Happy New Year! The January Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species. Discuss it now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.)

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?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
ktz
Posts: 165
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Truth

Post by ktz » December 13th, 2018, 7:34 pm

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 » December 13th, 2018, 9:39 pm

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: 205
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Truth

Post by h_k_s » December 13th, 2018, 9:54 pm

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: 165
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Truth

Post by ktz » 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.
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 » December 14th, 2018, 12:01 am

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: 5685
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Truth

Post by Steve3007 » December 14th, 2018, 3:55 am

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: 165
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Truth

Post by ktz » December 14th, 2018, 9:18 am

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
Moderator
Posts: 1181
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Truth

Post by RJG » December 14th, 2018, 9:53 am

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
Moderator
Posts: 3557
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Fooloso4 » December 14th, 2018, 10:52 am

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: 2371
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Truth

Post by Eduk » December 14th, 2018, 11:48 am

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
Moderator
Posts: 1181
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Truth

Post by RJG » December 14th, 2018, 11:59 am

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
Moderator
Posts: 3557
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Fooloso4 » December 14th, 2018, 12:41 pm

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: 2371
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Truth

Post by Eduk » December 14th, 2018, 12:42 pm

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
Moderator
Posts: 3557
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Fooloso4 » December 14th, 2018, 12:47 pm

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
Moderator
Posts: 1181
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Truth

Post by RJG » December 14th, 2018, 1:03 pm

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