. If you go to a jeweler and ask to see his subjective diamonds he will not know what you are talking about. He does not have two trays of diamond on display, one called, "subjective diamonds" the other called "diamonds". A subjective diamond is not a weird kind of diamond.
Depends on what they believed. But we were not talking about what they believed. We were talking about what they saw. So, whatever they believed (or we now believe) is irrelevant. Did they see the same Moon? Well unless you think that someone switched Moons between now and then (presto-chango!) the answer is, yes. If you are asking whether they and we had the same beliefs about the Moon, no. Our beliefs differed. But that isn't what we were talking about. However, if you are asking me whether they (and we) were looking at the very same thing, namely, the Moon, the answer is, yes. And that is what we have been talking about. (Of course I am not saying that if people believed Earth was flat then Earth was flat. Do you take me for a loony?)

@jeeprs,
I think you grasp part of the point about "construction", which is that "objects" are objects of "consciousness", i.e. segmentations of "the world" which have no ontological status in their own right. But a major point is that " observation" of "objects" is active not passive. We don't walk around categorizing objects, like trees, rocks or police cars etc unless and until they have functionality in particular instants. (Heidegger's term was Zuhanden). We can say that "objects" are "brought forth" as we need them, and that includes the bringing forth of a "conscious self" as the "needer".

It is the reporting of such "bringings forth" which constiutes what we call "facts".

This is not to say that an individual " perceptual system" does not respond automatically to "sensory signals", but that the classification of such signals as sense data (including their suppression) is mediated by consciousness which in turn has been conditioned through human needs which are predominantly encapsulated by language.

It is as though both the modern concept of sensory signals impinging on particular functional networks is partnered by the ancient idea of the senses "actively putting out feelers". Kant's term "perceptual a priori s" could be interpreted in either direction.

Of course I am not saying that if people believed Earth was flat then Earth was flat.

Here is the thing: there is an objective reality and a subjective one, and truth is the identity between them, which of course presupposes their difference. All problems (including the absurdities you refer to) arise from an unilateral view in favor of either objectivity or subjectivity. For the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador" (subjective reality) to be true Quito must be the capital of Ecuador (objective reality). For those who have problems accepting the identity between a subjective reality and its objective counterpart, I suggest you examine this assertion: "the truth of a being is a true being," which clearly shows that identity. The truth of a being is the same as a true being, otherwise that same truth is no longer true, and every truth must be true. However, that same identity presupposes a difference between a being and its truth, without which we cannot even formulate such a statement. Denying the difference causes either subjective or objective reality to collapse into the latter or the former, respectively, as also does denying the identity.

What I want to know is this: Are you claiming that the flatness of the earth was a "true being" when most people believed the earth was flat?

Quote:

What I want to know is this: Are you claiming that the flatness of the earth was a "true being" when most people believed the earth was flat?

Is a "true being" a fairy of some sort !
Truth is what works ! And the earth is still flat for most land dwelling functions !
What do you think "space is curved" means other than for relativistic concepts of gravitation ?

What has the fact, if it is a fact, that most people believe that Earth is flat, have to do with whether it is true that Earth is flat? Nothing that I can see.

One will not reach very far going about telling truths.

To evacuate a stadium filled with people, it's very fatal to tell the truth about a possible bomb being hidden there, one MUST tell a lie to safely evacuate the masses, else they are prone to trample eachother to death in their fear and hysteria.

Themistocles the unsung hero of Battle of Salamis back in ancient Greece, would motivate the Athenian by telling a lie.

Too often people will not belive the truth, because it's not plausible, therefor a wise and cunning person will tell something plausible instead.

What I want to know is this: Are you claiming that the flatness of the earth was a "true being" when most people believed the earth was flat?

What has the fact, if it is a fact, that most people believe that Earth is flat, have to do with whether it is true that Earth is flat?

What I am saying is that there was once a truth relating "the earth is flat" to the earth being flat. This was once a truth for (a lot of) some, but ceased to be a truth once the corresponding (hence the correspondence theory) state of affairs no longer supported it. By which we also discovered another truth: one in which the statement "the earth was never flat" is supported by the state of affairs in which the earth was never flat.

I understand your arguments, and those of people with a similar view, but it seems to me that you are leaving something out. Your view does not adequately explain what causes beliefs to change; what causes one consensus to be replaced by another - especially if the new consensus involves the recognition of some unwelcome fact. If nothing originates outside us, why can't we all agree to create a perfect world for ourselves? Indeed, why can't I create one just for myself, if I and the world are just two sides of the same coin?

You have explained your objections to naive realism, but I think your view needs to be developed further in order to meet my objections above.

What I have been calling a "subjective reality" must be rigorously called a possible truth. If you think about a possible truth, you will realize that it is the possibility of an actual truth, which is its future. However, that future is already there, within that possible truth, and if it ceases to be there, then the possible truth itself ceases to exist: no matter that whatever is possible must be not yet actual, you will find nothing in that possible truth other than an actual truth as a future. And since that future is already present, such a possible truth becomes only an actuality: an objective reality raises from within a subjective one as its "condition of possibility," simply for being already there. But when it raises it must remain a possibility, since whatever is actual must remain possible. This creates a contradiction, since whatever is possible must be not yet actual, which destroys that actual truth, making it actually false. The two last steps are that whatever is actually false must remain possibly false, just like any actual truth must remain possibly true - an actual falsity is a negative actual truth - and finally that whatever is possibly false must be possibly true - or it ceases to be a possibility: the cycle closes. Here is how subjective reality raises objective reality, how objective reality becomes false, and how by becoming false objective reality creates another subjective reality, then another objective reality as well. Everything that happens to one happens by means of the other, since they are both neither objective-only nor subjective-only.