Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Yes, of course. Philosophers want to go beyond the meaning of a term to its analysis, which, for instance, probes the implications of the meaning of the term, and how it fits in with other terms of the same kind. For example, when the philosopher inquires into knowledge, his inquiry extends into the implications of knowledge for belief, and truth, and justification. As it should. And this inquiry is the analysis of the concept of knowledge. But, of course, this is, as I said, inquiry. It is not invention.

I disagree. Inquiry and invention have a lot in common: and each one has a lot of the other. For example, Newton invented gravity at least as much as he "discovered" it, although he believed he had only discovered it. Likewise, Einstein reinvented gravity at least as much he "rediscovered" it. And we still ignore what gravity really is even today. And when we finally discover exactly what it is, this will be also a total invention. Regarding truth, invention and discovery are the same: what really matters is that whatever we discover/invent is flawless and works perfectly well in all circumstances. Although pragmatism is a shame, we sill must be practical.

And, I suppose that Cook invented Australia as much as he discovered it too. You cannot discover what does not already exist, so how is it possible to invent what you discover? It isn't. Newton and Einstein first (partly) thought up new concepts, and then discovered what conformed to those concepts. You are confused.

I already knew you thought that way: that is how you understand truth, that is, as something that is already there, waiting to be discovered. It is precisely that naive metaphysics of a wold that is true in itself that we must overcome (which makes Fido partially correct). Thinking like this is just assuming that we know all there is to know about the objective world, which is always false. Our understanding of gravity, for example: we have today two different concepts of gravity, none of which is satisfactory, and various other concepts being proposed, which not even resemble those two (Newtonian and Einsteinian) old concepts of gravity. What gravity was "before" we discovered/invented it, nobody knows, including you. Truth is neither a simple discovery nor a total invention: it is both.

Kenn is correct, that you are confused... Consider all within a circle called existence, and within that circle another circle called reality which we can know, yet remaining mystery for the most part, and then within that circle another called truth with all we can know and verify... Galaleo, Newton, and Einstein along with every other philosopher has enlarged the circle of truth in the circle of reality... Every conception of reality can be verified against reality, and there is where philosophical truth stands... Until some phenomenon can be conceived of it cannot be tested... It does not take a philosopher to realize we have far more phenomena than conceptions of it, but it takes a philosopher to take what is known and with insight to bridge the gaps between knowledge and knowledge, which often requires the rejection of innacurate conceptions of reality... Reality is waiting to be discovered... Truth is only waiting to be disproved, because truth is ours, with the advances of the past often becoming the impediments to future progress...

I think you have to draw a distinction between invention and a crucial part of invention called insight... Insight is passive, and invention is active.... Anyone can have insight, but it takes a skilled mind like that of Galaleo to invent experiments that show what their mind perceives to be fact...

For Fido and for all beings, life is truth... We survive on what we know... Look at the emmense population of the earth compared to hunter gathering people... That is not just procreation, but technology, agriculture, medicine, industry, and all built upon knowledge, which is truth... Our well being depends upon what we know, and as well as our very lives, and for that end it is essential to snatch truth out of the soup of ignorance, uncertainty, speculation, and faith..

And truth is just such a conception, but the reality is there before hand... Reality can be known out of the infinity of existence, and it is not created out of the process of learning it... What is unknown as truth is also unreal, or so it seems; but only reveal some fact, and its truth and reality are suddenly obvious... And if this is what you were saying in the comment about scientists and gravity, then your point was not clear...

Fido wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Yes, of course. Philosophers want to go beyond the meaning of a term to its analysis, which, for instance, probes the implications of the meaning of the term, and how it fits in with other terms of the same kind. For example, when the philosopher inquires into knowledge, his inquiry extends into the implications of knowledge for belief, and truth, and justification. As it should. And this inquiry is the analysis of the concept of knowledge. But, of course, this is, as I said, inquiry. It is not invention.

I disagree. Inquiry and invention have a lot in common: and each one has a lot of the other. For example, Newton invented gravity at least as much as he "discovered" it, although he believed he had only discovered it. Likewise, Einstein reinvented gravity at least as much he "rediscovered" it. And we still ignore what gravity really is even today. And when we finally discover exactly what it is, this will be also a total invention. Regarding truth, invention and discovery are the same: what really matters is that whatever we discover/invent is flawless and works perfectly well in all circumstances. Although pragmatism is a shame, we sill must be practical.

And, I suppose that Cook invented Australia as much as he discovered it too. You cannot discover what does not already exist, so how is it possible to invent what you discover? It isn't. Newton and Einstein first (partly) thought up new concepts, and then discovered what conformed to those concepts. You are confused.

I already knew you thought that way: that is how you understand truth, that is, as something that is already there, waiting to be discovered. It is precisely that naive metaphysics of a wold that is true in itself that we must overcome (which makes Fido partially correct). Thinking like this is just assuming that we know all there is to know about the objective world, which is always false. Our understanding of gravity, for example: we have today two different concepts of gravity, none of which is satisfactory, and various other concepts being proposed, which not even resemble those two (Newtonian and Einsteinian) old concepts of gravity. What gravity was "before" we discovered/invented it, nobody knows, including you. Truth is neither a simple discovery nor a total invention: it is both.

Kenn is correct, that you are confused... Consider all within a circle called existence, and within that circle another circle called reality which we can know, yet remaining mystery for the most part, and then within that circle another called truth with all we can know and verify... Galaleo, Newton, and Einstein along with every other philosopher has enlarged the circle of truth in the circle of reality... Every conception of reality can be verified against reality, and there is where philosophical truth stands... Until some phenomenon can be conceived of it cannot be tested... It does not take a philosopher to realize we have far more phenomena than conceptions of it, but it takes a philosopher to take what is known and with insight to bridge the gaps between knowledge and knowledge, which often requires the rejection of innacurate conceptions of reality... Reality is waiting to be discovered... Truth is only waiting to be disproved, because truth is ours, with the advances of the past often becoming the impediments to future progress...

It is amazing to find that in the end you both think essentially the same way, as I already suspected. Anyway, philosophy is not science. Science proceeds by objective investigation, while philosophy, despite taking scientific results into account, must go beyond that, since it searches for the whole truth. Science cannot provide us with the ultimate truth, since it must progressively enlarge its empirical universe, which is never the whole world. Scientific knowledge is always incomplete, and philosophy searches for a complete knowledge. Hence, philosophical knowledge must be different from scientific knowledge. Now regarding your circles, if existence is not reality, then it includes everything that is uncertain. And if the truth circle enlarges over time, it progressively moves part of the existence circle to the truth circle, and some of the existence circle to a falsehood circle, which I would ask you where are you going to place. Don't you think you are a little confused?

Fido wrote:

And truth is just such a conception, but the reality is there before hand... Reality can be known out of the infinity of existence, and it is not created out of the process of learning it... What is unknown as truth is also unreal, or so it seems; but only reveal some fact, and its truth and reality are suddenly obvious... And if this is what you were saying in the comment about scientists and gravity, then your point was not clear...

The truth is that you are assuming reality is there beforehand: you don't know that. And even if it were there beforehand, you don't know what it is, which is the reason why we have both science and philosophy. You should stick to what you actually know, and stop

If something is discovered then it must already exist to be discovered. Therefore, the discovery of something cannot be the invention of that thing. The above argument is sound, which means, for those who know no elementary logic, that the argument has a true premise and is valid (which means for those who know not elementary logic) that the conclusion follows from the premise. And, if the the argument is sound, then the conclusion is true. You can say (or not say) what ever you like, but no one can get around, or obscure what I just pointed out. Even the obscurantism at which so many are adept cannot get around the fact that if something is discovered, then it must exist to be discovered, and therefore if it is invented, it must be invented before it is discovered. So invention and discovery are two different things.

kennethamy wrote:

If something is discovered then it must already exist to be discovered. Therefore, the discovery of something cannot be the invention of that thing. The above argument is sound, which means, for those who know no elementary logic, that the argument has a true premise and is valid (which means for those who know not elementary logic) that the conclusion follows from the premise. And, if the the argument is sound, then the conclusion is true. You can say (or not say) what ever you like, but no one can get around, or obscure what I just pointed out. Even the obscurantism at which so many are adept cannot get around the fact that if something is discovered, then it must exist to be discovered, and therefore if it is invented, it must be invented before it is discovered. So invention and discovery are two different things.

If this does not mean anything to you, please stop answering to it. Otherwise it is you that stop making any sense.

You misunderstand. I was speculating that what you wrote might have something to do with the op (although that might have just been a wild guess). And I was addressing not you, but the issue of the thread. I hope that clears it up.

kennethamy wrote:

You misunderstand. I was speculating that what you wrote might have something to do with the op (although that might have just been a wild guess). And I was addressing not you, but the issue of the thread. I hope that clears it up.

Oh, sure, that clears everything up. So let us try something meaningful to you:

1. Let us assume the statement “every truth must be true” means that no truth is contingent, by which it is false as long as there are true contingencies.

2. The statement “every truth must be true” means the same as the statement “every truth must be a truth,” since to be true is the same as to be a truth.

3. The statement “every truth must be a truth” means that every truth must be the same as itself, which is true as long as everything must be the same as itself.

Hence, if the statement “every truth must be true” is false, then it is false that everything must be the same as itself. Could you please show us the way out of this contradiction? And remember: saying it is meaningless does not count as a solution.

Fido wrote:

And truth is just such a conception, but the reality is there before hand... Reality can be known out of the infinity of existence, and it is not created out of the process of learning it... What is unknown as truth is also unreal, or so it seems; but only reveal some fact, and its truth and reality are suddenly obvious... And if this is what you were saying in the comment about scientists and gravity, then your point was not clear...

The truth is that you are assuming reality is there beforehand: you don't know that. And even if it were there beforehand, you don't know what it is, which is the reason why we have both science and philosophy. You should stick to what you actually know, and stop pretending that what you assume is actual knowledge.

It is true that philosophy is not science, but science is a form of philosoph...

Fido wrote:

I think you have to draw a distinction between invention and a crucial part of invention called insight... Insight is passive, and invention is active.... Anyone can have insight, but it takes a skilled mind like that of Galaleo to invent experiments that show what their mind perceives to be fact...

If insight is part of invention, how can it be passive, while invention is active? The activity of invention has a passive part? Please explain that better. Besides, it is plain false that anyone can have insight. Insight takes a deep knowledge of whatever you have an insight about: you have to struggle a lot and sleep a lot on (as also not sleep a lot because of) the problem to have a significant insight about it.

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

You misunderstand. I was speculating that what you wrote might have something to do with the op (although that might have just been a wild guess). And I was addressing not you, but the issue of the thread. I hope that clears it up.

Oh, sure, that clears everything up. So let us try something meaningful to you:

1. Let us assume the statement “every truth must be true” means that no truth is contingent, by which it is false as long as there are true contingencies.

2. The statement “every truth must be true” means the same as the statement “every truth must be a truth,” since to be true is the same as to be a truth.

3. The statement “every truth must be a truth” means that every truth must be the same as itself, which is true as long as everything must be the same as itself.

Hence, if the statement “every truth must be true” is false, then it is false that everything must be the same as itself. Could you please show us the way out of this contradiction? And remember: saying it is meaningless does not count as a solution.

So far as 2. goes, of course the statement that every truth must be a truth means the same as the statement that every truth must be a truth, since they are the identical statements. But how does that imply, or mean that the statement that every truth must be a truth is true? You are confusing the fact that a particular statement is identical with itself, which is, of course true, with the statement that every truth must be true. It is true that the two statements are equivalent, but it is not true that what the statements say is true. It does not follow from, "It is true that S and S" are identical statement, that that S is true.

So far as 3. goes it is false that the statement, every truth must be a truth, means that every truth must be the same as itself. I cannot even understand why you would say such a thing. Every truth is true obviously does not mean the same thing as every truth is identical with itself. Although both are clearly tautologically true.

It is the way you argue in philosophy, where you try to derive philosophical truths from trivial tautologies which is one of the things that gives philosophy the bad name is has among many people who think that the kind of thing you do is what philosophers typically do, and leads them to say things like, "it is all semantics". Because it is true that what you perform is trivial (and confused) word-play (which people call "semantics") but, of course, philosophers do not do that kind of thing at all. But the problem is that you try to pass yourself off as philosophizing when, in fact, what you do is sheer nonsense and has nothing at all to do with what philosophers like Aristotle or Socrates or Descartes have done. What you do is simply a disgrace. The sad thing is that you are (apparently) unaware of it.