34
   

Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

Forums: Philosophy, Grammar, Philosophers, Epistemology, Philosophical Questions
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 01:52 am
@hawkeye10,
I did not have to go to the army because I was a bit anti-authorian (?). I said I did not want to waste my time in the army, but wanted to go to University.

Later in my live I had a severe burn-out and was "lost in the clouds". Now I am more relaxed about everything and try to learn as little as needed to be content.

I have a quiet life now, but it feels like I am stuck on Ape-planet sometimes. These Forums are a route to fresh ideas and interesting people.

I'll read my post again & feel Embarrassed Laughing

Greetings 2 Cents Not Equal Drunk
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 02:03 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Quote:
I did not have to go to the army because I was a bit anti-authorian (?). I said I did not want to waste my time in the army, but wanted to go to University
well, you of course know that we Americans are convinced that you of the Benelux are overly soft and squeamish...you should of course have been thrown in to sink or swim, according to your nature...
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 02:20 am
@hawkeye10,
I would aim our missiles at Her Majesties residence
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 04:04 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

I did not know about the Materialist School. I am not well informed about more modersn Philosophy. You say materialism was the wrong turn, I think it was Rationalism ! Everything had to be proven scientificly and measure up to one standard, even the mind...

Exit magic & faith


There is a way out of all this mess, which leads to a neither materialist nor idealist view. Are you interested?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 04:31 pm
@guigus,
I'm interested.....
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 04:35 pm
@guigus,
Yes. I am always curious but never sure if I understand things right but lets try !
Cool
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 04:36 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

I'm interested.....


OK, my way out is a reasoning in 72 steps, of which the first is this:

If any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth: every truth must be true.

It is just the first of 72 steps, but so far I couldn't go further in this forum, since people were so far unable to understand it. So please tell me: what do these words mean to you?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 04:36 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

Pepijn Sweep wrote:

I did not know about the Materialist School. I am not well informed about more modersn Philosophy. You say materialism was the wrong turn, I think it was Rationalism ! Everything had to be proven scientificly and measure up to one standard, even the mind...

Exit magic & faith


There is a way out of all this mess, which leads to a neither materialist nor idealist view. Are you interested?


I am interested in knowing what mess it is you are talking about. Could you begin there?
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 05:07 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

Pepijn Sweep wrote:

I did not know about the Materialist School. I am not well informed about more modersn Philosophy. You say materialism was the wrong turn, I think it was Rationalism ! Everything had to be proven scientificly and measure up to one standard, even the mind...

Exit magic & faith


There is a way out of all this mess, which leads to a neither materialist nor idealist view. Are you interested?


I am interested in knowing what mess it is you are talking about. Could you begin there?


You answer my last post on the "Every truth must be true" thread and we can talk.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 05:10 pm
@guigus,
I think I see where you're coming from. There was a post in the old forum about the inherently tautological nature of the correspondence theory of truth. A contributor provided a number of excerpts from philosophy text books to illustrate point. I can't find it now because all my marked posts got lost in the change to the new forum. But yes I am interested to hear.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 05:21 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

Pepijn Sweep wrote:

I did not know about the Materialist School. I am not well informed about more modersn Philosophy. You say materialism was the wrong turn, I think it was Rationalism ! Everything had to be proven scientificly and measure up to one standard, even the mind...

Exit magic & faith


There is a way out of all this mess, which leads to a neither materialist nor idealist view. Are you interested?


I am interested in knowing what mess it is you are talking about. Could you begin there?


You answer my last post on the "Every truth must be true" thread and we can talk.


Aw. Do I really have to? You are simply wrong. You have confused two different sentences. What more is there to talk about? When you finally come to see the distinction between:
1. Necessarily, if p is true then p is true, and:
2. If p is true, then necessarily p is true.

There will be no need to talk, since you will agree that you have made a mistaken. Learning little logic would be of great help to you.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 05:24 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

I think I see where you're coming from. There was a post in the old forum about the inherently tautological nature of the correspondence theory of truth. A contributor provided a number of excerpts from philosophy text books to illustrate point. I can't find it now because all my marked posts got lost in the change to the new forum. But yes I am interested to hear.


There was also a problem with character sets, so some posts that used non-ASCII characters got corrupted. I had to correct some of my posts because of that, and started using only ASCII characters to avoid problems. But back to the issue. The statement "every truth must be true" simply says that whatever you believe to be true is only true if it has a "correspondence" in the real world (to honor the old "correspondence" theory of truth). In other words: if it is in your head and is true (every truth), then it must be outside your head (must be true): if it is not outside your head, then it is false, despite being inside your head. Can you read the sentence "every truth must be true" that way?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 05:26 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

I think I see where you're coming from. There was a post in the old forum about the inherently tautological nature of the correspondence theory of truth. A contributor provided a number of excerpts from philosophy text books to illustrate point. I can't find it now because all my marked posts got lost in the change to the new forum. But yes I am interested to hear.


But there is nothing tautological about the correspondence theory of truth, inherently or not. The theory simple tells us that a sentence is true if, and only if, it corresponds with some fact or some state of affairs. To illustrate, the sentence, "The cat is on the mat" is true if, and only if, there is a cat on the mat. What on earth is tautological about that? (Whatever you may mean by "tautological").
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 05:28 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

jeeprs wrote:

I think I see where you're coming from. There was a post in the old forum about the inherently tautological nature of the correspondence theory of truth. A contributor provided a number of excerpts from philosophy text books to illustrate point. I can't find it now because all my marked posts got lost in the change to the new forum. But yes I am interested to hear.


But there is nothing tautological about the correspondence theory of truth, inherently or not. The theory simple tells us that a sentence is true if, and only if, it corresponds with some fact or some state of affairs. To illustrate, the sentence, "The cat is on the mat" is true if, and only if, there is a cat on the mat. What on earth is tautological about that? (Whatever you may mean by "tautological").


The "correspondence" part of the theory is not tautological, and I am even using it to illustrate my point. The problems with the correspondence theory of truth begin when it tries to deal with what is in correspondence to what.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 05:33 pm
@guigus,
Quote:
The problems with the correspondence theory of truth begin when it tries to deal with what is in correspondence to what.

Exactly.
0 Replies
 
ACB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 05:34 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:
The statement "every truth must be true" simply says that whatever you believe to be true is only true if it has a "correspondence" in the real world (to honor the old "correspondence" theory of truth). In other words: if it is in your head and is true (every truth), then it must be outside your head (must be true): if it is not outside your head, then it is false, despite being inside your head. Can you read the sentence "every truth must be true" that way?

In other words, every true belief corresponds to an actual state of affairs.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 05:38 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

jeeprs wrote:

I think I see where you're coming from. There was a post in the old forum about the inherently tautological nature of the correspondence theory of truth. A contributor provided a number of excerpts from philosophy text books to illustrate point. I can't find it now because all my marked posts got lost in the change to the new forum. But yes I am interested to hear.


There was also a problem with character sets, so some posts that used non-ASCII characters got corrupted. I had to correct some of my posts because of that, and started using only ASCII characters to avoid problems. But back to the issue. The statement "every truth must be true" simply says that whatever you believe to be true is only true if it has a "correspondence" in the real world (to honor the old "correspondence" theory of truth). In other words: if it is in your head and is true (every truth), then it must be outside your head (must be true): if it is not outside your head, then it is false, despite being inside your head. Can you read the sentence "every truth must be true" that way?


But the sentence, "every true sentence must be true" does not mean that every truth corresponds with some fact or state of affairs, since it just means that it is impossible for any truth to be false. To say that every truth is true because it correspond with some thing in what you call "the real world" is just to say why truth are truths. But to say that every truth must be true, means, as I just said, that it is impossible that any truth should be false. And those are two different things to say. One explains why true sentences are true, but the other does not do that at all. What every truth must be true says is that no true statement could have been false. And that doesn't explain why true statements are true at all. Don't you really see the difference? They are as different as chalk and cheese. One explains why true statements are true, while the other doesn't do that at all, but tells us, falsely, that no true statement could be false. What I don't understand is how you could think those two sentences say the same thing, when they obviously do not. Another way to see the difference is to see that to say that true sentences are true because they correspond with some fact or state of affairs, may or may not be true. It depend on the arguments for the correspondence theory of truth. But to say that every true statement is such that it could not be false is simply to say something that is clearly false. So how can something that may be true or false be the same as something that is clearly false. Answer, it can cannot be.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 07:22 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
What every truth must be true says is that no true statement could have been false.


No, it is not: saying that "every truth must be true" is rather the same as to say that no true statement can be false and still be true. I am just saying that a truth, inasmuch as it is indeed a truth, cannot be false. The sentence to say what you mean would be "every truth must have been true."
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 07:38 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
But the sentence, "every true sentence must be true" does not mean that every truth corresponds with some fact or state of affairs, since it just means that it is impossible for any truth to be false.


Indeed, that sentence does not mean that every truth corresponds to some fact or state of affairs, but not because it means that it is impossible for any truth to be false, and rather because it means that every truth must correspond to some fact or state of affairs. Your interpretation of "every truth must be true" places the truth on the state of affairs itself, forgetting that truth refers to a statement, or idea, or memory, that is, to something ideal, or subjective, or immaterial. There is no truth in material objects: truth is in us, we are the ones who consider material objects either true or false. Every truth must be true means that whatever we believe can only be true if it corresponds to something real, or objective, or material. The whole problem is in the way you read the expression "every truth." You read it as meaning "whatever is either true or false," instead of "whatever is already true."
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 07:42 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
What every truth must be true says is that no true statement could have been false.


No, it is not: saying that "every truth must be true" is rather the same as to say that no true statement can be false and still be true. I am just saying that a truth, inasmuch as it is indeed a truth, cannot be false. The sentence to say what you mean would be "every truth must have been true."

Which is taking truth to be an absolute... The fact is that our language works by way of analogy while math is pure concept...It is much easier to say something true with math...Though it will also be simple, usually
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?
  3. » Page 9
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 07:17:30
▲ ▼