Truth

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
ktz
Posts: 169
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Truth

Post by ktz »

A_Seagull wrote: December 13th, 2018, 5:44 pm
ktz wrote: December 1st, 2018, 11:52 am
the "Seven Blunders of the World"?


Wealth without work.
Pleasure without conscience.
Knowledge without character.
Commerce without morality.
Science without humanity.
Worship without sacrifice.
Politics without principle.
Seems to me that to label these as 'blunders' is nothing more than naïve propaganda. It certainly isn't philosophy.
What a strange thing to choose to be certain about. The conception being attacked here was provided as contextual support to a case I was making for the pragmatic theory of truth, so isn't it a bit of a non-sequitur to randomly attack this particular tidbit as not philosophy? But if we must...

Seems to me that to label these as naïve propaganda probably reveals more about an individual's subjective conception of what philosophy covers, than any degree of Arun Gandhi's naivete. They certainly are connected to major philosophical conversations on ethics and morality in the past, since they are basically just one Anglican priest's personal formulation of Kantian categorical imperatives.

Outside of deontology, off the top of my head I can recall these ideas being related to positions taken by the stoics vs Epicureans, Socrates on knowledge, Aristotle on virtue, Dennett and Putnam on the fact/value dichotomy, George on economic rent, Aquinas on worship, Habermas on political communication. Sure, I'd have no objection if you were to complain that "The Seven Blunders of the World" is a prosaic presentation -- but it's the same philosophical ideas. Complaining that they're not philosophy when presented in this form is like saying an off-duty cop is not a cop.

You are free to take an objectivist position and make a case on whether these are correctly described as blunders in the general case, but it doesn't seem to me like the most constructive approach to just label stuff you don't agree with as naive propaganda.
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 949
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 10:56 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Heraclitus

Re: Truth

Post by A_Seagull »

ktz wrote: December 13th, 2018, 7:34 pm
A_Seagull wrote: December 13th, 2018, 5:44 pm

Seems to me that to label these as 'blunders' is nothing more than naïve propaganda. It certainly isn't philosophy.
What a strange thing to choose to be certain about. The conception being attacked here was provided as contextual support to a case I was making for the pragmatic theory of truth, so isn't it a bit of a non-sequitur to randomly attack this particular tidbit as not philosophy? But if we must...

Seems to me that to label these as naïve propaganda probably reveals more about an individual's subjective conception of what philosophy covers, than any degree of Arun Gandhi's naivete. They certainly are connected to major philosophical conversations on ethics and morality in the past, since they are basically just one Anglican priest's personal formulation of Kantian categorical imperatives.

Outside of deontology, off the top of my head I can recall these ideas being related to positions taken by the stoics vs Epicureans, Socrates on knowledge, Aristotle on virtue, Dennett and Putnam on the fact/value dichotomy, George on economic rent, Aquinas on worship, Habermas on political communication. Sure, I'd have no objection if you were to complain that "The Seven Blunders of the World" is a prosaic presentation -- but it's the same philosophical ideas. Complaining that they're not philosophy when presented in this form is like saying an off-duty cop is not a cop.

You are free to take an objectivist position and make a case on whether these are correctly described as blunders in the general case, but it doesn't seem to me like the most constructive approach to just label stuff you don't agree with as naive propaganda.
What is presented without justification can be dismissed without justification.
The Pattern Paradigm - yer can't beat it!
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Truth

Post by h_k_s »

Steve3007 wrote: December 13th, 2018, 4:57 am
h_k_s wrote:Writing (posts) requires special skills to avoid confusion.
This is true.

One of the ways in which confusion can be avoided when using non-specific pronouns such as "it", "that" or "this" is to be clear specifically what those pronouns are referring to. For example, my sentence "this is true", above, comes after a short single sentence quote that makes one assertion. So it is clear what the word "this" refers to there. One thing that leads to confusion is when a relatively long post, containing several different points, is quoted in its entirety and followed by a sentence like "That is exactly right" or "Rubbish!" or some such thing.

Here is an example:
viewtopic.php?p=325446#p325446

If one is going to state either agreement or disagreement then I think it is best to quote the specific single assertion or argument to which that agreement or disagreement corresponds.
That is exactly right !!
User avatar
ktz
Posts: 169
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Truth

Post by ktz »

A_Seagull wrote: What is presented without justification can be dismissed without justification.
This an assertion is presented without justification. Nevermind that there's an entire body of work on justified true belief as the foundation of epistemology. You didn't present it alongside your assertion so let's just go ahead and dismiss it.
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 949
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 10:56 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Heraclitus

Re: Truth

Post by A_Seagull »

ktz wrote: December 13th, 2018, 9:58 pm
A_Seagull wrote: What is presented without justification can be dismissed without justification.
This an assertion is presented without justification. Nevermind that there's an entire body of work on justified true belief as the foundation of epistemology. You didn't present it alongside your assertion so let's just go ahead and dismiss it.
Then we can dismiss your 'blunders' too.

the "Seven Blunders of the World"?


Wealth without work.
Pleasure without conscience.
Knowledge without character.
Commerce without morality.
Science without humanity.
Worship without sacrifice.
Politics without principle

Or do you want to try to 'justify' them? See if you can justify them without invoking an element of propaganda, naïve or otherwise.
The Pattern Paradigm - yer can't beat it!
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Steve3007 »

h_k_s wrote:I have seen scientific so called laws and theories change so many times in my lifetime that I no longer give it any more credit than a body of inferences from another body of data.
How much "credit" do you give to "a body of inferences from another body of data"? Can you give me an example of something to which you give more credit? What do you mean by the term "credit" here? Is it related to to the concepts of utility and truth?

It is the fact that scientific laws can be superseded - that they are always provisional - which gives them strength. Would you give them more credit if their discoverers claimed them to be eternal and beyond question? In your view, are there any truths that are eternal and beyond question?
User avatar
ktz
Posts: 169
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Truth

Post by ktz »

A_Seagull wrote: December 14th, 2018, 12:01 am
ktz wrote: December 13th, 2018, 9:58 pm

This an assertion is presented without justification. Nevermind that there's an entire body of work on justified true belief as the foundation of epistemology. You didn't present it alongside your assertion so let's just go ahead and dismiss it.
Then we can dismiss your 'blunders' too.

the "Seven Blunders of the World"?
Well, actually we can't justifiably dismiss the blunders on this basis, since we just dismissed the justification based on which the dismissal is based. Since the dismissal of these "blunders" is only justified by an assertion that we just dismissed, your new dismissal is no longer justified. But I imagine that could be a fairly common issue when dealing with someone who invokes the appeal to the stone or appeal to ridicule whenever they encounter an idea they disagree with.

Not to mention that your particular invocation of Hitchens' Razor misses the point he was trying to make in the first place -- the original idea is that "What can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens is making the case for the value of empiricism above all other forms of justification -- the original context is from an 2003 Slate article where he is attacking Mother Teresa as a fraud. What he is not trying to do is make a point about the necessity or sufficiency of an immediate presentation of justification, which appears to be the criteria upon which your dismissal is based. And a case can be made in the first place that Hitchens' Razor is not a well-considered idea in the first place, and highly prone to abuse in the service of smug validation.

Note that even if you weren't referencing Hitchens' Razor, and instead trying to reference the original Latin proverb, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur, the translation is closer to "What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously", which means something closer to admonishing someone who makes an unnecessarily gratuitous statement shouldn't be surprised when they get an unnecessarily gratuitous repudiation. It's a proverb, not a tautology of propositional logic.
Or do you want to try to 'justify' them? See if you can justify them without invoking an element of propaganda, naïve or otherwise.
Sure, I mean I already mentioned a few examples of where you can find the relevant philosophical conversation -- Kant, Aristotle, etc. If you are interested and open to considering the merits of ideas you presently disagree with, then I am happy to explore these topics with you. I won't rule out a productive conversation though it seems apparent that you will probably have to more clearly define what is and isn't naivete or propaganda in your eyes, since I highly doubt we share the same view on that point. Is Aristotle propaganda? Adam Smith? Deontology? Do they only become propaganda when when they support an idea that falls outside of your own subjective worldview, one that I suspect probably adheres only to the Chicago school of economic thought or some variant of objectivism?

However, it looks like Steve is trying to continue a more on-topic discussion here, and I don't want to let my passing reference hijack the whole conversation, so I'll start a new thread in the Ethics and Morality forum.
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Truth

Post by RJG »

h_k_s wrote:I have seen scientific so called laws and theories change so many times in my lifetime that I no longer give it any more credit than a body of inferences from another body of data.
The truths of Science rely upon the 'uncertain' nature of experiential objects/evidence. The truths of Science constantly evolve and change. The truths of Science are therefore fallible, and non-trustworthy to yield 'truth' ("true knowledge").

Steve3007 wrote:In your view, are there any truths that are eternal and beyond question?
Yes, the objective truths of logic/math are beyond question. For any attempt to deny them only defeats the validity of the attempt.

Truth hierarchy:
1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths
5. Non-truth -- via logical impossibilities

An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.

Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.

Subjective (#3) (“experientially derived”), and Religious (#4) truths are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful. Non-truths (#5) are not logically possible.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Fooloso4 »

RJG:
1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
Descartes foundationalism failed. Although he may be certain that he exists and certain that he has ideas or representations in his mind of things, how can he be certain that his ideas of things in the world are an accurate representations of things in the world? How can he even be certain that there are things in the world? This is the foundation of modern skepticism and solipsism. Any statement about anything in the world cannot be “absolutely true”.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Truth

Post by Eduk »

Any statement about anything in the world cannot be “absolutely true”.
It could, it just can't be proven absolutely. It can only be proven as best we can.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Truth

Post by RJG »

Fooloso4 wrote:
RJG wrote:1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
Descartes foundationalism failed.
Yes, correct! It (he) failed because his "I think" premise did not meet this critical level of certainty. As I explained in the OP of the thread "How does one find True Knowledge" (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15952) he made 3 fatal errors, which further led to his flawed dualistic perspective.

Fooloso4 wrote:Any statement about anything in the world cannot be “absolutely true”.
Not so. "Experiencing exists" (...or as Belindi interprets "happenings happen") is Descartes fateful missing undeniable/undoubtable "absolute truth".

'Experiencing' is IMPOSSIBLE to deny/doubt. For the mere act of denying/doubting only 'affirms' its existence. Therefore "experiencing exists" is ABSOLUTE (undeniable/undoubtable) and is the missing "first principle" that Descartes was searching for, but never found.

And it is from this starting seed, that we can THEN logically derive the "I" (the 'experiencer'). For without an experiencer, there could be no experiencing. So then, IF experiencing exists, then so MUST also an 'experiencer' (called "I").
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Fooloso4 »

Eduk:
Any statement about anything in the world cannot be “absolutely true”.
It could, it just can't be proven absolutely. It can only be proven as best we can.
Absolutely true is put in parenthesis because it refers to RJG’s definition - undeniable/undoubtable
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Truth

Post by Eduk »

Absolutely true is put in parenthesis because it refers to RJG’s definition - undeniable/undoubtable
Ah I see. Then yes there is nothing undoubtable, though I have my doubts about that.
Unknown means unknown.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Fooloso4 »

RJG:
It (he) failed because his "I think" premise did not meet this critical level of certainty. As I explained in the OP …
See below regarding what Descartes means by thinking.
Any statement about anything in the world cannot be “absolutely true”.
Not so. "Experiencing exists"
While it is certain that I experience, experience can tell us nothing certain about the world. In addition, it tells me nothing certain about any experiencing other than my own.
Therefore "experiencing exists" is ABSOLUTE (undeniable/undoubtable) and is the missing "first principle" that Descartes was searching for, but never found.
This demonstrates that you have not understood what Descartes means by thinking. From the Meditations:
But it will be said that these phenomena are false and that I am dreaming. Let it be so; still it is at least quite certain that it seems to me that I see light, that I hear noise and that I feel heat. That cannot be false; properly speaking it is what is in me called feeling;10 and used in this precise sense that is no other thing than thinking. (Meditation II).
RJG:

'Experiencing' is IMPOSSIBLE to deny/doubt. For the mere act of denying/doubting only 'affirms' its existence.

And this is why Descartes is correct when he says “I think therefore I am”. Thinking includes but is not limited to experience. The reason is simple - experience is not deductive, there is no therefore in experience, nothing is derived from experience itself. Doubt is not part of experience itself, but part of judgment. As you say:
And it is from this starting seed, that we can THEN logically derive the "I" (the 'experiencer').
We cannot logically derive the “I” from experience without the ability to think logically. We do not "experience" logic, we use it.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Truth

Post by RJG »

Fooloso4 wrote:Absolutely true is put in parenthesis because it refers to RJG’s definition - undeniable/undoubtable
Well, Mr. Fooloso4, if only you read what I wrote, then you would know that "absolute truth" refers to Descartes "first principle" of an undeniable/undoubtable truth. But if you didn't read what I wrote, then I'll excuse your ignorance.

Eduk wrote:Ah I see. Then yes there is nothing undoubtable, though I have my doubts about that.
But do you doubt 'experiencing' this doubting? If so, then do you also doubt the 'experiencing the doubting of this doubting? Wake up my friend!
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021