34
   

Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 02:51 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:


All truth is known..


So why is it true that although no one knew in the 12th century that germs caused disease, it was, nevertheless true then, as it is true now, that germs cause disease? And how is it that although when people did not exist, no one knew that it was true that the Moon existed, butm nevertheless, the the Moon existed?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 10:25 pm
@kennethamy,
It does not matter what exists without us... No people equals no relationships equal no meaning... Our being is the essential being of the whole cosmos... Without us there is no past or future... As Schopenhaur said: the world dies with me...We are the life of the cosmos... The cosmos dies with us.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 10:26 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

It does not matter what exists without us... No people equals no relationships equal no meaning... Our being is the essential being of the whole cosmos... Without us there is no past or future... As Schopenhaur said: the world dies with me...We are the life of the cosmos... The cosmos dies with us.

But other beings experienced this world before we even existed. Why do you think we're the essential being of the whole cosmos? Surely the cosmos doesn't die without us.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 10:51 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:


All truth is known..


So why is it true that although no one knew in the 12th century that germs caused disease, it was, nevertheless true then, as it is true now, that germs cause disease? And how is it that although when people did not exist, no one knew that it was true that the Moon existed, butm nevertheless, the the Moon existed?

It was neither true nor false... People died for no known reason as they very often do today.. You are missing the point... People died then of disease, and die now of disease... Do we suffer less of DIS-EASE now for being able to say what they died of then???... The common cause is the same for each of us: the terrible anxiety that attends all ignorance...People were certain, and in part because Aristotle and others were so good at some things that no one questioned them when they were wrong.. What was thought true only became false the moment a better truth arrived....And you do not speak the truth... Germs do not for the most part cause disease... Overwork, population pressure, explotation, travel, trade, and war all make possible the growth and spread of diseases that would not stand a chance if natural social forms existed and offered their protection...

But what is a fact offered without proof... Without the technology, the scientific instraments, the dies, the cultures, the microscopes; for the one offering truth without proof ridicule is justified... People still believe in fate, in fortune, in magic, and religion in spite of the fact that rational explanations for reality do exist... People, if the do not know by choice are just as ignorant as those ignorant without choice...Without knowledge they cannot make the judgement, so they can hardly be false if true is not an option...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 10:58 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

Fido wrote:

It does not matter what exists without us... No people equals no relationships equal no meaning... Our being is the essential being of the whole cosmos... Without us there is no past or future... As Schopenhaur said: the world dies with me...We are the life of the cosmos... The cosmos dies with us.

But other beings experienced this world before we even existed. Why do you think we're the essential being of the whole cosmos? Surely the cosmos doesn't die without us.

Existence like truth is a certain meaning, and without us to share that meaning there is no meaning... So whether Cosmos, or no would not be a question, and would not be asked to fall upon dead ears...Without life we cannot conceive of life, and we cannot share the meaning of our conceptions, so whether we are talking of one life or all, death is the end of meaning...Ask what is the meaning of life... Life is all meaning, every last tattered shread of meaning belongs to life...You imagine something will exist after you as you imagine it existed before you...That is the power of imagination... The truth is: No life is no meaning and no cosmos.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 04:37 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:


. On the other hand, everything is either true or false.


Horse are something.
But horses are not true or false

Therefore, not everything is either true or false.

(Even Quine's son-in-law would agree).


When a horse hit you, then you will see that it is true. And if it just passes through your body, then you will see that it was false. Everything is either true or false - it is either actually there or not - although you may not know yet which one they are.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 04:42 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:


. On the other hand, everything is either true or false.


Horse are something.
But horses are not true or false

Therefore, not everything is either true or false.

(Even Quine's son-in-law would agree).

Reality is what it is, and our knowledge of it is either true or false... And if false is not knowledge at all, but is ignorance in drag..


Reality is what is is... for us. Hence, it is either true or false... for us - without us, it is nothing. But if we think about it, then we are already there, and its nothingness becomes a true reality, hence false as that nothingness.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 04:46 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
It is a misconception to consider genetic information that makes possible our being as not knowledge.... Evolution is a form of learning and our being is knowledge and true, or we would suffer genetic diseases and die...We all possess knowledge of which we are not conscious... We all have a body of fact upon which we have never been called on to reason, just as in the dialogue on metaphysics by Plato...

We all know more than we think, and think less than we know...We all know facts about ourselves and our families that are quietly put aside in our thoughts, and yet if we look, there they are...No one should consider consciousness alone as the total of knowledge and truth... Nor should anyone consider their knowledge, or human knowledge as the sum of truth... Life is truth... For life to survive and thrive the body and mind must possess certain true knowledge of reality, only a fraction of which we will be conscious of...
As a species, we adapt rather than evolve, but each is a form of knowledge...

It is like a automobile... Motor, transmission, body, and materials all represent a lot of true knowledge... What does it mean that we are unconscious of it all most of the time???...If the truth is not there, the thing will not run... Truth may not make the world go round, but it makes possible our going around the world...Can you understand that your knowledge of truth has no bearing on what the truth is as a reality... I know much that you do not know, and you know much that I do not know, and what we know apart and together has no bearing on truth as a moral form... Whether we know a fact or not, it is true regardless...


Sorry, but knowledge is something you are aware of. You are not aware of your heart-beat: our survival depends on our hart-beat being independent of our awareness, and it was there long before we became aware of it. Knowledge requires awareness. Are you aware of unawareness?
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 04:50 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
I see that this thread has disappeared into the fog of philosophese where there is only groping and no sensible discussion. And, thus illustrates so well what the thread was all about. since fog consists of very thick clouds. However I did discern, through all the fog, something I could understand and even agree with, namely that a fact is true whether or not it is known. Of course, all facts are true, since unless it were true, it would not be a fact (so "all facts are true" is just a tautology). However, what is of much more substance is that a proposition is true whether or not it is known (or for that matter, believed) to be true. And, as I pointed out, although whatever is known to be true is (of course) true, whatever is true need not be known. The fallacious inference from whatever is known is true, to whatever is true is known, is central to Idealism.


At last! Whatever is there must be true. However, this is not the central point, which is rather: if there is a "there," then there must be also a "here," so truth is both: it has always two sides, which you may call "subjective" - here - and "objective" - there - although the names are of less importance then the concept. Both idealism and materialism eliminate either "here" or "there" in favor of either "there" or "here," respectively. We must find unity without mutilating this duality.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 04:57 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
There is a whole class of knowledge, like genetic knowledge, or knowledge of which one is unconscious of having that must be true or it would not be knowledge, and would be detrimental to survival...But if some fact is totally unknown it cannot be considered knowledge or truth... IN fact, truth is a certain relationship between ourselves and our reality... It is our concepts which are true, or our statements that are true, or our conclusions based upon facts which are true... The truth is a dynamic quality in the relationship between man and his environment whether that be social or physical... Truth is life... Our survival depends upon our knowledge, and knowledge is truth...


You are almost there: truth is our concepts inasmuch as they are true, and for being true they must express reality, which is not our concepts. The problem is that our concepts are also a part of reality, which is what motivates "republicans" to say they are an illusion of ours. However, to think that our concepts are illusions, we must be here thinking that, so there are again our concepts as distinct from reality.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 05:07 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
There are two senses of the term, "fact". One is a metaphysical sense in which it just is a synonym for "a truth". And, of course, in this sense, all facts are true since all truths are true. That is a tautology. Now, on the other hand, there is an epistemological sense of "fact" in which "fact" means not only a truth, but a known truth. And since all known truth are known (another tautology) in that sense of "fact", all facts have to be known. So, with this clarification, we see that you are confusing two senses of the word "fact", one by which facts need not be known, and a different sense in which facts need be known. Now, in the sense of "fact" in which "fact" simply means "a truth" it is fallacious to infer from the proposition, X is a fact to the conclusion that X is known.


Many thanks for that paragraph. This is precisely the difference between truth as a possibility (a belief) and an actuality (a fact "in itself"). However, these are more than just two "senses" of truth: these are the two dimensions of truth, which contradict each other. You must stop placing that duality in our mind as an illusion, as you must also stop thinking that I hold it to be an objective reality: the duality of truth is between our mind and the world, it is the duality between our mind and the world.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 05:34 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
There are two senses of the term, "fact". One is a metaphysical sense in which it just is a synonym for "a truth". And, of course, in this sense, all facts are true since all truths are true. That is a tautology. Now, on the other hand, there is an epistemological sense of "fact" in which "fact" means not only a truth, but a known truth. And since all known truth are known (another tautology) in that sense of "fact", all facts have to be known. So, with this clarification, we see that you are confusing two senses of the word "fact", one by which facts need not be known, and a different sense in which facts need be known. Now, in the sense of "fact" in which "fact" simply means "a truth" it is fallacious to infer from the proposition, X is a fact to the conclusion that X is known.


Many thanks for that paragraph. This is precisely the difference between truth as a possibility (a belief) and an actuality (a fact "in itself"). However, these are more than just two "senses" of truth: these are the two dimensions of truth, which contradict each other. You must stop placing that duality in our mind as an illusion, as you must also stop thinking that I hold it to be an objective reality: the duality of truth is between our mind and the world, it is the duality between our mind and the world.

The difference is not between our minds and the world because our minds are moral forms having no more real existence that does truth as a form... The difference is between concept and reality, so truth as a word has nothing to do with other moral forms, but with the physical world, and how that is conceived... A true concept is useful in that we can use it to manipulate our environment, and so adapt to it...To tell the truth we must conceive of reality properly, but in no sense does it mean that we can conceive of all reality, or that our concepts will ever fully define the objects of our attention... We take what we can of knowledge from reality, and truth is our standard of judging our concepts, which are knowledge... A concept true to its object is knowledge... So truth is not an absolute... As we know more our conception of reality will become more true...It is childish to talk of reality or bits of reality being true to itself...The truth may at times be a blueprint and at other times be a map... We map reality, but then we take our knowledge and create new forms...But as we learn, and because we learn, no one should expect old forms made out of old truth will serve future generations... Our constitution, as an example, was once state of the art, and reflected the self knowledge of humanity... We know better today and could build better, but our psychology will not permit change until evils are unbearable, as Jefferson said...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 07:16 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
There are two senses of the term, "fact". One is a metaphysical sense in which it just is a synonym for "a truth". And, of course, in this sense, all facts are true since all truths are true. That is a tautology. Now, on the other hand, there is an epistemological sense of "fact" in which "fact" means not only a truth, but a known truth. And since all known truth are known (another tautology) in that sense of "fact", all facts have to be known. So, with this clarification, we see that you are confusing two senses of the word "fact", one by which facts need not be known, and a different sense in which facts need be known. Now, in the sense of "fact" in which "fact" simply means "a truth" it is fallacious to infer from the proposition, X is a fact to the conclusion that X is known.


Many thanks for that paragraph. This is precisely the difference between truth as a possibility (a belief) and an actuality (a fact "in itself"). However, these are more than just two "senses" of truth: these are the two dimensions of truth, which contradict each other. You must stop placing that duality in our mind as an illusion, as you must also stop thinking that I hold it to be an objective reality: the duality of truth is between our mind and the world, it is the duality between our mind and the world.


When a belief is true, then it is a true belief, or a fact in the metaphysical sense of "fact" whether or not that fact or truth is known. In the epistemological sense of, "fact" a true belief is a fact only if it is known. That is how the term "fact" is used in English. If a belief is true it is neither a possibility or an actuality (whatever that means in this context). It is just a true belief. Another term for "true belief" is a true proposition, and it is propositions we believe are true (or false) when we believe anything. In fact, it is just confusing to talk about true (or false) beliefs. Instead, we should talk about true (or false) propositions. The term "to believe" is also ambiguous. It may either refer to the object of our belief, namely what we believe or the proposition: for example, that the cat is on the mat. Or, the term "belief" may refer to what goes on in our heads, namely the mental state of believing or acceptance of a proposition as true, or the acceptance of the belief. The acceptance of a proposition is also called "a belief". And so, also, is the proposition that is accepted. So, the term, "belief" may refer either to:

1. The acceptance of a proposition as true. or,
2. The proposition that is accepted.

To avoid the confusion between the two senses, we should call the first sense a "proposition", and the second sense, a "belief". Then, a true belief would only be a true proposition.

It is very like the ambiguity of the term, "building". The term, "building" may refer either to:

1. The process of construction as in, "They are building a skyscraper", or,
2. the construction itself, namely the skyscraper as in, "The building is 102 stories".
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 08:17 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
The difference is not between our minds and the world because our minds are moral forms having no more real existence that does truth as a form... The difference is between concept and reality, so truth as a word has nothing to do with other moral forms, but with the physical world, and how that is conceived... A true concept is useful in that we can use it to manipulate our environment, and so adapt to it...To tell the truth we must conceive of reality properly, but in no sense does it mean that we can conceive of all reality, or that our concepts will ever fully define the objects of our attention... We take what we can of knowledge from reality, and truth is our standard of judging our concepts, which are knowledge... A concept true to its object is knowledge... So truth is not an absolute... As we know more our conception of reality will become more true...It is childish to talk of reality or bits of reality being true to itself...The truth may at times be a blueprint and at other times be a map... We map reality, but then we take our knowledge and create new forms...But as we learn, and because we learn, no one should expect old forms made out of old truth will serve future generations... Our constitution, as an example, was once state of the art, and reflected the self knowledge of humanity... We know better today and could build better, but our psychology will not permit change until evils are unbearable, as Jefferson said...


Why don't you think about what you are saying just for an instant? If you say that "the difference is not between our minds and the world because our minds are moral forms having no more real existence that does truth as a form," then you are saying either that our minds are different from the world, since they have, according to you, no real existence, or that our minds are, along with truth, nothing at all, hence that we are not here having this discussion, as also that none of us can possibly say something true. And since we are here and it is possible that we are saying the truth, our minds are different from the world.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 09:03 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:


The difference is not between our minds and the world because our minds are moral forms having no more real existence that does truth as a form... The difference is between concept and reality, so truth as a word has nothing to do with other moral forms, but with the physical world, and how that is conceived... A true concept is useful in that we can use it to manipulate our environment, and so adapt to it...To tell the truth we must conceive of reality properly, but in no sense does it mean that we can conceive of all reality, or that our concepts will ever fully define the objects of our attention... We take what we can of knowledge from reality, and truth is our standard of judging our concepts, which are knowledge... A concept true to its object is knowledge... So truth is not an absolute... As we know more our conception of reality will become more true...It is childish to talk of reality or bits of reality being true to itself...The truth may at times be a blueprint and at other times be a map... We map reality, but then we take our knowledge and create new forms...But as we learn, and because we learn, no one should expect old forms made out of old truth will serve future generations... Our constitution, as an example, was once state of the art, and reflected the self knowledge of humanity... We know better today and could build better, but our psychology will not permit change until evils are unbearable, as Jefferson said...


What is "truth as a word"? Are you talking about the word, "truth"? And (if that is what you happen to be talking about) what has the word, "truth" to do with anything? The term, "real existence" so far as I know is an 18th century philosophical expression meaning extra-mental existence. So that elephants have "real existence" but ideas (although they exist) don't have "real existence". What you mean by "real existence" ( in case you happen to mean anything) you have yet to explain. What a "concept true to its object" is knowledge might mean, I can only guess. But if you happen to mean that since we have the concept (for instance) of horse, and there are horses, we know that there are horses, that is certainly not true, since we have the concepts of ETs, and there may be ET's, but even if there are Et's, we do not know that there are ET's. Therefore, even if we have a concept, and there the concept has an object, if we do not know that the concept does have an object, we do not know that the object exists. So, we do not have knowledge, just because we have a concept that is "true to its object". But, this is, like other attempts to understand what you are saying, only a wild guess. How the Constitution has anything to do with what you are saying I cannot even wildly guess. Just as I cannot imagine where you learned to think and write in the confused way you do. From Quine's son-in-law?
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 03:04 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
When a belief is true, then it is a true belief, or a fact in the metaphysical sense of "fact" whether or not that fact or truth is known.


It is funny that you accuse me of being tautological when it is you to say that "when a belief is true, then it is a true belief." Brilliant. But even worse, you then interpret a "true belief" as meaning the "fact" you believe in, even independently of your belief (or knowledge), which is just regrettable. A true belief, despite being true, remains a belief, so if you want to make it a "fact," then you must mean by "fact" no longer an independent objectivity, but rather a believed objectivity - you must make facts relative - instead of taking the word "belief" to mean an independent objectivity, which is, as I already said, just regrettable.

kennethamy wrote:
In the epistemological sense of "fact," a true belief is a fact only if it is known. That is how the term "fact" is used in English.


As far as I know, in English - or in any other language - for the word "fact" to mean a "belief" it is the word "fact" that must change its meaning - to a known, believed fact - so a "belief" can mean a fact as being a belief. Conversely, the word "belief" never means a fact as being independent of our belief or knowledge, unless that independence itself is considered to be a belief.

kennethamy wrote:
If a belief is true it is neither a possibility or an actuality (whatever that means in this context). It is just a true belief.


A true belief is an already actual possibility - the necessary possibility of any actuality to which you referred in another post - since it remains a belief. Its becoming simply an actuality would require its becoming a fact independent of any belief, but then we would no longer be considering it as a belief.

kennethamy wrote:
Another term for "true belief" is a true proposition, and it is propositions we believe are true (or false) when we believe anything.


Propositions, assertions, thoughts, are not whatever they propose, assert, or think. They are expressions of our belief, rather than its object. However, indeed, it is them that are true or false: not in themselves, but in relation to the "facts" you erroneously call "propositions."

kennethamy wrote:
In fact, it is just confusing to talk about true (or false) beliefs.


Obviously, at least for you it is.

kennethamy wrote:
Instead, we should talk about true (or false) propositions.


You would be changing six for half-a-dozen.

kennethamy wrote:
The term "to believe" is also ambiguous. It may either refer to the object of our belief, namely what we believe or the proposition: for example, that the cat is on the mat.


The expression "to believe" means the act of believing, and never its object.

kennethamy wrote:
Or, the term "belief" may refer to what goes on in our heads, namely the mental state of believing or acceptance of a proposition as true, or the acceptance of the belief. The acceptance of a proposition is also called "a belief". And so, also, is the proposition that is accepted. So, the term, "belief" may refer either to:

1. The acceptance of a proposition as true. or,
2. The proposition that is accepted.


We "accept" a proposition just as much as we accept a belief: the former is only the expression of the latter. What we really "accept" is the fact referred to by both. What you are saying could be rewritten as "either A or A." The reason why for you they are different is that you take a proposition to be the fact it expresses, which is just plain wrong.

kennethamy wrote:
To avoid the confusion between the two senses, we should call the first sense a "proposition", and the second sense, a "belief". Then, a true belief would only be a true proposition.


There is no confusion between the two senses: they are the same. You should stop confusing statements with facts. We do not believe our statements, we believe whatever they refer to.

kennethamy wrote:
It is very like the ambiguity of the term, "building". The term, "building" may refer either to:

1. The process of construction as in, "They are building a skyscraper", or,
2. the construction itself, namely the skyscraper as in, "The building is 102 stories".


The act of believing is never the object of belief. The term "building" is either a verb or the result of the action referred to by that verb, in which case it becomes a noun. The verb "believing" is a totally different beast, which certainly does not mean whatever we believe in as independent of it.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 04:04 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
When a belief is true, then it is a true belief, or a fact in the metaphysical sense of "fact" whether or not that fact or truth is known.


It is funny that you accuse me of being tautological when it is you to say that "when a belief is true, then it is a true belief." Brilliant. But even worse, you then interpret a "true belief" as meaning the "fact" you believe in, even independently of your belief (or knowledge), which is just regrettable. A true belief, despite being true, remains a belief, so if you want to make it a "fact," then you must mean by "fact" no longer an independent objectivity, but rather a believed objectivity - you must make facts relative - instead of taking the word "belief" to mean an independent objectivity, which is, as I already said, just regrettable.

kennethamy wrote:
In the epistemological sense of "fact," a true belief is a fact only if it is known. That is how the term "fact" is used in English.


As far as I know, in English - or in any other language - for the word "fact" to mean a "belief" it is the word "fact" that must change its meaning - to a known, believed fact - so a "belief" can mean a fact as being a belief. Conversely, the word "belief" never means a fact as being independent of our belief or knowledge, unless that independence itself is considered to be a belief.

kennethamy wrote:
If a belief is true it is neither a possibility or an actuality (whatever that means in this context). It is just a true belief.


A true belief is an already actual possibility - the necessary possibility of any actuality to which you referred in another post - since it remains a belief. Its becoming simply an actuality would require its becoming a fact independent of any belief, but then we would no longer be considering it as a belief.

kennethamy wrote:
Another term for "true belief" is a true proposition, and it is propositions we believe are true (or false) when we believe anything.


Propositions, assertions, thoughts, are not whatever they propose, assert, or think. They are expressions of our belief, rather than its object. However, indeed, it is them that are true or false: not in themselves, but in relation to the "facts" you erroneously call "propositions."

kennethamy wrote:
In fact, it is just confusing to talk about true (or false) beliefs.


Obviously, at least for you it is.

kennethamy wrote:
Instead, we should talk about true (or false) propositions.


You would be changing six for half-a-dozen.

kennethamy wrote:
The term "to believe" is also ambiguous. It may either refer to the object of our belief, namely what we believe or the proposition: for example, that the cat is on the mat.


The expression "to believe" means the act of believing, and never its object.

kennethamy wrote:
Or, the term "belief" may refer to what goes on in our heads, namely the mental state of believing or acceptance of a proposition as true, or the acceptance of the belief. The acceptance of a proposition is also called "a belief". And so, also, is the proposition that is accepted. So, the term, "belief" may refer either to:

1. The acceptance of a proposition as true. or,
2. The proposition that is accepted.


We "accept" a proposition just as much as we accept a belief: the former is only the expression of the latter. What we really "accept" is the fact referred to by both. What you are saying could be rewritten as "either A or A." The reason why for you they are different is that you take a proposition to be the fact it expresses, which is just plain wrong.

kennethamy wrote:
To avoid the confusion between the two senses, we should call the first sense a "proposition", and the second sense, a "belief". Then, a true belief would only be a true proposition.


There is no confusion between the two senses: they are the same. You should stop confusing statements with facts. We do not believe our statements, we believe whatever they refer to.

kennethamy wrote:
It is very like the ambiguity of the term, "building". The term, "building" may refer either to:

1. The process of construction as in, "They are building a skyscraper", or,
2. the construction itself, namely the skyscraper as in, "The building is 102 stories".


The act of believing is never the object of belief. The term "building" is either a verb or the result of the action referred to by that verb, in which case it becomes a noun. The verb "believing" is a totally different beast, which certainly does not mean whatever we believe in as independent of it.



As a pointed out, a true belief is one which is true, as contrasted with one that is false. Rather than talk about beliefs, in order to avoid confusion between: 1. the acceptance of a proposition (which is called "a belief", and 2. the proposition which is accepted (which is also called, "a belief", it would be clearer to let 1. be called "a belief", and 2. the proposition. If I say I believe that the cat is on the mat, the that clause refers to what it is I believe, namely the proposition that the cat is on the mat, and I am saying that what I accept as true (that is, my belief) is the proposition that the cat is on the mat (also a belief). So, it is true that I believe my belief. But that is not a tautology since there are proposition I do not believe. You simply have to recognize that the term, "belief" is ambiguous as I have just explained to you it is. When you see the ambiguity, your confusion will vanish, and you will feel liberated.
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 08:48 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

So, it is true that I believe my belief. But that is not a tautology since there are proposition I do not believe. You simply have to recognize that the term, "belief" is ambiguous as I have just explained to you it is. When you see the ambiguity, your confusion will vanish, and you will feel liberated.


Sorry to jump in on this one, but I question your use of belief being ambiguous.

Here's my problem: you setup a belief as "I believe X" (a propositional belief). Now, let's apply this to your two beliefs:

B1: I believe the cat is on the mat
B2: I believe that I believe the cat is on the mat

In both instances I use "believe in the same way. Even in B2, belief means the same thing (i.e. is not ambiguous) both times I use the word. The main difference between B1 and B2 is that the proposition changes.

Furthermore, as a side note, if one wants to find some "true beliefs", B2 is an example of a belief that is probably the easiest belief to truley call "true". (there's a defense here, but it's to lengthy to write out on a whim)
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2010 09:00 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

So, it is true that I believe my belief. But that is not a tautology since there are proposition I do not believe. You simply have to recognize that the term, "belief" is ambiguous as I have just explained to you it is. When you see the ambiguity, your confusion will vanish, and you will feel liberated.


Sorry to jump in on this one, but I question your use of belief being ambiguous.

Here's my problem: you setup a belief as "I believe X" (a propositional belief). Now, let's apply this to your two beliefs:

B1: I believe the cat is on the mat
B2: I believe that I believe the cat is on the mat

In both instances I use "believe in the same way. Even in B2, belief means the same thing (i.e. is not ambiguous) both times I use the word. The main difference between B1 and B2 is that the proposition changes.

Furthermore, as a side note, if one wants to find some "true beliefs", B2 is an example of a belief that is probably the easiest belief to truley call "true". (there's a defense here, but it's to lengthy to write out on a whim)


I really do not understand your point. I would have thought it clear that the acceptance of a proposition as true is one thing, but the proposition itself is a different thing. And both are called "beliefs". (To say that I believe that I believe the cat is on the mat, is simply to say that I accept the proposition that I believe the cat is on the mat. And the distinction remains between the acceptance of a proposition, and the proposition which is accepted.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2010 05:35 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Therefore, even if we have a concept, and there the concept has an object, if we do not know that the concept does have an object, we do not know that the object exists.


What you are missing, and which is the central point he's making, is that all we have to know that a concept has a real object is, well, concepts. If you have ever read Kant, you should know that. We do not have direct access to the objects of our concepts: we have only access to them by means of our concepts, which is why we will never be definitely sure that our concepts have the real objects we believe them to have. We can be sure of that only by forgetting the circumstance that we depend on concepts to be sure of that: again, the dual nature of truth.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 04:53:03