All truth is known..
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.
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 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.
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).
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..
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
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...
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".
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.
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.
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)
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.
