Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

In order to make the comparison, we must know what it is that we are comparing, namely, the belief on the one hand and the reality on the other. But if we already know the reality, why do we need to make a comparison? And if we don't know the reality, how can we make a comparison?

The statement "every truth must be true" just notices that something "here" (a truth) needs whatever is "there" (a true being) to be true. It neither tries do define what is that which is "here" nor what is that which is "there." This is why it is no correspondence theory of truth, with which it only shares one element: the recognition that whatever a truth is, it needs a true being (what logicians call a state of affairs) from which to get its truth. I have a way of going further so as to find out what these two "sides" are, but it involves other steps. The statement "every truth must be true" is only the first step.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

That all dogs are dogs is axiomatic... Identity is theoretical, and can never be stated as fact... Rather we say: If all dogs are dogs, then.... Do you get my drift??? It is always to be proved that all dogs are dogs... Since we can hardly verify, we must accept it as obvious, which it is to a degree... Speaking as one who has dated a fair share of dogs, there are dogs, and of course there are DOGS.

I don't know what you might mean by "axiomatic", but if you happen to mean that all dogs are dogs is a tautology (as I already said) and therefore, necessarily true, then I agree with you. On the other hand, if you mean something else by "axiomatic" I will have to wait until you tell me what it is you mean by that word before I can say anything about it. Do far as I know, if someone were to ask me why all dogs are dogs is a truth, my answer would be that the statement is an instance of the law of identity, all A is A, and that the law of identity is a necessary truth. Whether or not it is obvious that all dogs are dogs, and obviousness is subjective, it is true, and moreover, necessarily true, that all dogs are dogs for the reason I just gave.

That all dogs are dogs is accepted without absolute proof... It is not a tautology as much as a predicate, as are all concepts... As such it may be proved wrong at any time...

What do you think is the value of truth if it were not that we could reason further from that point??? Truth is always a predicate if it is to have any use, which is to say: value, which is to say: meaning... A tautology is a truth from which no other conclusions may be drawn... People should never get into that particular cull de sac... Instead, all truths for which no conclusions may be drawn should themselves be questioned... Instead of phrasing your tautology as an answer it should be phrased as a predicate: If all dogs are dogs, then... In that case we have found a use for a perfectly useless truth, of which there can be no such thing, because the truth should lead to truth, and if it does not lead anywhere, then it should be questioned, so instead of saying: If all dogs are dogs, we should ask: Are all dogs, dogs.... If truth, which is to say: Knowledge, is Virtue, then people should never accept tautology, but find in tautology a point from which to step back to the original point of contention, and re-examine...

Identities as a form of tautology is not an answer, but is a question presented as an answer... Much like a fraction is in Math... What is one divided by three??? It is 1/3... That is not an answer, but is the original question presented as an answer...

All dogs are dogs is a proposition, and no propositions are predicates. All dogs are dogs is a tautology. It is a logical truth, and can be proved to be one on a standard truth table.

Truth is not a predicate, "True" is a predicate. It is a predicate of sentences.

I cannot understand what else you are saying. The reason is that what you are saying makes no sense.

I am beginning to understand why you seem to make so little progress in philosophy... When you accept truth as truth based upon some invention, some form, like a truth table, you can never grasp it as a thing in itself... I know what truth is... Truth is good... It is a virtue, is it not??? Why??? It is because truth is useful... But truth is only as useful as it is truth, which as a form or a concept of reality is true to reality...
I don't mean to condemn you for thinking dogs are dogs, for such behavior is common enough... I must admit to doing so myself at times.... What deserves contumely is the thought that our concept of a dog can ever be true to the dog as an individual or a species... We think by way of analogy, and our concept of dog or anything else is mere analogy... It is not accurate, not true, and is only as useful as it is true, which means about useless, so people can say about dogs, that dogs are dogs, when, if they took their answer for a question it would be a point to begin an education on the subject...

If you will forgive the pun, Kenn; you are too dogmatic in regard to the truth... Truth, from a philosophical point of view, is the relationship of the concept to the thing conceived whether accurate, or less so, whether corresponding to reality or not... If the concept is not accurate to reality it becomes useless, and people respond by not cluttering up their thought with it...

Since the great problems in life are moral problems where the concept cannot be measured against the objects conceived there needs to be a williness on the part of people to actually question the ideas upon which the form judgements, and if they are not willing to ask in the physical world: Is a dog a dog; then they will not do so in the moral world where answers are harder to come by and mistake more difficult to rectify...

People carry over their misconceptions of the physical world into the moral world, and you see this constantly in the attempt to apply the logic of physics to moral problems.... Only in getting people to understand the falacy of truth, of actually believing there is such a thing as truth in the physical world, that their concepts are even in fraction accurate to the object will people ever stand a chance in the purely moral world.... The moral world does not exist in the physical world, but the physical world exists within the moral world since we conceive of all things spiritually, by way of their essences, their idea... We have relatively more certainty in the physical world about the relationship between our concepts and the conceived.... But in the moral world such certainty is poison, and should be marked with a skull and cross bones...

All the great wars since the dawn of civilization have been ideal wars... Alexander was carrying the Greek Ideal, though it was flabby and frail... He bartered it for Maleria; which I would call a fair trade...My point being, that one does not do except out of certainty, and it is out of doing out of a false certainty that all misery is bought dear by humanity...

Truth is not a point of certainty, but is the point at which humanity must begin the quest for truth anew... Morrison said that the future's uncertain and the end is always near... We look for eternal truth for a piece of immortality when all we need is enough to get us through the night...What do we actually need to know to justify doing good, which is in fact, the avoidance of doing harm???

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
What you are saying is that necessarily, if it is true that statements are made true by states of affairs, then it is true that statements are made true by states of affairs.

This is not quite so: what I showed in post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449 is that "every truth must be true" can be read so as to mean the same as "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true," which is no tautology. And the reason why it is no tautology is that although a truth get its truth from a state of affairs (which is a terminology I adopted because of this forum: I would use instead a "true being"), it cannot be reduced to that state of affairs.

This is not quite so: what I showed in post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449 is that "every truth must be true" can be read so as to mean the same as "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true,"

You showed no such thing. What you did was to state that the sentence could be read in that way. But you did not show it since you gave no reason to think that the sentence could be read in that way. First thing you should do is distinguish between saying that something is true, and arguing that it is true. If I say that ""I'll have my eggs fried over easy" means, "The Sun sets in the West" that does not show that, the first sentence can be read as the second, sentence, since all I did was to assert that it could be read that way. Again, please distinguish between showing that something is true, and just saying it is true. There is considerable difference between them. Otherwise, if I go to the bank and just say that I have a million dollars in my account, that would be showing that I have a million dollars in my account. And if the bank teller says, "but you don't have a million dollars in your account" it won't do to reply, "Yes I do. I just showed you I have a million dollars in my account, since I just asserted that I do".

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

According to this correspondence theory, truth consists in the agreement of our thought with reality. This view seems to conform rather closely to our ordinary common sense usage when we speak of truth. The flaws in the definition arise when we ask what is meant by "agreement" or "correspondence" of ideas and objects, beliefs and facts, thought and reality. In order to test the truth of an idea or belief we must presumably compare it with the reality in some sense.

In order to make the comparison, we must know what it is that we are comparing, namely, the belief on the one hand and the reality on the other. But if we already know the reality, why do we need to make a comparison? And if we don't know the reality, how can we make a comparison?

It is one thing to define truth as correspondence. It is a different thing to ask, how do we tell whether a statement corresponds with reality (or whatever). The first is a metaphysical-semantic issue. The second is an epistemological issue. So let's not mix them up. The fact that we need to think how to tell whether a statement is true (corresponds with reality) does not, in the least, show it is not true that truth consists in correspondence. That is the first point.

Next: How do we tell whether a statement corresponds with reality. Well, if we take, for example, the statement, "the cat is on the mat" the answer to that is quite obvious: we look. And if in normal conditions of perception, we see that the cat is on the mat, then we have established that the cat is on the mat. There are no problems about "comparison" other than the usual problems of epistemology. But this is not a problem with the correspondence theory of truth. It is a problem with how, once we agree that truth is correspondence (which it seems to be) we establish, in particular instances, whether there is correspondence. In other words, the issue is the old question, how do we know that what is alleged to be true, is true. But that is a problem of knowledge, not a problem of truth.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
What you are saying is that necessarily, if it is true that statements are made true by states of affairs, then it is true that statements are made true by states of affairs.

This is not quite so: what I showed in post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449 is that "every truth must be true" can be read so as to mean the same as "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true," which is no tautology. And the reason why it is no tautology is that although a truth get its truth from a state of affairs (which is a terminology I adopted because of this forum: I would use instead a "true being"), it cannot be reduced to that state of affairs.

This is not quite so: what I showed in post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449 is that "every truth must be true" can be read so as to mean the same as "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true,"

You showed no such thing. What you did was to state that the sentence could be read in that way. But you did not show it since you gave no reason to think that the sentence could be read in that way. First thing you should do is distinguish between saying that something is true, and arguing that it is true. If I say that ""I'll have my eggs fried over easy" means, "The Sun sets in the West" that does not show that, the first sentence can be read as the second, sentence, since all I did was to assert that it could be read that way. Again, please distinguish between showing that something is true, and just saying it is true. There is considerable difference between them. Otherwise, if I go to the bank and just say that I have a million dollars in my account, that would be showing that I have a million dollars in my account. And if the bank teller says, "but you don't have a million dollars in your account" it won't do to reply, "Yes I do. I just showed you I have a million dollars in my account, since I just asserted that I do".

Sorry, but I showed in post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449, step by step, how the sentence "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true" becomes the sentence "every truth must be true." It seems you forgot what post you are talking about.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

It is a problem with how, once we agree that truth is correspondence (which it seems to be) we establish, in particular instances, whether there is correspondence.

What happened with truths that are true "by definition"?

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
What you are saying is that necessarily, if it is true that statements are made true by states of affairs, then it is true that statements are made true by states of affairs.

This is not quite so: what I showed in post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449 is that "every truth must be true" can be read so as to mean the same as "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true," which is no tautology. And the reason why it is no tautology is that although a truth get its truth from a state of affairs (which is a terminology I adopted because of this forum: I would use instead a "true being"), it cannot be reduced to that state of affairs.

This is not quite so: what I showed in post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449 is that "every truth must be true" can be read so as to mean the same as "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true,"

You showed no such thing. What you did was to state that the sentence could be read in that way. But you did not show it since you gave no reason to think that the sentence could be read in that way. First thing you should do is distinguish between saying that something is true, and arguing that it is true. If I say that ""I'll have my eggs fried over easy" means, "The Sun sets in the West" that does not show that, the first sentence can be read as the second, sentence, since all I did was to assert that it could be read that way. Again, please distinguish between showing that something is true, and just saying it is true. There is considerable difference between them. Otherwise, if I go to the bank and just say that I have a million dollars in my account, that would be showing that I have a million dollars in my account. And if the bank teller says, "but you don't have a million dollars in your account" it won't do to reply, "Yes I do. I just showed you I have a million dollars in my account, since I just asserted that I do".

Sorry, but I showed in post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449, step by step, how the sentence "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true" becomes the sentence "every truth must be true." It seems you forgot what post you are talking about.

And, once again, you confuse, "every truth is true" (which, is, of course, trivially true) with "every truth must be true" (which is , of course, false). But, you apparently are not able to detect the difference between "every truth is true" and, "every truth must be true", although they are clearly very different sentences. You do, I suppose, see that one of the sentence contains the word "is", and the other contains the word, "must". Now, even if that is all you can understand (and that might well be true) that alone should make you think that equating the two sentences cannot be quite right.

2 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

every truth must be true

Why do you insist on "must be true"? What's wrong with "is true"?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
What you are saying is that necessarily, if it is true that statements are made true by states of affairs, then it is true that statements are made true by states of affairs.

This is not quite so: what I showed in post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449 is that "every truth must be true" can be read so as to mean the same as "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true," which is no tautology. And the reason why it is no tautology is that although a truth get its truth from a state of affairs (which is a terminology I adopted because of this forum: I would use instead a "true being"), it cannot be reduced to that state of affairs.

This is not quite so: what I showed in post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449 is that "every truth must be true" can be read so as to mean the same as "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true,"

You showed no such thing. What you did was to state that the sentence could be read in that way. But you did not show it since you gave no reason to think that the sentence could be read in that way. First thing you should do is distinguish between saying that something is true, and arguing that it is true. If I say that ""I'll have my eggs fried over easy" means, "The Sun sets in the West" that does not show that, the first sentence can be read as the second, sentence, since all I did was to assert that it could be read that way. Again, please distinguish between showing that something is true, and just saying it is true. There is considerable difference between them. Otherwise, if I go to the bank and just say that I have a million dollars in my account, that would be showing that I have a million dollars in my account. And if the bank teller says, "but you don't have a million dollars in your account" it won't do to reply, "Yes I do. I just showed you I have a million dollars in my account, since I just asserted that I do".

Sorry, but I showed in post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449, step by step, how the sentence "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true" becomes the sentence "every truth must be true." It seems you forgot what post you are talking about.

And, once again, you confuse, "every truth is true" (which, is, of course, trivially true) with "every truth must be true" (which is , of course, false). But, you apparently are not able to detect the difference between "every truth is true" and, "every truth must be true", although they are clearly very different sentences. You do, I suppose, see that one of the sentence contains the word "is", and the other contains the word, "must". Now, even if that is all you can understand (and that might well be true) that alone should make you think that equating the two sentences cannot be quite right.

You are just repeating the same thing (I am refraining myself of saying "crap" again) for the Nth time. Instead, could you please point out the mistake(s) in the post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449, which shows how the sentence "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true" becomes the sentence "every truth must be true"? If it is indeed wrong, then you will have no difficulty in doing that, right? Or you have nothing to offer besides rhetoric?

0 Replies

@ACB,

ACB wrote:

guigus wrote:
every truth must be true

Why do you insist on "must be true"? What's wrong with "is true"?

There is nothing wrong with "is true," as there is nothing wrong with "must be true" either, although they say different things. But what I am saying is that "every truth must be true," which does not mean that "no truth is contingent." And I regret that you cannot read it the way I do.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

And, once again, you confuse, "every truth is true" (which, is, of course, trivially true) with "every truth must be true" (which is , of course, false).

Your "of course" is really funny. As if we could settle any philosophical question by simply saying: "of course that is so."

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
And, once again, you confuse, "every truth is true" (which, is, of course, trivially true) with "every truth must be true" (which is , of course, false).

Your "of course" is really funny. As if we could settle any philosophical question by simply saying: "of course that is so."

Does that really mean that you do not see the difference between the two sentence, "Every truth is true", and "Every truth must be true"? I can hardly believe it. Don't you see the "is" in the first sentence, and the "must be" in the second sentence. And supposing you do, don't you think that difference makes a difference. What can you be thinking? (I retract the "of course" is that will make you see the difference between the two sentences. It is possible that you don't think that a difference in words indicates a difference in meaning?).

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Does that really mean that you do not see the difference between the two sentence, "Every truth is true", and "Every truth must be true"? I can hardly believe it. Don't you see the "is" in the first sentence, and the "must be" in the second sentence. And supposing you do, don't you think that difference makes a difference. What can you be thinking? (I retract the "of course" is that will make you see the difference between the two sentences. It is possible that you don't think that a difference in words indicates a difference in meaning?).

I already told you: I am perfectly capable of reading "every truth must be true" the way you do, and I understand perfectly why it results for you in the "modal fallacy." Unfortunately, there is no reciprocity between us: you are still unable to understand how I read that same sentence. The reason is that, unlike me, you refuse to go beyond the limits of symbolic logic. So I insist: why don't you show me the mistake(s) you find in my post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449, in which I derive the true meaning of "every truth must be true" from a sentence that you already repute as true?

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Does that really mean that you do not see the difference between the two sentence, "Every truth is true", and "Every truth must be true"? I can hardly believe it. Don't you see the "is" in the first sentence, and the "must be" in the second sentence. And supposing you do, don't you think that difference makes a difference. What can you be thinking? (I retract the "of course" is that will make you see the difference between the two sentences. It is possible that you don't think that a difference in words indicates a difference in meaning?).

I already told you: I am perfectly capable of reading "every truth must be true" the way you do, and I understand perfectly why it results for you in the "modal fallacy." Unfortunately, there is no reciprocity between us: you are still unable to understand how I read that same sentence. The reason is that, unlike me, you refuse to go beyond the limits of symbolic logic. So I insist: why don't you show me the mistake(s) you find in my post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449, in which I derive the true meaning of "every truth must be true" from a sentence that you already repute as true?

So far as I can tell, your argument in that post is just like arguing that you read the sentence that the Sun rises in the East as, "Chicken lay eggs" because you find the latter sentence more concise than the former. When the two have anything to do with each other does not concern you. And your belief that they do have anything to do with each other is the consequence of your commission of the modal fallacy. But I have already explained that.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

So far as I can tell, your argument in that post is just like arguing that you read the sentence that the Sun rises in the East as, "Chicken lay eggs" because you find the latter sentence more concise than the former. When the two have anything to do with each other does not concern you. And your belief that they do have anything to do with each other is the consequence of your commission of the modal fallacy. But I have already explained that.

So far as I can tell, you would rather die than examine my argument in detail.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

ACB wrote:

guigus wrote:
every truth must be true

Why do you insist on "must be true"? What's wrong with "is true"?

There is nothing wrong with "is true," as there is nothing wrong with "must be true" either, although they say different things. But what I am saying is that "every truth must be true," which does not mean that "no truth is contingent." And I regret that you cannot read it the way I do.

But every truth must be true entails that no truth is contingent. You do not have the authority to change logical entailments by whim. Suppose you argue that since all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal, and I were to say, "Well maybe that's how you read that argument, but I don't read it that way". What kind of a thing is that to say? Who on earth cares how you read it. Especially since your knowledge of logic is shaky at best. It would be like a physicist saying that F=MA, and your replying, well, sorry, that''s not how I read it.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
So far as I can tell, your argument in that post is just like arguing that you read the sentence that the Sun rises in the East as, "Chicken lay eggs" because you find the latter sentence more concise than the former. When the two have anything to do with each other does not concern you. And your belief that they do have anything to do with each other is the consequence of your commission of the modal fallacy. But I have already explained that.

So far as I can tell, you would rather die than examine my argument in detail.

You have no coherent argument to examine. You know no logic and you are attempting to make an argument about logic. What is there to examine?

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

You have no coherent argument to examine. You know no logic and you are attempting to make an argument about logic. What is there to examine?

My post http://able2know.org/topic/153710-10#post-4268449, remember? It goes from one sentence you repute as true to the sentence "every truth must be true" in a series of steps. Could you please point out where has it gone wrong?

0 Replies

@guigus,

ok what you say is true, do you really need a feedback to go forward??? so what is the second one

1 Reply

@guigus,

I think the issue you're having in all this is that it is not actually possible to 'define truth' other than in terms of 'what constitutes a true statement'. And if truth is defined as 'the attribute of a true statement' then all attempts to 'define' it are obviously tautological (i.e. true statements are true).

In fact if philosophy is understood as 'the search for truth' then the quarry is actually rather elusive, because this statement implies that it is something we are not in possession of - otherwise, why search for it? What is the idea of searching for and trying to find the truth? What truth do we not possess already? Every almanac, every encyclopedia possesses a huge abundance of veritable facts, and the volume of knowledge that we humans possess is at this moment in time is growing at a staggering rate, unprecedented in history.

Nevertheless I feel that the philosophic conception of truth somehow does not consist in the mere accumulation of facts. It consists more in the ability to discriminate truth from falsehood. Of course the rules of logic are a part of this. But there is something else wanted also. And I suspect it is something we have generally lost sight of. This is why the conversation itself is invariably circular. There must be some truth against which our notion of truth can be measured, which is greater than what can be inferred from mere logic, and furthermore is not necessarily disclosed by the accumulation of facts through scientific endeavour. And this is, I think, the notion of the philosophical absolute. Now the reason it has fallen out of favour, I suspect, is because its last champion, in the tradition of Western philosophy, was Hegel, and he created such a labyrinth of ideas that nobody dare follow him. And besides, any talk of a philosophical absolute is strongly discouraged in this secular age. It is a quasi-religious idea, almost impossible to separate from one or another version of diety. So we are encouraged to look elsewhere. (Where, I am never too sure.)

However that is where I believe the resolution lies, and I think that is the direction you are looking in also, although it is very difficult to be certain on the basis of what you have said.

1 Reply

Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know