You and Kenny are a couple of renobs... Truth is a moral form, and yes, it is applied to physical reality... And reality contains truth, and existence contains reality; but these too are moral forms by which we measure and compare our reality and are not things in themselves... All this nonsense of trying to judge truth by logic when logic is always judged by the truth it produces, Is just that: Nonsense... Give it a rest...It does not matter how many examples of truth are found because every example of truth cannot produce a definition of truth, rather, it is from the sense of truth that people look for and measure their examples... You should try to understand which one can only do with insight, that no matter how many truth examples one has- because one only has examples and not the thing in itself...The trivial pursuit of truth earns the insult of everyone sgainst philosophy... Way to go...
Yes.
There are a number of symbolic equivalents depending in which symbolic notation you are using. For instance, . & etc. But the term "but" is one of the terms for the logical connective, conjunction. And is equivalent to "and". (But you ought to know that, since you received such a fine grade from Quine's son-in-law). In any case, the statement, that the car is possibly blue, but it is actually red, entails the statement that the car is possibly blue. So, as I noted before, you are excellent with tautologies, for: if the car is possibly blue, but actually red, entails, that the car is possibly blue. Which is a tautology. And, as I noted too, if the car is possibly blue, but actually red, then it is possibly blue, since it is a tautology, it is a necessary truth. So, necessarily, if the car is possibly blue, but actually red, then it is possibly blue. And, as I added, if the car is possibly blue, then it is necessarily possibly blue. (But I am sure I am just telling you what you already know, since you are a model student of Quine's son-in-law).
It does not matter how many examples of truth are found because every example of truth cannot produce a definition of truth, rather, it is from the sense of truth that people look for and measure their examples...
thw500 wrote:
Yes.
"Yes sir" if you please. And you might add, "thank you for teaching me something".
Fido wrote:
You and Kenny are a couple of renobs... Truth is a moral form, and yes, it is applied to physical reality... And reality contains truth, and existence contains reality; but these too are moral forms by which we measure and compare our reality and are not things in themselves... All this nonsense of trying to judge truth by logic when logic is always judged by the truth it produces, Is just that: Nonsense... Give it a rest...It does not matter how many examples of truth are found because every example of truth cannot produce a definition of truth, rather, it is from the sense of truth that people look for and measure their examples... You should try to understand which one can only do with insight, that no matter how many truth examples one has- because one only has examples and not the thing in itself...The trivial pursuit of truth earns the insult of everyone sgainst philosophy... Way to go...
I don't know what a "renob" is. But I hope it is something clean. But you mean that if I say that it is true that the cat is on the mat, I am employing a "moral form"? Well, if I knew what a "moral form" was, I might even agree. But as it is, I am afraid I cannot agree with you since I have no idea what you are talking about. By the way, what would make you think that someone who give an example of truth (for instance, that the cat is on the mat) is trying to define the notion of true? Of course, if someone asks me to define "truth" and I say, "like the statement, that the cat is on the mat" what I say is what the lawyers call, "non-responsive". An example is not a definition. But who thinks it is? In the Socratic dialogues, it is true, some of Socrates' respondents sometimes respond to the question, "What is X" by giving examples of X. But Socrates soon sets them straight and points out that an example is not a definition). But who here thinks that examples of X constitute a definition of X? On the other hand, of course, we should not forget that we often can try to discover what X is from considering examples of X. In fact, that is a method Socrates often uses. If we want to try to come to some answer to the question, what is truth, a good way is to consider some clear examples of true statements, and then try to conclude what it is that all of these statement have in common which makes them true. This is a kind of induction that Socrates often used. And, I want to add, that if someone does present some definition (what you and Plato might call, "the form" ) of X, then that definition would be tested by the method of counterexample. That is to say, by trying to present clear example of X that fail to meet the offered definition of X. Thus, fi someone defines X by saying that all and only Xs are Ys, if we can present a y that is not an X or an X that is not a y, then we have refuted that definition of X by the method of counterexample. And Socrates often uses the method of counterexample too. So, although you are right to say that giving examples of X, is not the same as giving a definition of X (what you call, "the Form of X) examples of X are very much related to the Form of X, in that, (1) we can try to discover the Form from examples, and (2) we can test any proposed Form by using the method of counterexample.
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
You and Kenny are a couple of renobs... Truth is a moral form, and yes, it is applied to physical reality... And reality contains truth, and existence contains reality; but these too are moral forms by which we measure and compare our reality and are not things in themselves... All this nonsense of trying to judge truth by logic when logic is always judged by the truth it produces, Is just that: Nonsense... Give it a rest...It does not matter how many examples of truth are found because every example of truth cannot produce a definition of truth, rather, it is from the sense of truth that people look for and measure their examples... You should try to understand which one can only do with insight, that no matter how many truth examples one has- because one only has examples and not the thing in itself...The trivial pursuit of truth earns the insult of everyone sgainst philosophy... Way to go...
I don't know what a "renob" is. But I hope it is something clean. But you mean that if I say that it is true that the cat is on the mat, I am employing a "moral form"? Well, if I knew what a "moral form" was, I might even agree. But as it is, I am afraid I cannot agree with you since I have no idea what you are talking about. By the way, what would make you think that someone who give an example of truth (for instance, that the cat is on the mat) is trying to define the notion of true? Of course, if someone asks me to define "truth" and I say, "like the statement, that the cat is on the mat" what I say is what the lawyers call, "non-responsive". An example is not a definition. But who thinks it is? In the Socratic dialogues, it is true, some of Socrates' respondents sometimes respond to the question, "What is X" by giving examples of X. But Socrates soon sets them straight and points out that an example is not a definition). But who here thinks that examples of X constitute a definition of X? On the other hand, of course, we should not forget that we often can try to discover what X is from considering examples of X. In fact, that is a method Socrates often uses. If we want to try to come to some answer to the question, what is truth, a good way is to consider some clear examples of true statements, and then try to conclude what it is that all of these statement have in common which makes them true. This is a kind of induction that Socrates often used. And, I want to add, that if someone does present some definition (what you and Plato might call, "the form" ) of X, then that definition would be tested by the method of counterexample. That is to say, by trying to present clear example of X that fail to meet the offered definition of X. Thus, fi someone defines X by saying that all and only Xs are Ys, if we can present a y that is not an X or an X that is not a y, then we have refuted that definition of X by the method of counterexample. And Socrates often uses the method of counterexample too. So, although you are right to say that giving examples of X, is not the same as giving a definition of X (what you call, "the Form of X) examples of X are very much related to the Form of X, in that, (1) we can try to discover the Form from examples, and (2) we can test any proposed Form by using the method of counterexample.
A renob is a backwards boner, and I hope that is clean enough for you... Ultimately yes; even in the defining of physical forms words, language really rests upon moral forms, ideas without substance as truth is, and this has the implication of an existential relationship between people where One is inclined to accept as true what another says just for the sake of maintaining the relationship...
There is an old line from a movie with Clint Eastwood where his character says: Never argue at dinner time because the one with the least appatite always wins...
We have to want our relationships or else everything can become a point of contention, so that moral fact underpins all our acceptence of even statements of truth in regard to physical forms... Do we have to agree that it appears the Sun rises in the East, and appears to set in the West??? Even the most objective seeming points can become an issue the moment some one sees a possible gain in dispute... We have to want to agree, and most of us do agree because we are agreeable, and yet because we agree with one we find ourselves in conflict with others; and so, we should understand that our relationship with truth is also our relationship with others... Our relationship with justice, or virtue, or God, or liberty, and myriads of other moral forms is our relationship with others, and plays into our view of the physical world even while physical conditions are the ultimate judge of truth and life...
We expect that our language is capable of conveying meaning, and in the question at hand, of conveying the meaning of truth... Why you guys want to think you can some how define this moral infinite called truth by a handful of examples, by logic, or any limited set of methods baffles me.... It is retarded, and as philosophers you make us all seem retarded, lost in the clouds because you see your forest by the examples of a few trees, since you cannot fully grasp your trees, and because your particular forest is full of infinites...
Let me try another tack... If I say justice, and I refer to the equity of a transaction, and try to apply that to some one guilty of Euthanaisia; in what sense is one example like the other??? Since all I have to define the infinite of justice is so many infinite, and different examples I am at a loss to define the thing Justice from them to begin with... With moral forms we get only a sense of what justice is and not a dfinition because we cannot define the idea from the examples, but must start with an ideal idea, and then work our way through the particulars without any certainty that in the real we are achieving the ideal... And yet, it is just out of such indefinite infinites as truth and justice and honor and liberty that our social forms are made to achieve, all, Every last part of it without definition, and only held by a tenuous agreement with each other, just as our language about cats on mats... In moral forms it is not the form that is real, but as a form of relationship, the relationship, the existential connection between people, the bond, that is the true reality...
If I hate your guts all you say will be lies... If I see a benefit to me in discord, then I will disagree... Underlying all visions of truth is the desire to agree and get along, so that truth as a moral form is a part of all relationships... There is no objective standard of truth beyond the most general... There are more objective standards of truth than others with life being the ultimate judge because too much of false kills... You are not ever going to define truth from a few examples and methods from the physical world when it is from the moral world that we get the idea, which is a moral form, called truth...
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
You and Kenny are a couple of renobs... Truth is a moral form, and yes, it is applied to physical reality... And reality contains truth, and existence contains reality; but these too are moral forms by which we measure and compare our reality and are not things in themselves... All this nonsense of trying to judge truth by logic when logic is always judged by the truth it produces, Is just that: Nonsense... Give it a rest...It does not matter how many examples of truth are found because every example of truth cannot produce a definition of truth, rather, it is from the sense of truth that people look for and measure their examples... You should try to understand which one can only do with insight, that no matter how many truth examples one has- because one only has examples and not the thing in itself...The trivial pursuit of truth earns the insult of everyone sgainst philosophy... Way to go...
I don't know what a "renob" is. But I hope it is something clean. But you mean that if I say that it is true that the cat is on the mat, I am employing a "moral form"? Well, if I knew what a "moral form" was, I might even agree. But as it is, I am afraid I cannot agree with you since I have no idea what you are talking about. By the way, what would make you think that someone who give an example of truth (for instance, that the cat is on the mat) is trying to define the notion of true? Of course, if someone asks me to define "truth" and I say, "like the statement, that the cat is on the mat" what I say is what the lawyers call, "non-responsive". An example is not a definition. But who thinks it is? In the Socratic dialogues, it is true, some of Socrates' respondents sometimes respond to the question, "What is X" by giving examples of X. But Socrates soon sets them straight and points out that an example is not a definition). But who here thinks that examples of X constitute a definition of X? On the other hand, of course, we should not forget that we often can try to discover what X is from considering examples of X. In fact, that is a method Socrates often uses. If we want to try to come to some answer to the question, what is truth, a good way is to consider some clear examples of true statements, and then try to conclude what it is that all of these statement have in common which makes them true. This is a kind of induction that Socrates often used. And, I want to add, that if someone does present some definition (what you and Plato might call, "the form" ) of X, then that definition would be tested by the method of counterexample. That is to say, by trying to present clear example of X that fail to meet the offered definition of X. Thus, fi someone defines X by saying that all and only Xs are Ys, if we can present a y that is not an X or an X that is not a y, then we have refuted that definition of X by the method of counterexample. And Socrates often uses the method of counterexample too. So, although you are right to say that giving examples of X, is not the same as giving a definition of X (what you call, "the Form of X) examples of X are very much related to the Form of X, in that, (1) we can try to discover the Form from examples, and (2) we can test any proposed Form by using the method of counterexample.
A renob is a backwards boner, and I hope that is clean enough for you... Ultimately yes; even in the defining of physical forms words, language really rests upon moral forms, ideas without substance as truth is, and this has the implication of an existential relationship between people where One is inclined to accept as true what another says just for the sake of maintaining the relationship...
There is an old line from a movie with Clint Eastwood where his character says: Never argue at dinner time because the one with the least appatite always wins...
We have to want our relationships or else everything can become a point of contention, so that moral fact underpins all our acceptence of even statements of truth in regard to physical forms... Do we have to agree that it appears the Sun rises in the East, and appears to set in the West??? Even the most objective seeming points can become an issue the moment some one sees a possible gain in dispute... We have to want to agree, and most of us do agree because we are agreeable, and yet because we agree with one we find ourselves in conflict with others; and so, we should understand that our relationship with truth is also our relationship with others... Our relationship with justice, or virtue, or God, or liberty, and myriads of other moral forms is our relationship with others, and plays into our view of the physical world even while physical conditions are the ultimate judge of truth and life...
We expect that our language is capable of conveying meaning, and in the question at hand, of conveying the meaning of truth... Why you guys want to think you can some how define this moral infinite called truth by a handful of examples, by logic, or any limited set of methods baffles me.... It is retarded, and as philosophers you make us all seem retarded, lost in the clouds because you see your forest by the examples of a few trees, since you cannot fully grasp your trees, and because your particular forest is full of infinites...
Let me try another tack... If I say justice, and I refer to the equity of a transaction, and try to apply that to some one guilty of Euthanaisia; in what sense is one example like the other??? Since all I have to define the infinite of justice is so many infinite, and different examples I am at a loss to define the thing Justice from them to begin with... With moral forms we get only a sense of what justice is and not a dfinition because we cannot define the idea from the examples, but must start with an ideal idea, and then work our way through the particulars without any certainty that in the real we are achieving the ideal... And yet, it is just out of such indefinite infinites as truth and justice and honor and liberty that our social forms are made to achieve, all, Every last part of it without definition, and only held by a tenuous agreement with each other, just as our language about cats on mats... In moral forms it is not the form that is real, but as a form of relationship, the relationship, the existential connection between people, the bond, that is the true reality...
If I hate your guts all you say will be lies... If I see a benefit to me in discord, then I will disagree... Underlying all visions of truth is the desire to agree and get along, so that truth as a moral form is a part of all relationships... There is no objective standard of truth beyond the most general... There are more objective standards of truth than others with life being the ultimate judge because too much of false kills... You are not ever going to define truth from a few examples and methods from the physical world when it is from the moral world that we get the idea, which is a moral form, called truth...
One question. What has what you have just written to do with my post which concerns the relation between examples and definition? That post was a reply to your charge about presenting examples as if that were giving a definition. Your post, whatever it is about, is not about that. What it is about I find it hard to say, but I would have thought that as it was (at least ostensibly) a reply to my post, it would have had something to do with my post. Your last sentence does seem to have something to do with my post: you tell me that I cannot define truth from a few examples. I discussed that at length in my post, and pointed out that I was not saying that by presenting examples of truth, I thought I was defining truth. But you simply ignored that, and made the same old charge. I think you may have a problem with thinking sequentially. How would you be able to define "truth" or any other term unless you related it in some way to the way in which we use the term? And the only way I know to relate it to how we use the term "truth" (or any other term) is my thinking about actual examples of how we use the term in question. Otherwise, how can you determine whether your definition of the term is correct? But, somehow, I don't think you care much about that question. But what you think philosophy is all about just baffles me.
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
You and Kenny are a couple of renobs... Truth is a moral form, and yes, it is applied to physical reality... And reality contains truth, and existence contains reality; but these too are moral forms by which we measure and compare our reality and are not things in themselves... All this nonsense of trying to judge truth by logic when logic is always judged by the truth it produces, Is just that: Nonsense... Give it a rest...It does not matter how many examples of truth are found because every example of truth cannot produce a definition of truth, rather, it is from the sense of truth that people look for and measure their examples... You should try to understand which one can only do with insight, that no matter how many truth examples one has- because one only has examples and not the thing in itself...The trivial pursuit of truth earns the insult of everyone sgainst philosophy... Way to go...
I don't know what a "renob" is. But I hope it is something clean. But you mean that if I say that it is true that the cat is on the mat, I am employing a "moral form"? Well, if I knew what a "moral form" was, I might even agree. But as it is, I am afraid I cannot agree with you since I have no idea what you are talking about. By the way, what would make you think that someone who give an example of truth (for instance, that the cat is on the mat) is trying to define the notion of true? Of course, if someone asks me to define "truth" and I say, "like the statement, that the cat is on the mat" what I say is what the lawyers call, "non-responsive". An example is not a definition. But who thinks it is? In the Socratic dialogues, it is true, some of Socrates' respondents sometimes respond to the question, "What is X" by giving examples of X. But Socrates soon sets them straight and points out that an example is not a definition). But who here thinks that examples of X constitute a definition of X? On the other hand, of course, we should not forget that we often can try to discover what X is from considering examples of X. In fact, that is a method Socrates often uses. If we want to try to come to some answer to the question, what is truth, a good way is to consider some clear examples of true statements, and then try to conclude what it is that all of these statement have in common which makes them true. This is a kind of induction that Socrates often used. And, I want to add, that if someone does present some definition (what you and Plato might call, "the form" ) of X, then that definition would be tested by the method of counterexample. That is to say, by trying to present clear example of X that fail to meet the offered definition of X. Thus, fi someone defines X by saying that all and only Xs are Ys, if we can present a y that is not an X or an X that is not a y, then we have refuted that definition of X by the method of counterexample. And Socrates often uses the method of counterexample too. So, although you are right to say that giving examples of X, is not the same as giving a definition of X (what you call, "the Form of X) examples of X are very much related to the Form of X, in that, (1) we can try to discover the Form from examples, and (2) we can test any proposed Form by using the method of counterexample.
A renob is a backwards boner, and I hope that is clean enough for you... Ultimately yes; even in the defining of physical forms words, language really rests upon moral forms, ideas without substance as truth is, and this has the implication of an existential relationship between people where One is inclined to accept as true what another says just for the sake of maintaining the relationship...
There is an old line from a movie with Clint Eastwood where his character says: Never argue at dinner time because the one with the least appatite always wins...
We have to want our relationships or else everything can become a point of contention, so that moral fact underpins all our acceptence of even statements of truth in regard to physical forms... Do we have to agree that it appears the Sun rises in the East, and appears to set in the West??? Even the most objective seeming points can become an issue the moment some one sees a possible gain in dispute... We have to want to agree, and most of us do agree because we are agreeable, and yet because we agree with one we find ourselves in conflict with others; and so, we should understand that our relationship with truth is also our relationship with others... Our relationship with justice, or virtue, or God, or liberty, and myriads of other moral forms is our relationship with others, and plays into our view of the physical world even while physical conditions are the ultimate judge of truth and life...
We expect that our language is capable of conveying meaning, and in the question at hand, of conveying the meaning of truth... Why you guys want to think you can some how define this moral infinite called truth by a handful of examples, by logic, or any limited set of methods baffles me.... It is retarded, and as philosophers you make us all seem retarded, lost in the clouds because you see your forest by the examples of a few trees, since you cannot fully grasp your trees, and because your particular forest is full of infinites...
Let me try another tack... If I say justice, and I refer to the equity of a transaction, and try to apply that to some one guilty of Euthanaisia; in what sense is one example like the other??? Since all I have to define the infinite of justice is so many infinite, and different examples I am at a loss to define the thing Justice from them to begin with... With moral forms we get only a sense of what justice is and not a dfinition because we cannot define the idea from the examples, but must start with an ideal idea, and then work our way through the particulars without any certainty that in the real we are achieving the ideal... And yet, it is just out of such indefinite infinites as truth and justice and honor and liberty that our social forms are made to achieve, all, Every last part of it without definition, and only held by a tenuous agreement with each other, just as our language about cats on mats... In moral forms it is not the form that is real, but as a form of relationship, the relationship, the existential connection between people, the bond, that is the true reality...
If I hate your guts all you say will be lies... If I see a benefit to me in discord, then I will disagree... Underlying all visions of truth is the desire to agree and get along, so that truth as a moral form is a part of all relationships... There is no objective standard of truth beyond the most general... There are more objective standards of truth than others with life being the ultimate judge because too much of false kills... You are not ever going to define truth from a few examples and methods from the physical world when it is from the moral world that we get the idea, which is a moral form, called truth...
One question. What has what you have just written to do with my post which concerns the relation between examples and definition? That post was a reply to your charge about presenting examples as if that were giving a definition. Your post, whatever it is about, is not about that. What it is about I find it hard to say, but I would have thought that as it was (at least ostensibly) a reply to my post, it would have had something to do with my post. Your last sentence does seem to have something to do with my post: you tell me that I cannot define truth from a few examples. I discussed that at length in my post, and pointed out that I was not saying that by presenting examples of truth, I thought I was defining truth. But you simply ignored that, and made the same old charge. I think you may have a problem with thinking sequentially. How would you be able to define "truth" or any other term unless you related it in some way to the way in which we use the term? And the only way I know to relate it to how we use the term "truth" (or any other term) is my thinking about actual examples of how we use the term in question. Otherwise, how can you determine whether your definition of the term is correct? But, somehow, I don't think you care much about that question. But what you think philosophy is all about just baffles me.
You are a brick... Read your own damned example... You say it... Socrates proved it because when he was done he was no closer to a definition of truth and good and knowledge and etc than you are... It is because when you cannot produce infinite examples all different in detail you cannot refine from them an idea...
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
You and Kenny are a couple of renobs... Truth is a moral form, and yes, it is applied to physical reality... And reality contains truth, and existence contains reality; but these too are moral forms by which we measure and compare our reality and are not things in themselves... All this nonsense of trying to judge truth by logic when logic is always judged by the truth it produces, Is just that: Nonsense... Give it a rest...It does not matter how many examples of truth are found because every example of truth cannot produce a definition of truth, rather, it is from the sense of truth that people look for and measure their examples... You should try to understand which one can only do with insight, that no matter how many truth examples one has- because one only has examples and not the thing in itself...The trivial pursuit of truth earns the insult of everyone sgainst philosophy... Way to go...
I don't know what a "renob" is. But I hope it is something clean. But you mean that if I say that it is true that the cat is on the mat, I am employing a "moral form"? Well, if I knew what a "moral form" was, I might even agree. But as it is, I am afraid I cannot agree with you since I have no idea what you are talking about. By the way, what would make you think that someone who give an example of truth (for instance, that the cat is on the mat) is trying to define the notion of true? Of course, if someone asks me to define "truth" and I say, "like the statement, that the cat is on the mat" what I say is what the lawyers call, "non-responsive". An example is not a definition. But who thinks it is? In the Socratic dialogues, it is true, some of Socrates' respondents sometimes respond to the question, "What is X" by giving examples of X. But Socrates soon sets them straight and points out that an example is not a definition). But who here thinks that examples of X constitute a definition of X? On the other hand, of course, we should not forget that we often can try to discover what X is from considering examples of X. In fact, that is a method Socrates often uses. If we want to try to come to some answer to the question, what is truth, a good way is to consider some clear examples of true statements, and then try to conclude what it is that all of these statement have in common which makes them true. This is a kind of induction that Socrates often used. And, I want to add, that if someone does present some definition (what you and Plato might call, "the form" ) of X, then that definition would be tested by the method of counterexample. That is to say, by trying to present clear example of X that fail to meet the offered definition of X. Thus, fi someone defines X by saying that all and only Xs are Ys, if we can present a y that is not an X or an X that is not a y, then we have refuted that definition of X by the method of counterexample. And Socrates often uses the method of counterexample too. So, although you are right to say that giving examples of X, is not the same as giving a definition of X (what you call, "the Form of X) examples of X are very much related to the Form of X, in that, (1) we can try to discover the Form from examples, and (2) we can test any proposed Form by using the method of counterexample.
A renob is a backwards boner, and I hope that is clean enough for you... Ultimately yes; even in the defining of physical forms words, language really rests upon moral forms, ideas without substance as truth is, and this has the implication of an existential relationship between people where One is inclined to accept as true what another says just for the sake of maintaining the relationship...
There is an old line from a movie with Clint Eastwood where his character says: Never argue at dinner time because the one with the least appatite always wins...
We have to want our relationships or else everything can become a point of contention, so that moral fact underpins all our acceptence of even statements of truth in regard to physical forms... Do we have to agree that it appears the Sun rises in the East, and appears to set in the West??? Even the most objective seeming points can become an issue the moment some one sees a possible gain in dispute... We have to want to agree, and most of us do agree because we are agreeable, and yet because we agree with one we find ourselves in conflict with others; and so, we should understand that our relationship with truth is also our relationship with others... Our relationship with justice, or virtue, or God, or liberty, and myriads of other moral forms is our relationship with others, and plays into our view of the physical world even while physical conditions are the ultimate judge of truth and life...
We expect that our language is capable of conveying meaning, and in the question at hand, of conveying the meaning of truth... Why you guys want to think you can some how define this moral infinite called truth by a handful of examples, by logic, or any limited set of methods baffles me.... It is retarded, and as philosophers you make us all seem retarded, lost in the clouds because you see your forest by the examples of a few trees, since you cannot fully grasp your trees, and because your particular forest is full of infinites...
Let me try another tack... If I say justice, and I refer to the equity of a transaction, and try to apply that to some one guilty of Euthanaisia; in what sense is one example like the other??? Since all I have to define the infinite of justice is so many infinite, and different examples I am at a loss to define the thing Justice from them to begin with... With moral forms we get only a sense of what justice is and not a dfinition because we cannot define the idea from the examples, but must start with an ideal idea, and then work our way through the particulars without any certainty that in the real we are achieving the ideal... And yet, it is just out of such indefinite infinites as truth and justice and honor and liberty that our social forms are made to achieve, all, Every last part of it without definition, and only held by a tenuous agreement with each other, just as our language about cats on mats... In moral forms it is not the form that is real, but as a form of relationship, the relationship, the existential connection between people, the bond, that is the true reality...
If I hate your guts all you say will be lies... If I see a benefit to me in discord, then I will disagree... Underlying all visions of truth is the desire to agree and get along, so that truth as a moral form is a part of all relationships... There is no objective standard of truth beyond the most general... There are more objective standards of truth than others with life being the ultimate judge because too much of false kills... You are not ever going to define truth from a few examples and methods from the physical world when it is from the moral world that we get the idea, which is a moral form, called truth...
One question. What has what you have just written to do with my post which concerns the relation between examples and definition? That post was a reply to your charge about presenting examples as if that were giving a definition. Your post, whatever it is about, is not about that. What it is about I find it hard to say, but I would have thought that as it was (at least ostensibly) a reply to my post, it would have had something to do with my post. Your last sentence does seem to have something to do with my post: you tell me that I cannot define truth from a few examples. I discussed that at length in my post, and pointed out that I was not saying that by presenting examples of truth, I thought I was defining truth. But you simply ignored that, and made the same old charge. I think you may have a problem with thinking sequentially. How would you be able to define "truth" or any other term unless you related it in some way to the way in which we use the term? And the only way I know to relate it to how we use the term "truth" (or any other term) is my thinking about actual examples of how we use the term in question. Otherwise, how can you determine whether your definition of the term is correct? But, somehow, I don't think you care much about that question. But what you think philosophy is all about just baffles me.
You are a brick... Read your own damned example... You say it... Socrates proved it because when he was done he was no closer to a definition of truth and good and knowledge and etc than you are... It is because when you cannot produce infinite examples all different in detail you cannot refine from them an idea...
I said that? How could I have? I have no idea what it even means. Socrates proved what? What is the "it" that I am am supposed to have said Socrates proved? Of course, no where did I say that Socrates proved anything. What I did say was that Socrates introduced two ways of dealing with how to define "truth" or any other term. He made an induction from examples of how the term term is used, and he then tested this induction by the method of counterexamples. (In fact, there is no dialogue in which Socrates even tackles truth). This method is very close to what is now called the scientific method or arriving at hypotheses, and testing them. (It is what the philosopher, John Dewey, called, the method of intelligence.) If you have any better suggestion than just saying anything that first comes into your head (which is the method you seem to be practicing) let me hear about it.
Socrates/Plato proved that there was no definition for moral forms by their failure to do so... The one thing that Socrates is firmly said to have concluded was that knowledge was virtue, and if this were true then virtue can be taught, which means one could define it, and explain the laws that govern it in a logical fashion, but since no one can define justice as a thing or a thing in itself, no logic can be said to explain it, and no law can govern it... Socrates and Plato did a service a walking a large circle around moral forms without beginning or end so we can avoid their failures and move on...
But if you say no dialogues of Plato addresses truth, then what were they spinning their wheels in??? Truth is a part of every conversation as well as falsehood... We talk about the weather so we will not have to talk about our fears or our broken hearts... It is a lie, just as the second intention is a lie... Yet, again; from what argument did Socrates conclude that knowledge was virtue if knowledge as truth were not seen as part of all the virtues... What is knowledge after all if not truth... You know the wrong combination to every lock in the world; so what do you know??? If you know the right combination to one lock you know something true... Is that enough to define truth... Sure; and that part of truth only, and not all infinite varieties of truth...
You ask: how would I define the term, truth or any term but in the sense that it is used...I would suggest that the definition must, in some sense exist before the use, but I would not bother trying to define what is obviously an infinite... Certainly people define the term in use, and themselves for false people call lies truth, and true people call lies false.. But it is objects, finite objects that can be defined because they are finite... Infinites do not have any being, or their being is so infinite as to defy definition... Truth as a form is only a certain meaning, and one that is clearly subjective since even of physical objects our knowledge is limited, so people fill in the blanks of their ignorance with duct tape and make weights... Even to the physical they give the meaning they desire, to a point, that their version of truth must support their own nature or they die...
The method of intelligence as you call it is no method at all...True intelligence jumps like lightning... Every bit of assembled knowledge, what one might reliably call truth, goes into leaps of insight, and only in the physical world where pysical forms reflect knowledge can methods be applied... Look at logic... Does logic tell truth??? No... It is truth that tells what is logical... It is logical to expect that eqqs produce chicks only because that is observably what happens... When one has enough of such facts, then thoughts can leap ahead... Yet, that is the limit of the use of logic... Trying to use logic in the moral world is like using an extension ladder on a greasy floor... It will get you to the hospital before your true destination...
Instead, if you only look at the obvious, that truth is knowledge, and that knowledge in the physical world is necessary, and that everywhere it shares the quality of all forms that it is a form of relationship then you have all you need to know, and can, know of truth... We talk about it because we must, and it exists because we talk about it, and we exist because we make it our concern ... When people did not have shet or toilet paper they had truth... When they traveled light, carrying all their possessions in a poke, still they carried truth... This and all virtues have been humanity life long concern; and you will not define truth without defining humanity... In fact, our relationship is the reality the idea of truth supports... As with all moral forms, that is the meaning the form suggests...Our relationships are the only being behind the meaning of truth... When asked: What is truth, answer: What is life?.. What is humanity.... What are our relationships because not one could exist without truth... That is the meaning all moral forms point to... They exist as ideas because we exist in reality, and we exist in reality because they exist as forms.
Kenny; Wouldn't you guess that the obligation rests with those who suggest that something intangible exists to prove it... For my point it is enough to suggest that the case is not proved, and even if we are talking of germs, which are far more tangible than God- need to be proved before they are accepted... People ask: What is Truth with the presumption that talking as though it is real makes it so... In fact, it is our existence, our meaning which lends meaning to truth, and to all specific virtues and moral forms... We are the reality, and they are the illusion, the spectral witness to the ebb and flow of civilizations... We seek such forms, and try to define them, carve them in stone, build our social forms out of them because life considered by itself is only a raft of insecurity... As insecure as it may seem, life is more real than truth or God will ever be, even though a demanding quasi concept of truth can contribute to life and to survival... I would have you look at it like this... If we were talking of a physical form like a form of dwelling, it would seem real, and we would seem spiritual, because life and consciousness are themselves infinites... Considered next to the true sort of infinites of our social milieu, it is us who seem real, and it is the form which seems a spiritual quality... In fact, the reality of our moral form rests upon our own tenuous existence...
As I said: Knowledge is truth... Your example of ignorances is still ignorance... A fact may be known and relied upon because it is true, and it is true facts of the physical world that we can rely on to support reason... But one does not reason moral forms out of facts... The reason virtue is not knowledge is that it follows no logic, and is often unreasonable... We can reason as Pangloss, and say all is for the best if things have turned out well for us, but objectively, studying history, it is the failures of our moral forms and the inability of people everywhere to uphold virtue in the face of absolute immorality that has doomed people to war, revolution, and destruction...Clearly our sense of morality fails us even while we examine in microscopia... I can see what we are missing... It is not real... That emperor has no clothes... If truth will be real along with every other moral form, it must be made real...How will you do that??? Will you define it in spite of its obvious infinitude???
We expect that our language is capable of conveying meaning, and in the question at hand, of conveying the meaning of truth...
Or it could just be obvious, common sense, that in the search for truth, it exists as a certain meaning, a moral form, meaning only and without physical being, because we have some common existential need for it... We are surrounded by truth in the form of reality, and even in our moral forms can bear little of falshood... It is for lies that people war and destroy the enviroment in which they survive...Lies are the destruction of civilization and civility...
For our most basic relationships the truth is required... Though truth can never be defined as an infinite moral form, we can grasp a little of its meaning, as we must, or die of loneliness...
Fido wrote:We expect that our language is capable of conveying meaning, and in the question at hand, of conveying the meaning of truth...
Quote:But if truth were just a meaning, the meaning of truth would be the meaning of a meaning, which would lead us into an infinite loop. You end up with a world made of nothing but meaning, in which you get ultimately lost.
the truth is not about meaning , it is about the essence of the essence of meaning being based on
all truth and therefore , meaning is based on a physical object or objects
