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
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Truth

Post by Eduk »

chewybrian too many genius moments to pick from ☺️
Newme thank you counsel 😊 I like the santa naughty and nice list.
Too many arguments on this forum are false dichotomies.
Then again we must always be careful not to commit the fallacy fallacy.
Unknown means unknown.
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 »

Newme wrote: December 6th, 2018, 6:14 pm
h_k_s wrote: December 1st, 2018, 8:48 pm Congrats @Eduk . For the commission of the fallacy of verbosity you will get to be my alpha-test of the foe function. I generally weed people out based on the fallacies they commit.
Has this forum been updated with the newest logical fallacy filter or identifier?
If not, who would like the job?

Image
So did you just butt into a conversation, no pun intended ?!

On this forum the iggy function works off the enemy list. It is very easy to utilize.

I do not tolerate lies, damn lies, statistics, sophistry nor fallacies.

Aristotle's list of fallacies is a good starting point for everyone.

These lists get extremely long in modern 21st Century versions. Stanford University and even Wikipedia have multi page fallacy lists.

Everyone needs to know all of them.

You also need to.
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 »

jkim0231 wrote: December 2nd, 2018, 10:03 am I have a question. What is philosophy(non-rhetorical)? It seems to be that it is a pursuit of something that is less false? (something similar)

For example, I had a chance to read the introduction to Sartre's Being and Nothingness. He explained the theory that an object's true essence being beyond the manifestations of the object had embarrassed modern philosophy for its critical problems, and that the new way for philosophers came to consider this essence was to see it as the whole of all it's manifestations. (example of pursuit of some kind of better theories)

Maybe I have the wrong notion for "truth" for this thread, but is not truth something that can be verified? But as I read in this thread, I understand how truth may not be verified but by language, but then confirmation by belief seems persuading too. Then what is it that philosophers pursue, when they formulate and publish their thoughts? Is it something different from what I asked above? That they pursue something that better explain topics in their field? If with the belief that truth is an aspect of language, what are philosophers that believe this in pursuing?

From this it seems that acknowledgement of some apple by a monkey-man leads him to grab it and eat it, had "truth" anything to do in this incident(without me intervening to talk about it)?

As I wrote, some ideas tossed in this thread became more clear. I've been regurgitating on them, but any input will be welcome.
Youre going to need to read more than just one book to get a sense of what philosophy is.
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 »

Newme wrote: December 6th, 2018, 6:36 pm
Eduk wrote: December 6th, 2018, 6:26 pm @Newme it reminds me of homer saying 'takes one to know one'.
Yes. :)
For this moment, I’ll sub in as logical fallacy judge...
Eduk, I hereby drop the charges of you committing logical fallacy.
Defendent merely posted comments maybe because it wasn’t referenced yo anyone but as a general comment.
Then plaintiff insisted people must always be speaking to one person and suggested that anyone who didn’t like it was going to be on his naughty list.

Image
Don't quit your day job.
User avatar
jkim0231
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: November 28th, 2018, 9:59 pm

Re: Truth

Post by jkim0231 »

h_k_s wrote: December 7th, 2018, 3:33 pm
jkim0231 wrote: December 2nd, 2018, 10:03 am I have a question. What is philosophy(non-rhetorical)? It seems to be that it is a pursuit of something that is less false? (something similar)

For example, I had a chance to read the introduction to Sartre's Being and Nothingness. He explained the theory that an object's true essence being beyond the manifestations of the object had embarrassed modern philosophy for its critical problems, and that the new way for philosophers came to consider this essence was to see it as the whole of all it's manifestations. (example of pursuit of some kind of better theories)

Maybe I have the wrong notion for "truth" for this thread, but is not truth something that can be verified? But as I read in this thread, I understand how truth may not be verified but by language, but then confirmation by belief seems persuading too. Then what is it that philosophers pursue, when they formulate and publish their thoughts? Is it something different from what I asked above? That they pursue something that better explain topics in their field? If with the belief that truth is an aspect of language, what are philosophers that believe this in pursuing?

From this it seems that acknowledgement of some apple by a monkey-man leads him to grab it and eat it, had "truth" anything to do in this incident(without me intervening to talk about it)?

As I wrote, some ideas tossed in this thread became more clear. I've been regurgitating on them, but any input will be welcome.
Youre going to need to read more than just one book to get a sense of what philosophy is.

I mentioned some lines in the book to explain my question. My question is not "what is philosophy?" My question regards the topic of the thread.
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 »

jkim0231 wrote: December 9th, 2018, 11:43 am
h_k_s wrote: December 7th, 2018, 3:33 pm
Youre going to need to read more than just one book to get a sense of what philosophy is.

I mentioned some lines in the book to explain my question. My question is not "what is philosophy?" My question regards the topic of the thread.
Writing (posts) requires special skills to avoid confusion.
User avatar
jkim0231
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: November 28th, 2018, 9:59 pm

Re: Truth

Post by jkim0231 »

h_k_s wrote: December 7th, 2018, 3:33 pm
jkim0231 wrote: December 2nd, 2018, 10:03 am I have a question. What is philosophy(non-rhetorical)? It seems to be that it is a pursuit of something that is less false? (something similar)

For example, I had a chance to read the introduction to Sartre's Being and Nothingness. He explained the theory that an object's true essence being beyond the manifestations of the object had embarrassed modern philosophy for its critical problems, and that the new way for philosophers came to consider this essence was to see it as the whole of all it's manifestations. (example of pursuit of some kind of better theories)

Maybe I have the wrong notion for "truth" for this thread, but is not truth something that can be verified? But as I read in this thread, I understand how truth may not be verified but by language, but then confirmation by belief seems persuading too. Then what is it that philosophers pursue, when they formulate and publish their thoughts? Is it something different from what I asked above? That they pursue something that better explain topics in their field? If with the belief that truth is an aspect of language, what are philosophers that believe this in pursuing?

From this it seems that acknowledgement of some apple by a monkey-man leads him to grab it and eat it, had "truth" anything to do in this incident(without me intervening to talk about it)?

As I wrote, some ideas tossed in this thread became more clear. I've been regurgitating on them, but any input will be welcome.
Youre going to need to read more than just one book to get a sense of what philosophy is.

h_k_s wrote: December 9th, 2018, 9:57 pm
jkim0231 wrote: December 9th, 2018, 11:43 am

I mentioned some lines in the book to explain my question. My question is not "what is philosophy?" My question regards the topic of the thread.
Writing (posts) requires special skills to avoid confusion.
I have noticed that Philosophy in general pays too much attention to language in many cases. So I always try to simplify any language that I use in any situation including Philosophy. It is a procedure I learned from dealing with international business experts who are not necessarily very well grounded in the English language.
I'd say, the language in philosophy is inevitable, that in simplifying the language, you do not make philosophy simple. The language of philosophy, is an inevitable result of simplification. However, this is pure speculation based on considering many other sciences which also are not free from simple language.

I thank you for your interest in my aptitude. However, I would rather appreciate replies on the topic, "truth"(you had some good ones about language), rather than your opinions of my qualifications. I could, for instance, mention that confusion results from underdeveloped thought process, but that would be off the topic as well as probably being false, and would only suggest my inability to condone others, which is very often a sign of sense of inferiority of self. I believe this to be important in attaining better understanding, since one is able to consider many more possibilities when he is free from such impulses that make it difficult for him to accept different thoughts that challenge his own.

@H_k_s, I will clarify my post for you.

1. I mentioned a part I read in Sartre as an example of philosophers' will towards better theories. There efforts seemed to suggest their belief of something more true.

THE QUESTION: what are philosopher's pursuing when they try to change theories to make them better(they seem to be intent on avoiding fallacies), while sometimes proposing truth to be a thing of language?

2. But as @hereandnow mentioned, truth is a trait of language. (This was a new thought. I understood it, and accepted its plausibility. Since, I always know that many beliefs I hold are just that--beliefs, I have no problem considering my question with this new idea.) It did, however, complicate things as I thought about my original question.
3. Then there are ideas about belief, and how truth may not be bounded by language. The monkey-man example is my thought process on trying to determine the nature of truth.
4. So, in formulating my question, I thought about the initial debate on the nature of truth.
5. Consul's post that followed answered my question.
jkim0231 wrote: December 2nd, 2018, 6:47 pm
Consul wrote: November 30th, 2018, 4:37 pm

"I'd like to emphasize, cannot indeed overemphasize, the tentative nature of what I present here. Philosophers may not like to admit it, but fashion is an important factor in philosophy. And once fashion comes in, objectivity goes. The reason is rather obvious: philosophy lacks the wonderful decision procedures that are present in logic and mathematics (proofs) and the natural sciences (observation and experiment, together with mathematics). Unfortunately there seems to be no remedy for this situation, and those who thought there is a remedy, such as the logical positivists, learnt bitter lessons. But since this is so, we philosophers should be appropriately modest."

(Armstrong, D. M. Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. p. ix)

"One moral that I draw is that in the fields of philosophy and religion there is no knowledge. We can only know what our beliefs are. For consider: In these fields there is no consensus of opinion about what is true. People who are intellectually competent to discuss these matters, who have genuinely studied the considerations for and against some view—the existence of God or the existence of universals—who know the arguments, who have read and understood the books and the articles—find themselves in complete disagreement. Surely we should not claim knowledge in these matters. We all have our hopes. Perhaps some of us do have knowledge about these difficult matters. But how can we have any rational assurance that we do have knowledge? It is prudent, and suitable to our nature, to claim no more than belief."

(Armstrong, D. M. "A Naturalist Program: Epistemology and Ontology." Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 73/2 (1999): 77-89. p. 82)
This answers my question
This post by Consul also reiterated the importance of humility in all ventures since,--this is also a famous saying too--the more you know, the more you realize you don't know anything.

@h_k_z I hope this clears any confusions you have had.
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 »

I'm not sure that we totally resolved whether truth asserts existence or whether truth is merely a function of language interpretation.
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 »

A is B.

This strongly implies that A exists and that it possesses the quality of B.

A is not B.

This strongly implies that A exists and that it does not possess the quality of B.

In either case there is a strong suggestion of existence for A whatever A is.

A is an object. A must exist to possess any qualities at all, or even to lack them.
User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1401
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Truth

Post by Newme »

h_k_s wrote: December 7th, 2018, 3:31 pm
Newme wrote: December 6th, 2018, 6:14 pm
Has this forum been updated with the newest logical fallacy filter or identifier?
If not, who would like the job?
So did you just butt into a conversation, no pun intended ?!

On this forum the iggy function works off the enemy list. It is very easy to utilize.

I do not tolerate lies, damn lies, statistics, sophistry nor fallacies.

Aristotle's list of fallacies is a good starting point for everyone.

These lists get extremely long in modern 21st Century versions. Stanford University and even Wikipedia have multi page fallacy lists.

Everyone needs to know all of them.

You also need to.
I agree that knowing logical fallacy is important. But what has that got to do with when you got upset with the other poster for not quoting anyone in his post & suggesting his post just be read? That’s not logical fallacy. Maybe your list of fallacies needs to be checked over?

I have posted on various forums for about 8 years and have never utilized the “ignore” function because I find that being cowardly as if there are some perspectives of truth one refuses to see. It’s essentially being so conceited and acting as if one knows all and the future to claim someone else will always have NOTHING to teach them.
“Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering.” - Epicurus
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 »

Newme wrote: December 12th, 2018, 9:09 pm
h_k_s wrote: December 7th, 2018, 3:31 pm

So did you just butt into a conversation, no pun intended ?!

On this forum the iggy function works off the enemy list. It is very easy to utilize.

I do not tolerate lies, damn lies, statistics, sophistry nor fallacies.

Aristotle's list of fallacies is a good starting point for everyone.

These lists get extremely long in modern 21st Century versions. Stanford University and even Wikipedia have multi page fallacy lists.

Everyone needs to know all of them.

You also need to.
I agree that knowing logical fallacy is important. But what has that got to do with when you got upset with the other poster for not quoting anyone in his post & suggesting his post just be read? That’s not logical fallacy. Maybe your list of fallacies needs to be checked over?

I have posted on various forums for about 8 years and have never utilized the “ignore” function because I find that being cowardly as if there are some perspectives of truth one refuses to see. It’s essentially being so conceited and acting as if one knows all and the future to claim someone else will always have NOTHING to teach them.
There are loads and loads of people who cannot think straight and they belong on iggy lists.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Truth

Post by Eduk »

Why do you think Newme doesn't put you on an ignore list h_k_s ?

They have already carefully explained first why your complaint and response to me suggesting that you simply read the forum posts makes no sense and secondly why even in the face of nonsense ignoring someone is a conceited thing to do.

To respond ignoing both of Newme points with an ad hom (a fallacy) is surely too ironic?
Unknown means unknown.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Truth

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Truth

Post by chewybrian »

Newme wrote: December 12th, 2018, 9:09 pm I have posted on various forums for about 8 years and have never utilized the “ignore” function because I find that being cowardly as if there are some perspectives of truth one refuses to see. It’s essentially being so conceited and acting as if one knows all and the future to claim someone else will always have NOTHING to teach them.
I agree strongly with this position. Even the blowhardiest blowhard might have some sound and interesting principles to communicate, though they may lack the skills to get their point across in a way others can easily understand, or with tact such that others are not put off by their tone. To ignore someone forever because you disagree with them, or are somehow offended by their tone today, is a cop out.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
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 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.
The Pattern Paradigm - yer can't beat it!
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