Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

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.
Eduk
Posts: 2251
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Truth

Post by Eduk » December 7th, 2018, 5:02 am

@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: 107
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Truth

Post by h_k_s » December 7th, 2018, 3:31 pm

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: 107
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Truth

Post by h_k_s » 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.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 107
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Truth

Post by h_k_s » December 7th, 2018, 3:35 pm

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: 5
Joined: November 28th, 2018, 9:59 pm

Re: Truth

Post by jkim0231 » December 9th, 2018, 11:43 am

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: 107
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Truth

Post by h_k_s » December 9th, 2018, 9:57 pm

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: 5
Joined: November 28th, 2018, 9:59 pm

Re: Truth

Post by jkim0231 » Yesterday, 3:03 am

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: 107
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Truth

Post by h_k_s » Yesterday, 10:33 pm

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: 107
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Truth

Post by h_k_s » Yesterday, 10:53 pm

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.

Post Reply