Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

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

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'.

I find the word "troth" nice to name an idealic truth

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.

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.

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?

The statement "every truth must be true" is just concerned with the fact that a subjective truth, whatever it is, must have an objective truth, whatever it is.

I am not yet concerned with what constitutes a true statement

kennethamy wrote:

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?

Kenn-y the truth is what we reason from, and not reason too... I know it may seem a subtle difference, but the points we reach with reason cannot be considered as proved by logic... Logic suggests a possible new situation, a new reality, theoretical until proved...

All people are logical, and reasonable... It is not a knowledge of formal logic which makes reasonable people, but reasonable people who seek a formal logic... The problem is not logic or the want of it, but the misapplication of logic... We live most of our lives is the moral world of which the physical world is a part, and out of sloth, or misunderstanding, we wish to apply logic to the moral world... And the moral world defies logic, and is all irrational, driven by irrationallity... People are rational in the pursuit of irrational goals...

All people are logical, and reasonable..

Quote:

The statement "every truth must be true" is just concerned with the fact that a subjective truth, whatever it is, must have an objective truth, whatever it is.

I don't think you have really come to terms with the analysis of the nature of perception in philosophy, generally. You are just assuming that your idea 'in here' corresponds with a fact 'out there' and that is what makes it true. It is not nearly so simple as that. First of all, some kinds of propositions are true without reference to anything 'out there' because their meaning is implicit. The fact that all triangles have three sides does not need to correspond to any actual shapes - you may never encounter such a shape, but the meaning of the word 'triangle' is 'has three sides'. Much pure mathematics has no corresponding reality 'out there' but only in logic. But on the other hand, math is not something peculiar to an individual mind, because it is common to all who think.

Secondly as philosophy has generally accepted since Kant, there is not an absolute division between the idea and the thing. This means that scientific knowledge is systematic knowledge of the nature of existing things as we perceive them, rather than as they are in themselves. Certainly this does not mean the object exists 'in your mind', but it exists as a mental construction or representation. But this is not an easy statement to understand.

Quote:

I am not yet concerned with what constitutes a true statement

What are you concerned with?

Quote:

All people are logical, and reasonable..

Hey can I visit your planet sometime? Must be a great place.

Indeed it does, and it is the perennial question of philosophy, something that everyone must grapple with for themselves.

Indeed it does, and it is the perennial question of philosophy, something that everyone must grapple with for themselves.

jeeprs wrote:

Indeed it does, and it is the perennial question of philosophy, something that everyone must grapple with for themselves.

Just between you, and me; some people seem to want to generalize the truth to the point of mediocrity...

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

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?

Kenn-y the truth is what we reason from, and not reason too... I know it may seem a subtle difference, but the points we reach with reason cannot be considered as proved by logic... Logic suggests a possible new situation, a new reality, theoretical until proved...

All people are logical, and reasonable... It is not a knowledge of formal logic which makes reasonable people, but reasonable people who seek a formal logic... The problem is not logic or the want of it, but the misapplication of logic... We live most of our lives is the moral world of which the physical world is a part, and out of sloth, or misunderstanding, we wish to apply logic to the moral world... And the moral world defies logic, and is all irrational, driven by irrationallity... People are rational in the pursuit of irrational goals...

I have not accused him of not being logical. I accused him of not knowing the subject of logic, the discipline, and talking about it. The fact that I can speak a language fluently doesn't give me the right to talk about the subject of linguistics. The fact that I can swim does not mean that I know anything about the physiology of swimming. The practice and the theory are two different things. He cannot argue very well, but that is not the point. Even if he could argue like a blue streak, but if he knew nothing about the subject of logic, what he says about the subject of logic is worthless. As he has demonstrated.

The distinction between "Every truth is true" and "Every truth must be true" has nothing whatever to do with either perception or epistemology which is what you are talking about (and, for all I know, he is talking about). The distinction is the elementary distinction between contingent and necessary truths, and, if anything, concerns logic and semantics. The confusions here are rife, and really too many even to be counted.

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

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.

Thoughh, stop repeating eachoter

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?

Kenn-y the truth is what we reason from, and not reason too... I know it may seem a subtle difference, but the points we reach with reason cannot be considered as proved by logic... Logic suggests a possible new situation, a new reality, theoretical until proved...

All people are logical, and reasonable... It is not a knowledge of formal logic which makes reasonable people, but reasonable people who seek a formal logic... The problem is not logic or the want of it, but the misapplication of logic... We live most of our lives is the moral world of which the physical world is a part, and out of sloth, or misunderstanding, we wish to apply logic to the moral world... And the moral world defies logic, and is all irrational, driven by irrationallity... People are rational in the pursuit of irrational goals...

I have not accused him of not being logical. I accused him of not knowing the subject of logic, the discipline, and talking about it. The fact that I can speak a language fluently doesn't give me the right to talk about the subject of linguistics. The fact that I can swim does not mean that I know anything about the physiology of swimming. The practice and the theory are two different things. He cannot argue very well, but that is not the point. Even if he could argue like a blue streak, but if he knew nothing about the subject of logic, what he says about the subject of logic is worthless. As he has demonstrated.

I am an American mix of two peoples... One is the extremely illogical, and artistic Irish dominated by the logical and mechanically inclined German... To me the Germans are logical to a fault, and the evidence for that conclusion is that logic led to euthanasia, to the slave labor camps, and the assembly lines of death... Logic does not lead to truth, but flows out of truth, and is only as good as the truth upon which it is founded... Reason is a thing we take from Res, thing, from which we get re-s-ality... Cause and effect exist in the physical world, with ratio, measure, and proportion... If you want to talk logic talk numbers... Words are moral forms whose meaning is always left for those using them to decide, and agree upon...What you are seeing is the reason we have forms... A dictionary definintion is a form... People prefer the formal to the relational, in which they must ask: What is the meaning of the word you are using to you??? The difference is that with the formal, an understanding is enforced by definition, and in the informal a definition is agreed upon... People find the informal exhausting, confusing, and even dangerous... It is not just you Kenn... We all rely more or less on the form, and logic as you see it is a form, as your definition of truth is form... It is not like I blame you or anything... We all do it to some extent because forms are our comfort zone... Like logic as a form, which applies only to the physical world, forms only work to a point, and then we find we must relate informally, and think informally, and arrive at conclusions by insight, which is to say: informally