»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
What is truth?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
What is truth? |
|
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash 
|
Gang: I think some of the discussion in another recent thread warrants our attention. I do not believe that the "personal truth" many assert can rightly be called "truth", but rather, is mere opinion (some more sophisticated that others). If we speak in terms of "my truth" and "your truth", and this is all there can ever be, then I would have to conclude that there really is no such as thing as truth and, resultantly, there can be no justifiable standards for theological leanings, philosophical positions, morality, art, poetry, political opinions, or basic family life. If truth exists, we must be able to test it. Granted, in order to test it, we must be in agreement that our observations, to some degree (even if the standard is nothing more than an "average reasonable person" standard), must be objective. In my opinion, if we confuse truth from either the most sophisticated opinions or the knee-jerk reactions to feelings evoked by cursory observations, then we are opening the door to potentially gross error. Such a practice not only damages the quality of religious practice and philosophical thought, but will also, invariably, lead to a decline in quality in art and poetry, naive political philosophies, poor and ineffective education, and conflict in social and family life. While I do not believe this thread will result in the revelation of the elusive answer to the question, "What is truth?", my hope is that we, as a group, are able to make strong arguments for what truth is not. Jim |
||
| © Copyright 2002 Jim Bouder - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
I agree that personal truth is merely opinion, a best guess based on the evidence, but I don’t see how any other truth can be any different, apart from the number of opinions that are involved. Even with an absolute consensus truth still remains largely a conjecture liable to change and biased by interpretation, faced with such truth personal truth starts to seem a little more palatable, if not downright preferable. You maintain that a confusion concerning the nature of truth is damaging to art, poetry and philosophy, I believe such confusion is, in many ways the creator and life blood that drives them. It’s the not knowing that makes life interesting. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think truth is more in feeling than in thought. Thoughts are just lackeys of feelings that cannot read as well or run as fast. The more we turn around and make them as leaders the farther we are moving backwards from the truth, because our minds can simply not outstrip our heart, they are less current truth, but yet sometimes when they try more to hurry they become even less accurate in haste and their original wisdom was much better. Philosophy is thought involving, but above all is it not a love, "love of wisdom" is not love the hand behind it? Most of the time it seems our frictioning differences just lie in our complex securities and machinery mediums incompatablitly and ways of try to translate while we strive so harshly to translate we become sometimes more detached from the core of what we are actually trying to translate, and woe betide. Therefore If I were to call something truth as a general just based on it having more truth in it as I trow, I would say truth is the feeling that is the touch behind all this machinery and mechanics, where we are more common than in the machinery and mechanics. I hope that makes some sense  [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-25-2002 04:35 PM).] |
||
|
brian madden Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 4374ireland |
Truth is certainly subjective, certain truths can not be disputed e.g the sky is blue, that chair has four legs. Human emotions taints or colours perception. Say four people were in a bank and witness a robber, each would tell the story differently. THe basic facts might be similar, but there might be subtle changes. Which story is the truth? one witness might have hid in fear and tried to cover up his cowardise, so he makes up what he did not see form the previous witnesses recounts of the event. Is his story then a lie even if it is the same as everyone else's. The sum of the angles of that rectangle is too monstrous to contemplate! |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
The Sky is blue and that chair has four legs? Blue is the minds interpretation (opinion??) of the reflected light captured on the photosensitive parts of the eye and transmitted to the brain as electric impulses. Blue is a label that isn’t applicable for everything or body that views the sky, a dog may see the sky as grey, people with colour blindness or changes in colour perception may see it as green. The sky isn’t always blue, it can be grey, red, orange and black, it’s only blue when, and while, you see it as blue. Numbers are ghosts, figments of mans imagination to make what they perceive as truth easier to explain. The legs themselves are as subject to your senses’ interpretation as the colour blue, as is the chair, for all you know the chair, it’s legs and the sky itself may not even exist. My opinion is that they do (probably) exist and I think Brad would say that it was useful to think that way too. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Toad: I agree that a certain degree of doubt or, more correctly, an unwillingness to accept the truth of certain widely held conventions has resulted in many outstanding accomplishments. In philosophy, Socrates and Plato destroyed Sophistry and Social Darwinism (while I don't believe in its validity) shaped Western thought like no other. In art, Kandinsky and ... damn ... can't remember his name ... the Sunflower guy who cut off his ear ... helped create new conventions in the appreciation of art. Similarly, poets who pushed the bar of convention have, in some cased, created very fine works. The problem lies in those who shirk convention in preference for their own "personal truths". In philosophy, this can lead to sophistry, in art it can lead to a mess, and in poetry and art it can lead to an acceptance of mediocrity. The most definitely stifles progress ... not only in the art and poetry worlds ... but uncouraging such behavior stifles the growth of the artist and poet. THAT is what I meant by the potential for harm. There are far fewer Shakespeares, Blakes, and Thomases in the world than there are mediocre poets with a potential for turning out great work. The question is, do we encourage their growth with careful guidance or stifle it by saying, "Well, if you are okay with it, I'm okay with it ... if you think its good, I think its good ... your opinion is no better than mine, so who am I to suggest changes"? Essorant and Brian: Don't confuse individual experience with "truth". Brian ... of course the testimony of several eye-witnesses is likely to differ from witness to witness. But an eye-witness account is only one piece of direct evidence that a judge and jury consider in determining whether the alleged perpetrator committed the crime. The legal reasoning process in criminal courts (US courts anyway) attempts to determine whether or not guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" can be ascertained. If one eyewitness lies, does that mean he is not saying something that isn't true? An example ... if one eye-witness is asked, "Did you see Brian at the scene of the crime, holding a gun on the teller", and Essorant answers, "Yes" even though she didn't see you, she may be saying something that is true. This may be the case (1) if other eye-witnesses DID see you and reported it correctly and/or (2) if physical evidence places you at the scene of the crime (hair, your fingerprints on a bullet you used to shoot out a light, a footprint from your Bruno Malis, etc.) and/or (3) whether circumstancial evidence may erradicate your testimony of innocence (you say you were with your girlfriend, but your girlfriend was with Toad, for example). In legal proceedings, the "truth" is reached by carefully weighing both the direct and indirect evidence that supports or fails to support the charge. If "reasonable doubt" meant "any doubt", then the "truth" would certainly be unreachable. While it may not be truly objective truth, I think it is fair to say it is truth's ugly stepsister who isn't quite as ugly as her cousin, "personal opinion" and her VERY ugly sister "knee-jerk". Essorant: I cannot accept your position as valid. Truth is found in feeling and not in knowledge? If we weigh ourselves down in knowledge, we slow our progress? Feelings are superior to thought in finding "the truth"? I think the opposite is true. If we let our feelings run away with our thoughts, the result is a lack of progress or even harm to self and others. Did Edison invent the lightbulb because he "felt" it into existence? He may have finally achieved his goal, in part, because he was passionate about his work, but ultimately, he achieved his goal because of careful thought, planning, genious and discipline. Or was OJ acquitted because a jury carefully followed the facts presented to them and weighed them against the testimony offered by the defense? No! They allowed the feelings roused in them by Simpson's defense team to override their careful examination of a tremendous amount of circumstancial and physical evidence that contradicted their verdict VERY convincingly. Allowing feelings to preside over thought leads to dark rooms and murderers walking free, folks. That's not the world I want to live in. Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Separation of thought and feelings is like trying to separate the water from the river. Remove one or the other, and nothing is left. Rivers are water, and feelings are thought. Both thought and feeling originate in the brain, not in the heart. Else, getting a heart transplant from Mary would have profound effects on my social life.  Truth #1 - You are able to breathe normally right now because the room where you sit has air and oxygen. This kind of truth falls under the same umbrella as "the sky is blue" or "that chair has four legs." It is an empirical truth. Truth #2 - The movement of molecules in a gas (like that air you're breathing right now) is non-random, but determined by the very complex (and little understood) mechanics of Chaos Theory. We cannot determine the path of any single molecule, but we can "predict" the path of a group of molecules. The larger the group, the more precise our prediction will be. We know, for example, that there is a statistical possibility that every oxygen molecule in your room will simultaneously boom, bounce, careen its way into the kitchen - in which case, you will asphyxiate in, oh, about two minutes. Fortunately, you have a much better chance of winning the lottery in all 50 states on the same day than you do of suffocating in your office. Truth #1 is an empirical truth, but because of Truth #2, it isn't an absolute truth. I honestly don't know if absolute truth exists, but I am fairly convinced, if it does, it is likely beyond our perceptions and probably beyond our understanding. Physics rather strongly suggests that every possible empirical truth is really, like the air in your room, a statistical truth. Two plus two equals four MOST of the time (but not within the event horizon of a singularity), so we call it a Truth. Empirical truths make life livable. I don't keep an oxygen tank next to my bed at night, because I assume all those air molecules are going to stick around just as they have for the past 52 years. Of course, a single oxygen tank wouldn't necessarily disrupt my life, but if I started taking precaution for ALL the statistical truths that aren't absolute truths, I'd never find time to actually live. The air will remain breathable, the sun will come up, and gravity will continue to make me pay for all that chocolate I've been eating. Without some faith in those truths, life would be very different and probably quite impossible. I really see no valid reason why subjective truth shouldn't be treated the same as empirical truth. A subjective truth can never be an absolute truth, but that doesn't mean it can't still be useful. Ethics is necessarily subjective, but there seems to be statistical support for "Honesty is the best policy." Accepting that as a "truth" makes life a little easier to live. When situations arise that otherwise present no easy response, falling back on ethical precepts like honesty is often the only answer available. Indeed, I suspect that most of us depend on subjective truth to make life livable every bit as much as we depend on empirical truth. Truth, in short, is what works. No truth, empirical or subjective, is ever absolute, so we can never be quite certain it will always work. And, because no truth is ever absolute, all truths should occasionally be questioned and possibly reassessed. Not to make them less of a truth, but to perhaps make them more useful. Jim, the artist you're thinking of was Vincent van Gogh. And while that's not an absolute certainty, I'm pretty sure it's the truth. |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
quote: Finding out what truth is not would seem, at first, to be the best way to go, given that truth is so hard to pin down, unfortunately the endeavour gets bogged down with the same things that mires the search for an absolute truth. It rained yesterday. Can’t be an absolute truth unless it rained everywhere simultaneously yesterday, so lets narrow it down. It rained in London yesterday, well London is a big place and that simultaneous argument is going to bite us if we aren’t careful. It rained in Chelsea, London yesterday. There that’s nailed it down, or has it? For a person in Chelsea London yesterday that statement could be classed as an absolute truth, of course he/she doesn’t know whether it rained on the whole of Chelsea or just in the places they were at the time. For the sake of argument let’s say that it did rain in Chelsea. Now we have our absolute truth, or do we? The person in Chelsea on whom it rained certainly does but every person outside Chelsea is relying on the word/ability/honesty of the person on whom it rained to decide an absolute truth. All they can say for sure is that, in their opinion, it’s probable that it rained in Chelsea London yesterday, which isn’t an absolute truth it’s an opinion or interpretation of the available facts. If there were two baskets one for ‘absolute truth’ and one for ‘not absolute truth’ anyone outside Chelsea would be filing that statement in the ‘not’ basket. Looking at the empirical evidence based upon who put what into what basket we have to conclude that the statement is in fact not an absolute truth, By dint of the fact that most people filed the statement in the not basket. So here we finally have it - definitely not an absolute truth - the only minor hitch is that it actually may have rained in Chelsea yesterday. Obviously we can’t let that happen, we just turned a truth into a falsehood, let’s reassess using a bit of common sense. Based upon the fact that a whole bunch of people claim it rained yesterday in Chelsea, and they witnessed it, we’re going to use common sense to assume it is in fact an absolute truth. Fine so now we have it our absolute truth, the only minor hitch is it can only be a belief or opinion based on our interpretation of the evidence. Let’s scratch the whole raining and Chelsea thing and choose an honest to goodness 100% solid gold example of something that’s patently not true. Dragons exist. I’m hitting the common sense button and filing this one straight into the ‘not true’ basket, now we have something that’s absolutely not true, the only minor hitch is that they may actually exist on a small planet called Umphal. ( Take a right at the lights and then straight upwards for several generations and it’s on your left). Obviously we can’t let that happen, we just turned a truth into a falsehood, let’s reassess using scientifically proven methods, calculating the probability, however small, of dragons actually existing in the vastness of everything, we conclude that it is a possibility that dragons actually exist. Fine now we have our absolute truth, the only minor hitch is that this is only our opinion based on our interpretation of the evidence. The allocation of truth-values is hard work, you can never be sure which basket to file things in or whether you’re going to have to re-file them in the other at a later stage. Let’s make a workable truth rule using Ron’s closing comment - If a truth is useful at a specific point in time lets call that ‘The Truth’ until something better comes along. We may as well give it a name too… how about Pragmatism? The only minor hitch is that Pragmatism is only a belief or opinion based on our interpretation of the evidence. [This message has been edited by Toad (08-24-2002 09:06 PM).] |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello all, I'm gonna have to side with Ron on this one, we perhaps don't have the equation for the whole truth but our possible wrongs are perhaps right enough to keep some sort of organziation to humanity thereby making it possible for all of us to survive and "progress"(though progress is a very debatable thing, for the term progression implies that we know how our end result will be). However, in my opinion, the truth is not a debatable thing. Truth is the truth....geesh, how profound am I? I should copyright that statement. or better still in terms of describing it in language, truth is something that is infallibly correct....(truth descibes itself?)...now if that statement is true, then there can be no debate on truth itself but rather only on what is true. And that which is true are pieces of the truth. What is true? Perhaps the existence of all things material or otherwise in relation to all things material or otherwise. Basically what is here and why is it here? And of course because we have a limited scope of existence, both physically and mentally, we know very very little to be true or have a very narrow view of the truth. ie. We know there are things that exist which we call atoms, but whoop-di-doo, that's like finding a flake of sand on the beach This may not bring us closer to the whole truth but knowing this does give us more information about the environment we live in, (which one could argue is progress towards knowing the truth), which is quite helpful in terms of survival. But there is one fraction the truth that I know of...and that is I really don't know much at all, which is a good thing....imagine me controlling the universe!!!??!?!?...a scary premise indeed Thanks for making me think, I really don't know how much I contributed to this discussion but nonetheless it was a thought provoking read. Thanks all, Trevor |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
quote: I think progression, or the possible lack of it, was one of the points that Jim was making in his original post and as it’s very debatable it might be worthwhile doing just that to see if we can kill, or at least visit, a few dragons. It seems that so far we’re pretty much in agreement that truth is transient; that it changes with new knowledge and usefulness (I have some reservations on pragmatism but I’ll save those for another time). As Trevor rightly says progression infers a movement towards something; a journey at the end of which there will be an ultimate destination. Some would say that destination is in fact truth itself, but given that truth is transient we can never be sure that the destination we arrive at is the final stop on the journey. Some time ago in these forums I used an analogy of how we arrive at truth it seemed to work well and may be useful to resurrect. Truth is like a railroad, it has a starting point, or station, that is the first understanding or explanation of truth as we know it. At some point new track is added and down the line a new station is created, this new station is now as close to truth as we can possibly get. However it isn’t long before new track is laid and the station of truth moves a little bit further down the line. There may be a point when no more track is laid and we can finally say that we’ve reached the end of the line but we can never be sure that new track won’t be added and another station of truth will appear. Now we have the progression; the transience of truth we can return to Jim’s original point of how progression can be stifled by a reluctance to investigate truth or the belief in the wrong type of truth. On the railroad of truth there are many stations and as the train wanders down the track people occasionally find one of those stations that they like the look of and get off the train. Those people have arrived at their individual version of truth, it was built on sound reasoning and at one point was the closest thing to absolute truth you could get. Some never re-board the train before it departs, they’re happy with the truth they have and feel no inclination to visit any stations further down the line. Some, convinced that this station of truth isn’t as good as the last one they were at, catch the first train back down the line. Most re-board the train and the train heads on to the next station in search of their idea of truth. At the next station the same thing happens, some stay, some go back, but some always push on towards the end of the line. These stations of individual truth sprout towns of belief and the people that live in them give them names so people will know they have got there when they arrive. They have funny names too, one is called communism another Christianity and one, strangely enough is called Herebedragons, it’s a small town and the people who live there are said to be a little strange, but the train still stops there. Jim seems to be worried that people aren’t visiting enough stations and towns, he’s not asking them to permanently move, he just wants them to visit other places and try and understand the history and reasons why they were built. They can always make the return journey if they don’t like what they find. Where do philosophers fit into all this? Some would say that they’re the gang laying the tracks way out at the end of the line but I think they only work there on a temporary basis. Most of the time they’re the hobos riding the train back and forth visiting every station but happier to travel than to arrive. Sorry for the tangent, next stop reality. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Truth is not: ds;lfkzsf;oiefjdlkvn;selva;ifgnsdlkfno;svnodkfheoif In order for something to be true, it must first be understandable. |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
quote: Nice attempt to muddy the water with linguistics Brad but I don’t think it works. The above gibberish isn’t, I agree, an example of truth, however it may be an attempt to describe a truth but it’s obviously going to fail because the language used is unrecognisable. The sky is blue. This may not be true either, it is however an attempt to describe truth but the truth and attempts to describe truth aren’t the same. Perhaps a more serious problem with your statement is the inference that truth cannot exist without an entity to understand it, taking that even further would suggest that a truth does not exist until it is understood. That would result in the conclusion that gravity couldn’t exist without an entity to understand it (before the advent of man) or it didn’t exist, even with such an entity, before it was understood. I’ve a suspicion that isn’t quite what you mean, I think you mean that the description or explanation of truth has to make sense or it’s simply not useful. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Interesting. I'm not at all surprised some would question Truth because of humanity's imperfect perceptions; i.e., any Truth is an interpretation. I was much more surprised to read that all those people outside Chelsea were relying on the word/ability/honesty of others to define Truth, and Brad pretty much blew me away with the implications of his short little post. I just flipped a coin and, before looking, immediately covered it. There is a statistical certainty the coin landed either heads up or tails up. Let's take a look. It's heads. Is that a Truth? Was that a Truth before I looked? Is it a Truth even if you don't believe me? Does it become less of a Truth a hundred years from now when we discover a previously imperceptible dimension where coins always land on their insides? What I'm reading in this thread is the old "What sound does a falling tree make if no one is there to hear it?" quandary. Does Truth depend on our ability to verify it? To understand it? Put another way, does mankind invent Truth? Or do we discover it? |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Ron The Chelsea phenomenon isn’t hard to understand, there are so many truths possible that without a reliance on the word/ability/honesty of others our truths would be limited to only those things we experienced and understood personally. I’ve never seen an atom, I’ve never seen a black hole either, all I have to go on is the word of others and their ability in a particular field, if I trust their honesty then I’ll form an opinion based upon the evidence they give me. I saw a pink elephant This statement from an alcoholic would be rejected along with the truth that pink elephants exist. I saw a pink elephant From the Professor of Elephant Studies at the African University of Animal Behaviour would possibly be more plausible, unless of course he was an alcoholic or compulsive liar. Seeing is believing, but belief isn’t quite the same as truth because I don’t have to see it for it to be true, or do I? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I understand, Toad. And agree. But doesn't that have more to do with the usefulness of a Truth than with the existence of Truth? For it to be useful to us, a Truth must be at least tentatively accepted and, agreeing with Brad, it must be at least partially understood. But are either of those necessary for the existence of Truth? Does disbelieving in a black hole change the nature of the universe? Does failing to understand the math keep you from being sucked into its event horizon? Put another way, is it possible to separate Truth from verification? |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Yes, no, no, no, yes. (but not necessarily in that order) Truth is hard to quantify because it’s actually two things, one the actual existence and the other the description, understanding and our explanation of that existence. Separation of Truth (the actuality) from truth (our understanding of the actuality) is essential, without such a separation false truths become absolutes and instead of laying track we start ripping it up. |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hi all, TOAD: "It seems that so far we’re pretty much in agreement that truth is transient; that it changes with new knowledge and usefulness (I have some reservations on pragmatism but I’ll save those for another time)." I disagree. I don't believe truth to be transient but rather a constant even if that constant is the defining "order" of chaos.ie. The truth of the universe is that it is the result of random and undetermined events. Now with this in mind what is true can still be transient but the whole truth remains constant. "Truth is like a railroad, it has a starting point, or station, that is the first understanding or explanation of truth as we know it." I like the analogy of a railroad but I think it is important to seperate, "truth as we know it" from the actual truth. Like I said in an earlier post, truth is an infallible correctness, and for once I'm actually gonna stick by what I said, and as we all realize, truth as we know it moves with the swiftness and accuracy of a man's hand as it digs for a lit cigarette he dropped on his lap while driving on the highway "At some point new track is added and down the line a new station is created, this new station is now as close to truth as we can possibly get." But that's if you are assuming that we form the tracks rather than just move foward on them. Perhaps the tracks and station have always been there and we just have to find the train and fuel to take us there. ie. we know that there is more knowledge to be gained, (there is already track laid), that will give us a new understanding into the nature of things (there is already other stations built). So its not a matter of building a truth but rather travelling on it, not so much a matter of being on a train, but rather finding a way to move it forward. And what we all are trying to find on this journey; "who" is the monopolizing railroad tycoon and why did "he" build the tracks? "Sorry for the tangent, next stop reality." Make sure you write down the directions so the rest of us can get there too BRAD: "Truth is not: ds;lfkzsf;oiefjdlkvn;selva;ifgnsdlkfno;svnodkfheoif In order for something to be true, it must first be understandable." For arguements sake lets say that your statement is true. Yet your random typing existed before its explanation, and the explanation existed before we read it...before we understood what is true it existed in the form of your random typing and its attached statement. Perhaps, your statement is true but what I think would be a more accurate statement is, for us to percieve what is true, we must first be able to understand it...rather than we create what is true through our understanding. I don't think we decide what is true but rather realize it. We can not know what we can not percieve, and we can not understand what we do not know. But if we seperate what is true and human comprehension of what is true, then something that is true can exist without us understanding it. I may not understand that meteors fall from the sky, I may never see a meteor fall from the sky and I may not be able to explain why they do so but that will not lessen my chances of getting hit by one...because the truth of meteors and their relativeity to my life exists without me even knowing it. RON: "Put another way, does mankind invent Truth? Or do we discover it?" Does the glass tank a fish inhabits only exist after it runs into the glass? "Put another way, is it possible to separate Truth from verification?" What kind of a loaded question is this!!! Can nothing exist? Sure but there will be nothing there to prove it. I think in terms of what humans are capable of it is impossible for us to realize the truth without being able to verify the truth...Though I still believe that this may not lessen what the real truth is, only us being able to verify it. I guess we can have faith in what we feel to be true..ie, religions... but without some experience to make one "feel" there is a god (which is a form of verification), then there can be no thought on whether or not there is a god. There's more but I'm out of gas. But anyways, that's all I can muster up right now. Thanks for all the interesting reads. Trevor |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Trevor Truth (the actuality) is constant, truth (our understanding of the actuality) is transient (see my last post  )-------------------------------- EDIT.. That's only my opinion of course, it sounded like I was writing it in stone instead of wandering about in the dark, darn language I'll get the hang of it some day. -------------------------------- With regard to the laying of track, it is indeed possible the track was already there, it’s only my understanding of the railroad that I was describing, but all that would signify is that the one(s) who laid it are susceptible to the same mistakes. There are a whole heap of spurs and branch lines that lead to dead ends which seemed good ideas at the time. The train of thought doesn’t turn down them too often but strangely enough the hobos still visit them. The ultimate destination for every traveller is the town they want to get to and feel most comfortable in and the railroad is run as a co-operative, all fares pay for the new track and maintaining the stations. Thanks for the chance to read and reply. [This message has been edited by Toad (08-25-2002 07:19 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Even if we knew it all for a while, we wouldn't be able to write it all down and remember it all. So perhaps truth is only how much we remember? Too bad we couldn't just remember it all [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-25-2002 07:04 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Donald Davidson writes: quote: In his essay "Truth Rehabilitated" Rorty and His Critics, p. 65. Notice the title. He's not getting rid of truth, he's making it make sense again. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Trevor and Toad, We can collapse the distinction between our knowledge and things-in-themselves by arguing that it's all our knowledge, our knowledge in a causal, not representational, relationship to the world. Our use of language and of concepts, of thought itself, is a reaction to the world, not a picture of it. How does this work? Okay, if my first stunt was successful, you had a momentary confusion followed by a realization of what I meant. You did indeed make sense of what I said. The difference, however, is that it makes no sense for most of our concepts to be mind-dependent. Many of them have mind-independence already built into them. Therefore Trevor is correct when he said that the random letters had to be there before he read them, but not because of a real world. They have to be there because it makes no sense (it is not useful) to think otherwise. As a result, we drop the 'make sense' of it and proceed as if it was 'out there' rather than 'in here'. But that conceptual change is 'in here'. This doesn't deny a mind-independent world, it demands that it be there, but in the same way that our brains turn visual data right side up so that we can see correctly, our thoughts and concepts do the work of dealing with the world in a causal way. What does that mean? Well, what it means is that, in order for us to live in this world, most of our beliefs must be true, but that there is no way to tell which particular belief is true or not. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
A couplet attempt: Truth's how what's on page chimes with what's on stage Does it chime?? |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello all, TOAD: "That's only my opinion of course, it sounded like I was writing it in stone instead of wandering about in the dark, darn language I'll get the hang of it some day." Me two, eye wood very much like too master thee art off language "The ultimate destination for every traveller is the town they want to get to and feel most comfortable in and the railroad is run as a co-operative, all fares pay for the new track and maintaining the stations." I forgot to ask, is there a bar cart on this train? And what is the featured movie? ....but you're starting to lose me on the analogy by introducing towns and economic theory...next I'll have to retort that the railroad is not actually run as a co-op but rather as a front for a money laundering racketeers and that its not the town we are searching for but the sofa within the house, within the town...just messing around of course The "truth" be known, it is beyond my present ability to further this conversation in a helpful manner. I am at a standstill of thought regarding this subject and until I can aquire new knowledge....or remember some old knowledge that was lost to the bottom of a rye bottle, then I don't think I can be any more helpful than the odd silly quip.BRAD: "....Our use of language and of concepts, of thought itself, is a reaction to the world, not a picture of it." Indeed, very well stated. "Well, what it means is that, in order for us to live in this world, most of our beliefs must be true, but that there is no way to tell which particular belief is true or not." I guess theoretically there is no pure 100% steadfast way to prove or disprove anything in complete entirety (ie. Ron's emperical truth ref.) but its hard not to be bothered by the fact that the moon might actually be constructed of cheese and we simply don't realize it because to think that way doesn't make sense any more....but my troubled mind is eased a bit when I think of the fondue possiblities. Like I said to Toad, it really is beyond my capabilities to add anything really helpful to this conversation, so I'll just delegate myself to being the ass of the bunch.One more fleeting thought, "that there is no way to tell which particular belief is true or not." The irony of that statement is we can't even prove that to be true or not. Thanks again to all for a really interesting discussion. Trevor |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ah damn, I said this: quote: too quickly. It doesn't mean that anything goes. What I mean is that there is no way to determine a truth outside of our context because there is no outside outside of us, it's not that we are separate minds observing the universe, we are in the universe, we react to the universe. This means, following Rorty, that no description of Reality gets Reality more Right than another because our descriptions, all of them, can only be tested, have to be tested, in a normative situation in order for them to be true. In this, they are used for specific purposes. But this doesn't free any description from observational agreement, from peer review or any of the other things that Jim mentions as being important. I think they're important too. We can never be free of the concept of truth, we don't want to be because we wouldn't be able to think without it. But truth is a concept, it isn't a free-floating thing waiting for us out there. It's a tool we use. quote: There's no sure way to do this because this doesn't do anything. You can't prove or disprove something outside of a context anymore than something is true outside of a context. That context is us and that's how we can indeed have truths, we have to have truths, but there are no outside truths. It is this rehabilitation of truth that Davidson is shooting for. quote: Exactly. There is no way we can fit this description of reality with our other beliefs. It is the relationship with other beliefs that matter (but not all beliefs have to matter to all beliefs), not a privileged mind to a universe. quote: But who do we prove it to? The sceptic will always have a foot in the door if we think like this. True, it is true that there might be a description that is better out there (this is called the cautionary use of truth) for our purposes, but for the moment there is no irony if we both agree that it fits our beliefs. More later, gotta eat, Brad [This message has been edited by Brad (08-26-2002 06:29 AM).] |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, you said "What I mean is that there is no way to determine a truth outside of our context because there is no outside outside of us". Is this the truth? This statement when analyzed must be either absolutely true or not. Is it possible for it to be false? And if it is possible that this could be false, how are you certain that it is true? You are still making an assertion, but the reasoning is circular... ie we can't know truth because there is none to know... But you have to Know the truth in order to say this statement with any authority at all. The statement that there is no absolute standard of truth outside of the universe, reflects naturalism. Naturalism says ,"Everything is in the realm of Nature, or the seen and temporal universe, and so there is nothing wholly unique and independent which may stand apart from it." So Naturalism actually attempts to assert (strangely enough in an authoritative way) that there is nothing "outside the whole show" which can claim any authority or absoluteness, because it too would only be a part of this universe which is subject to change and temporality and a limited existence. In other words, there is nothing or no one which can have any "original" insight, because all we know is our own insight which is by nature dependent and fragmentary... we are the teacher, the student, and the subject matter all rolled into one. Having our particular existence in nature imposed on us, we are limited in what we can say absolutely about it... because we are only part of it. But it is a great assumption to say "there is nothing or no one apart from nature which stands independently and possesses absolute attributes". A supernaturalist asserts that it is at least possible for something to be "outside" the natural universe as we know it. This is exactly the claims of Christianity ... there is a being who is not a dependent being but a self-existent being. A Template or original above all the copies ... A maker in contrast to those who are made...one who can rightly and with authority interpret the universe and give it's directives, because he created it and knows it intimately. A voice coming not from within but from without, or "through" his own created world. But the Christian world view does not come from assumption, but from revelation. It doesn not say as naturalists do, "The Supernatural (as any being distinct and apart from nature) cannot exist because we don't know it does". It goes back to what Ron said about truth ... Do we create it or discover it? The same applies to the idea of supernature ... Can it exist apart from our knowledge? Does God exist whether we think he does or not ... or do our own thoughts (which naturalism has rendered unauthoritative) determine "truth"? If our own thought is the standard, then I have no foundation to really believe either the naturalist or the supernaturalist view. The naturalist view claims that we cannot get beyond thought to determine truth ... inadvertently making any opinion equally valid or more accurately equally invalid. But here is the dilemma. . . Either the naturalistic view is true or false... it cannot be both ways. To think it can is to live with irreconcilable contradiction and confusion. If you assert that it is true, what is the basis for believing it is? Where is the standard? Is there nothing more than opinion to judge thoughts and ideas concerning such things? To answer "no" is contradictory and plunges us into a desperate futility. It is quite depressing to think all we have are the shifting sands of our thoughts to judge what all of this means. I'm glad to know there is a voice that can be trusted, whose thoughts are "higher than our thoughts". Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well, you kind of ripped that statement out of context (that's okay, I fall back into the standard descriptions far too easily still. That's my fault.). I'll be working this out for a while. We must act as if it were absolutely true because it makes no sense not to. Again, truth is a concept, not an object to be discovered. Truth is not true. It has nothing to say about the outside because there are no normative ways for talking about the outside world you posit. Because of this, an outside world can mean anything you want it to mean. Truth as a concept is only useful when we have a linguistic community's normative standards to compare the truthness of the statement.But it's the very fact that it can be false that allows it to be true. There's nothing wrong with saying that this is good for us to believe but maybe it's not true. But any truth we hold can only be true if we indeed act on them as if they were true. quote: Your assuming that truth is monolithic and there's no reason to believe that. We compare one possible truth and see how it correlates to other truths. quote: My authority comes from the ability to speak a language and participate in a language community. The concept truth is a precondition of language and thought itself. I'll post a great quote as soon as I have time, you may not buy it, but it might help make some sense of this. In a linguistic community, the problem with the concepts God, the spiritual, the transcendental, Reality in and of itself etc. is that they can mean anything you want and nobody can tell you different. The mean anything you want because they can't be proved wrong, therefore they can never be proved true. Sorry, I'll try to get more out later, Brad |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LOL. My question, "Is it possible to separate Truth from verification?" wasn't loaded, guys, so much as it was an attempt to get at least one move ahead of Postmodernism and Brad. Obviously, I was still a little too slow. Nonetheless, the question remains an important one, and personally, I find your answers encouraging. If we can agree that Truth exists apart from man, then there remains the possibility for Absolute Truth to exist. It's perhaps a slim possibility, and maybe something beyond human understanding, but still a possibility. On the other hand, those who follow Rorty, et al, can have no such hope. That's a bit of shame, in my opinion, because Richard Rorty and Postmodernism are plain, flat-out wrong. The irony is, in being completely wrong, they just may be right. Stanley Grenz, in his 1995 book "A Primer on Postmodernism," described their position this way: "(Postmodernism) affirms that whatever we accept as truth and even the way we envision truth are dependent on the community in which we participate." Brad uses the word context, I think, in the same way Grenz uses community. I'll explore that more in a moment. Grenz then goes on to more succinctly say, "There is no absolute truth: rather truth is relative to the community in which we participate." I've never really found a definitive definition in Postmodernist literature as to what they mean by community. That's important, I think, because communities have this nasty habit of overlapping and nesting. I belong to a community of programmers, but I also belong to a specific geographical community. As Brad alluded, it seems to be more than just a consensus of everyone in the community, but even in being more, it still boils down to just that. Truth is what everyone agrees is true. Rorty carries this farther, even, than most. Postmodernism says we can't argue for Truth on the basis of absolute correctness, and Rorty suggests we can't even argue on logical grounds. To do so would be to admit objective value and truth. Instead, we must argue for a truth only if it increases solidarity in our community. I suppose this is why Rorty prefers to be called a Pragmatist, rather than a Postmodernist (which tends to rile the Pragmatists to no end). I believe Postmodernism is inherently flawed, and I suspect the Postmodernists do, too. That's why they insist on compartmentalizing different kinds of Truth. Rorty, for example, had this to say about Truth in "The Decline Of Redemptive Truth And The Rise Of A Literary Culture." quote: Gee, that's a bit different than the way most people seem to interpret the Postmodern abolition of truth, don't ya think? In "Reply to Hartshorne," by Saatkamp, Rorty is quoted as saying, " I tend to view natural science as in the business of controlling and predicting things, and as largely useless for philosophical purposes." It seems statements like "the chair has four legs" and the "the sky is blue" aren't even the kind of truths with which Rorty is concerned. So, uh, what does concern him? In the same article, Rorty goes on to describe what he calls "redemptive truth," a set of theories he claims are meant to fulfill the need that religion and philosophy have attempted and failed to satisfy. He later defines redemptive truth as "a single set of beliefs which can serve a redemptive role in the lives of all human beings, which can be rationally justified to all human beings under optimal conditions, and which will thus form the natural terminus of inquiry." In other words, once we know the Absolute Truth, we KNOW it and there is no need for any other questions. It is this redemptive truth that Rorty and Postmodernism refuses to accept. Those of you who know me, after three years, know that I don't separate my religion from my science, and it always sort of bothered me that the Postmodernists felt the need to do so. Causal truth is cool, they say, but anything that touches upon the nature of man can't really be truth. Konstantin Kolenda, in "Rorty's Humanistic Pragmatism," defends this segregation of Truth because "commonsense-factual beliefs" are "unquestioned by participants in a given linguistic community." But that only seems to beg the question - WHY does everyone agree with them? If "commonsense-factual beliefs" are obviously true, then there is an objective truth that seemingly applies to an overwhelming number of statements. If they are true just because everyone agrees they are true, they fall within the same province as Rorty's redemptive truth and should meet the same process of inquiry. That won't be allowed to happen, though, because Postmodernism knows their process fails utterly when there is a known answer. It only seems to work at all when the issue is controversial and unknown. Rorty's failure, I think, is a reflection of his background in Literature and rests almost solely on his concepts of language. This is something Brad has mentioned several times, in many other threads. To again directly quote Rorty, this time from "Contingency, Law, and Solidarity:" quote: Rorty, in other words, insists that true is a modifier that describes only sentences. But I think this confuses an allegedly necessary condition with a sufficient condition. Even were we to concede for the moment that only sentences can be true, it does not follow that a sentence alone is sufficient for truth. "Ron is female," is a sentence, but it can be true if and only if I manage to pass the physical. In other words, insisting that only sentences can be true does not remove the need for some other NONLINGUISTIC condition to render the statement true. Ergo, true must, in some sense, apply to more than just sentences. Of course, this is precisely where Rorty, Kolenda, and all the Postmodernists start yelling foul. My sentence, "Ron is female," doesn't belong in the area of beliefs that Rorty expects to be decided by community solidarity. Indeed, any statement that is a clear counterexample to his theory, like the existence of gravity or chairs with four legs, is dismissed as irrelevant to the main point. Community solidarity is NOT going to make me start dating rich widowers, Rorty knows this, so he draws a safe line between his different kinds of truth. In letting Postmodernism do this, we allow them to evade any possibility of refutation. An issue is controversial only because no one is in possession of objective facts to decide it, and Rorty can then say with confidence that it is not decided factually but by consensus of the community. But if an issue is already clearly decided, its noncontroversial nature pushes it into Rorty's safe zone and it's declared off-limits. This is where I believe Postmodernism is horribly wrong - and potentially right. There is real value, I think, in recognizing and codifying the difference between objective and subjective truth. The trend in recent thinking to deny the existence and even the possibility of objective truth gives rise to little more than circular thinking and paradoxes that convince no one. Two plus two equals four, they all say, is a language construct and therefore subjective. Everything, they decry, is subjective! But, damn it, we NEED two plus two to always equal four, in any language throughout the universe, and we intrinsically know that it does. We hear their arguments, we follow their logic - and we don't for a minute believe that two plus two will stop equaling four just because they say it's subjective. The complete abolishment of objective truth is not pragmatically useful. On the contrary, if taken literally (it can't be) and completely believed (it's not), it cripples rather than enhances our ability to communicate. Everything is a language construct? Everything is subjective? That is not a workable reflection of reality, but is just a WEAKNESS OF THE LANGUAGE. Postmodernism, I'm convinced, will eventually collapse under the weight of its own inadequacies, and largely because it fails to recognize the dynamics of our universe in any useful way. "Ron is diabetic" falls outside the realm of Rorty's truth because it is a measurable, observable, and noncontroversial truth. "Ron is happy" falls within Rorty's realm - but ONLY until medical science defines and quantifies the chemicals that determine the state of happiness in the same way they can now measure blood sugars. "Ron is happy" is a subjective truth, based on community solidarity and consensus, but may be so only for today. Tomorrow, we may discover a new truth, one that CHANGES our language in the sense that "Ron is happy" takes on a quantifiable and objective meaning. The only thing Postmodernism does is create two categories, one for the things we think we know, one for the things we know we think, and then shifts individual issues back and forth. Language is not static. One problem with Wittgenstein, Rorty, and really dating all the way back to Descartes, is that any philosophy based largely on the limitations of linguistics is built on a hill of shifting sand. When we find weaknesses in our language, we should endeavor to fix the problem, not build our knowledge-base on it. (The other big problem with Rorty, in my opinion, is that any ethnocentric philosophy is self-limiting and, even, paradoxical. "We can never get outside of ourselves," he contends. But if that statement is true it becomes subjective and non-absolute, so maybe we can get outside of ourselves. In any event, right or wrong or just general consensus, it shouldn't stop us from TRYING to understand our reality apart from our role in it. If we try and Rorty is right, we might fail. If we don't try, we are sure to fail. And even in failure, we'll learn more than we will by staring at our own foreheads.) I don't believe that truth is a construct of language, but rather that language is a reflection of truth. Brad calls language a reaction to the world, not a picture of the world, but such reactions are just another way of reflecting reality. Even when you internalize language, it just becomes a reflection of a reflection of truth, and in that sense is a poor reflection, to be sure. It is marred by flaws and ripples and distortions that tend to magnify or diminish what we see, but still it remains a reflection. You can change language all day long and it changes reality not at all. The only thing accomplished is to add yet more distortion, Orwellian style, or occasionally smooth a few wrinkles, as I think poets and writers and scientists try to do. Change reality, on the other hand, and language quickly adapts, adding new words or altering the meaning of existing words. In rare instances, we even invent new languages (the calculus, for example). We don't invent truth. We discover it. And, yea, very often, we have to rediscover truth a few times along the way. I think there's an important distinction to be made, though, between discarding lies and rediscovering truth. "The Earth is flat" wasn't a lie so much as it was a partial truth. When you happen to be building a house, it's a fairly useful partial truth. As our context expanded, however, we needed more and discovered the world is round. That did NOT change the way we built houses. Newton's concept of classical physics was a partial truth that resulted, among many other things, in the "for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction" invention of rockets. In seeking to understand the perturbations of Mercury's orbit, something unexplainable using Newton's math, Einstein discovered a greater truth. Fortunately for NASA, rockets didn't suddenly stop working. Truth is not transient, is not subjective, but is often only limited. Truth doesn't change. I don't think we will ever reach the "natural terminus of inquiry" Rorty uses to define truth, but that doesn't negate the validity of the truths we find along the way. As we ask more questions, as our context grows, we inevitably expand the truth, but the only thing discarded are the lies. Our lesser truths are still true, if only in lesser contexts. The Earth really IS flat, at least in my front yard. I tend to talk a lot about science and math when I talk about truth, if only because they are often more quantifiable. Not coincidentally, those are precisely the kinds of things Rorty and Postmodernism want to avoid discussing. But everything I believe about science and math is also what I believe about Rorty's redemptive truths. I can't weigh or measure the effects of honesty, but I still hold it to be a truth. And I'm convinced that an expansion of that truth, while certainly possible (and one would hope, with wisdom, even probable), won't invalidate my current truth. Truth doesn't change. And Absolute Truths? From a scientific standpoint, I think there is ample evidence to suggest Absolute Truth can never be more than near-absolute. Truth is measured statistically, and even though we can approach 100 percent certainty, we never quite get there. Heisenberg saw to that, thank you very much. From a Christian standpoint, my answer remains much the same. I believe that Absolute Truth and Free Will are incompatible. Heisenberg discovered uncertainty, but I think God put it there for him to find. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But Ron, I think it's the other way around. We don't want to abolish the objective, we want to abolish the subjective (but not privacy). There is no such thing as a subjective or personal truth. That defeats the whole idea of what truth means. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I have smote away at sayings in my mind, and believe now I might have one that that might touch upon a truth incorporating much of what I feel some of you are saying in this thread but also keeping in mind the Old English root and meaning of "loyalty"--- [This has been edited and ammended] Truth Truth is the chief nature or highest government of a body (any thing(s) or being(s)) We cannot know of all bodies, but of the bodies that we do, we know truths, we cannot know of all truths but of the truths we do we know bodies, and usually a loyalty that retains a state, cycle, appearance, pattern, etc. which are bodies to a body, and truths to a truth. All bodies are bodies of truths, but not all bodies are true to bodies. If you find me and bounce me and I bounce for three days thats like saying to you I will bounce again on the fourth day and that would have bounced four days ago, but if I don't bounce that is a body of truth, but is a lie to my saying, which is another body of truth, but now you know another saying (body) I will bounce for three days but not bounce on the fourth---this is of the body you know of me, the cheif nature and hightest government (way of will) Hope you will let me know if chimes just a bit, or tell me true if I'm crazy! Essorant [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-29-2002 04:18 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Okay, truth means loyalty to beliefs until otherwise betrayed. Why put it in a kind of Heidergerese? I've already pointed this out. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Beliefs are another body. It was just an attempt, I don't even know what or who Heidergerese is...I will have to look around... [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-28-2002 08:06 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Where is hush?? [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-28-2002 10:09 PM).] |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
Maybe we could just post links to all the other discussions we have had on truth. Sure save a lot of typing time and save more for reading. JThere is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Truth -- Having to pee when you get up in the morning. |
||
|
MidnightSon Member
since 2002-05-15
Posts 312between the gutter & the stars |
if this was ancient greece, this would be the part where socrates comes in and busts on everyone in here for there answers... what is truth? "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." so are we asking what is true? or what's true to us? does the truth have to be understandable? understandable to who? to all? to those who would make decisions? the chair has four legs? is that true? is that really real ? when you get down to it, the chair is a collection of constantly moving atoms.. but that was true only until we found that there are different particles of an atom; the protons, neutrons, and electrons. and then that was the truth. now we've got quarks and that's a whole other truth. or is it the truth? is it the truth until we find the next smallest particle? or is false already since we think something else exists? now if i ask is the chair solid and unmoving, isn't the answer no? the chair is in motion at the molecular level... but it's not moving to the naked eye... so what is the truth? and if something is true, why must we be able to test it? it's the truth. testing should be unnecessary since you can't prove it false. right? maybe... truth in feeling, truth in thought... are these all personal truths? they come from a person...should truth come from a person? can it come from a person without being tainted by personal bias? can truth be based on the views and laws of man? aren't we all subjective? is there an outside truth, a universal definition of the concept? something that can't be unproven? what is it? who is it? and do we know they are right and true and real? is there anything outside of this reality that is always true? a constant? and if it's outside reality (or our perception of reality) then how do we know it's real? metaphysics is so...question raising. is it real? is it true? what is the ultimate reality? i suppose that just depends on how you look at the world. is ultimate reality, the truth, what really is or is it how you percieve it? because that choice can greatly affect how you see things. the things we percieve are real. our whole world and basis of thought depends on it right? but on a quest for the truth, i guess how we see things doesn't really matter. and if truth is what's really true, then are we even people? random collections of atoms? for me the truth has always been in the middle. the means of the extremes. thinking this was leads me to a lot of paradoxes (like a moving unmoving chair), but they work for me. it is both. everything is true and everything a lie. truth is not merely in the answer, but in the questions. and separating truth from verification? they are separate aren't they? wouldn't the truth be tru despite the tests and disbelief? that's why it's a truth isn't it? does the verification provide the truth or does it provide belief in our minds and hearts? Essorant: "Even if we knew it all for a while, we wouldn't be able to write it all down and remember it all. So perhaps truth is only how much we remember?" Guy Pierce and "memento" cover this... i think you have a good point. and finally, before i hand the soapbox over to next in line, let me add on to the train theme. "parallel tracks are not better or worse. just different." isn't the destination the same? i guess it just depends on your point of view. but that isn't always true. [This message has been edited by MidnightSon (08-31-2002 09:38 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ron, there's just no way I can address everything you've brought up in one sitting, but I can say you work from some points that other Realists readily reject. This is good but then you simply assert a traditional view as if it were the only way to see it. The parts that I'll agree to do notnecessarily lead to your conclusion. I'll try to point them out along the way and there's at least one comment that I think demands a retraction. In a nutshell, your doing the same thing that Stephan does in the Thinking, Aching thread, you assume similarities between different cultures and languages necessarily lead to one thing "out there" that we are all trying to represent correctly. I'll try to show that there's no simple reason for seeing it that way unless one is willing to accept that on faith. quote: We agree that our concepts already imply that many things will exist even if we aren't there to see it, hear it, touch it or whatever. Why? Because it makes no sense to think otherwise. This is just the argument against solipsism. Proof? Try being a solipsist and see what happens. By following this, does that mean absolute truth is possible? What is Absolute Truth? What are the criteria that determine what Absolute Truth would be? Without an actual definition of this, I have no idea what you mean. Is Absolute Truth true? Is Absolute Truth false? A semantic theory of truth cannot address this. Is there something out there that we don't understand, that we can't understand? Sure, why not? You shift the terms to possible and impossible, but I don't see much difference here. Possibilities are easy. It's possible that an electron can be in two places at the same time. It's possible that I can walk through a wall tomorrow. "It's possible that . . ." can be used to describe anything. Then what are impossible things? Impossible things are things that we have agree upon it to be impossible. "I didn't do that thing I did, yesterday" isn't a possible statement. It can be, anything can be, but only if we change the rules and argue that the first 'I' and the second 'I' mean two different things. If we see it as one thing, we have made a contradictory statement. If we don't have criteria that we agree upon, we have know way of saying anything is impossible, we have no way of saying anything is false. Everything is possible. Everything is true. But these statements are empty of any real meaning, aren't they? How does one live by them? I have no interest in trying to live by them. Do you want to? This is exactly the same problem with Absolute Truth. What is the criteria for Absolute Truth or for God for that matter? How do we know when we are looking at Absolute Truth and something else, how do we know when we are talking to God or to a demon or that the conversation we hear is a chemical imbalance? How do we know that the chemical imbalance isn't simply God's way of making Himself manifest to us? You did give one criterion for determining true prophets from false ones: You said they can't be wrong. But how do we determine if they are wrong if we don't have criteria to understand what that means, something separate from the prophet's words, something that we can understand and check to see if they are true or false prophets? What is this criteria of truth for God and for Absolute Truth? How can we stand in judgement of God? How can we stand in judgement to Absolute Truth? In fact, that's exactly what I think we do and how we do that fascinates me. I'll try to touch on this later. quote: What exactly are we trying to hope for? Brad |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: With only a little twisting, Postmodernism's definition of redemptive truth IS Absolute Truth. " … which can be rationally justified to all human beings under optimal conditions, and which will thus form the natural terminus of inquiry." The only real difference is that I don't insist on Absolute Truth necessarily being redemptive. I'm not quite sure where you got the impression I assumed similarities between cultures and languages, let alone similarities that mean anything. I don't. Remember, please, that while I'm open to the possibility of Absolute Truth, I don't really expect it. I don't really think there is any "natural terminus of inquiry," at least not in this life. I argue not for the existence of Absolute Truth, but rather for the possibility of Absolute Truth. Essentially, that means arguing for the survival of objective truth, without which there can be no Absolute Truth. Unlike Rorty, I think science is a bit more than "controlling and predicting things," and believe it can't be so easily (or conveniently) dismissed from philosophical inquiries. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephan said following CS Lewis: quote: in the other thread. Ron said: quote: So what's the problem with the rest of us? How do you explain why people disagree on what the truth really is if it's out there: quote: But why is language weak? That's easy, it's weak because it is a "reflection of reality". To me, you and Stephan are essentially saying the same thing about two different things. There is something absolute out there, something invariant (truth or a moral system), and the problem is that we just can't see or talk about it. You both, so far, have qualified yourself in the same way: Stephan says: quote: And you say: quote: I don't know if you see the connections I'm making, you may think that I'm barking up the wrong tree (and you think I've never done that before?). But nevertheless I see these connections because I see both you and Stephan captivated by a metaphor and the metaphor is that of a mirror. For you, language is like an imperfect mirror, for Stephan, perception is the imperfect mirror (For me, there's not much difference between the two). Of course, I'm not above this anymore than the two of you. I am captivated by a different metaphor: the idea that perception and language are like tools for surviving and dealing with this world. Now, a mirror is a kind of tool, I can't deny that, but I think it's the wrong kind of tool to invoke when talking about these things. I think a better metaphorical tool are the hammer and the chisel of a sculptor. Language doesn't represent things, it doesn't change Nature or represent Nature outside of us, it changes us. And in that sense it changes Nature. --------------------------------- I'm very happy to see someone reading Rorty but be careful with ". . .which can be rationally justified to all human beings under optimal conditions, and which will thus form the natural terminus of inquiry." He plays on the ambiguity of 'rationally justified' and on 'all human beings'. But let's take it at face value for the moment. Is this a good thing? Is this what we want, a world we want to live in? If it's not in some sense redemptive what does it give us? I much prefer Rorty's alternate utopia, following Wilde (and that is a great essay. Have you read it? I'll post a link if you want.), in a world of tolerance where Christians and Muslims, where poets and scientists, where Blacks and Whites, Jews and Gentiles (yeah, you get the picture) all live together in tolerance and peace, not because we believe the same things but precisely because we're different. And one more thing: quote: This is what I want you to retract. How can you possibly call yourself a Christian and say this? We've argued on the same side against similar ideas before. Knowing something is True (especially if you believe Rorty's redemptive truth definition) does not dictate the desire to do something. You can go against it precisely because it's true (It's wrong, I know it's wrong, and I don't care). Furthermore, Rorty's definition of redemptive truth completely neglects the cautionary use of truth: that something may be justified but still not be true. Foreknowledge or absolute knowledge doesn't mean that you won't try to do something, it just means that what you want to try will be known. |
||
|
MidnightSon Member
since 2002-05-15
Posts 312between the gutter & the stars |
"Language doesn't represent things, it doesn't change Nature or represent Nature outside of us, it changes us. And in that sense it changes Nature." but it does represent things, doesn't it? it represents how we see the world. the word blue represents what we perceive to be blue. without the word, blue would be blue, but language gives us a name for it. the concept of "one" is still "one", and inside we know what "one" thing is, but language gives us a name for the concept. it may not represent nature, but don't the words represent nature to us? rganted a tree is a tree but we call it a tree because that's our linguistic representation of it. i agree that language and rhetoric can be a tool like the hammer and chisel, sculpting our minds. but it can be like a fun house mirror as well, because reality gets filtered through our minds and mouths. but calling all this the weakness of language is a dangerous step i think. rhetoric seems to exert great power over man. that was the sophists best weapon. manipulation of the language. but then, they weren't looking for absolute truth. but brad raises an interesting question....(i think it was brad..) should we desire an absolute truth? and i gotta agree with ron when he says free will and absolute truth are incompatible. if we're saying that an absolute truth could exist, does exist, and that it comes from God, then to use free will to go against the Absolute Truth is the highest form of wrong... by going against it, we'd being proving an absolute truth to be false... in a sense we'd be proving God wrong. and then it wouldn't be an absolute truth... and we'd be back at square one, searching for the absolute truth, the source of reality. _______ is an absolute truth merely something that can never be proven wrong? or is there more to it? it's our struggle for identity that leaves us all unknown |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
MidnightSon, you wrote, "if we're saying that an absolute truth could exist, does exist, and that it comes from God, then to use free will to go against the Absolute Truth is the highest form of wrong..." Absolute truth does not rule out the possibility of free will. Free will is merely the opportunity given by one in absolute authority (God) for us to freely choose to cooperate with his moral directives, or to reject them. I see two reasons as to why God might do such a thing. Firstly, a creation of automata where everything was forced to follow a preconcieved plan and not given the freedom to stray (or return) does not allow for the concept of Love... or if you could call a robotic execution of affection "love" then it would lose all meaning and significance. To those of you who are married, what gives your matrimonial love any real value to you (especially in western culture) is that your spouse could have chosen someone else, but chose to love you exclusively. This goes back to the fundamental ideas of the Judeo-Christian world-view. Why did God create? Because he wanted to make beings (like himself with the freedom to choose) who could freely interact with him and have meaningful relations. How interesting it is that we just had a thread about robotic or computer simulation of "life" and where is the line? The line is that we are given a spirit made in the image of our creator whereby we can choose freely among alternatives. That's where the concept of "sin" comes in. It is exactly as you say, using free-will to go against the absolute truth which God is in essence and has established in our finite knowledge. As Francis Shaeffer once wrote, "our knowledge of truth is not exhaustive, but that does not mean that we cannot know truth." Why can we know truth certainly? Because God has opted to make it knowable to humanity. To say "We didn't know" doesn't make much difference in our sphere of responsibility, unless of course unless we can add the phrase "and we couldn't know". That kind of answer won't do you much good on your college Physics test, especially if the means of knowing was available. Speaking of absolute truth, you also wrote, "by going against it, we'd being proving an absolute truth to be false... in a sense we'd be proving God wrong" How is going against it proving it to be wrong? In a common and limited example, going against the rules of math when paying your bills does not prove the rules of math wrong but rather proves them right... So right that unless you change your mathematics a court ruling will agree with your adversary's figures. The wonder is that absolute truth is not as unforgiving as mathematics... at least in the sense of being so rigid that the givers of wrong answers are expelled ... though wrong answers in any class must be thrown out. The absolute truth in a biblical sense is personal. The truth is a person and though law is given, it is a heart of truth that God wants us to eventually see. So the elements of patience and mercy are thrown in on God's part, especially since the problem is so complex that we never could have gotten the answer right on our own any way. In a large way, he has done the excruciating equations for us and merely allows us to fill in a few holes while he teaches us. But always in his heart is a desire that his students will also find the joy of being great mathemeticians some day. Math is a bit "cold" and mechanical in ways and so is not the best metaphor, but it works for the moment. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The present is of all its abstract and material past; but it can only speak of what it knows through how it remembers. How can the truth be any different? How can anyone say to one: "You are not part of truth?" It is like saying you are not part of the present. Everything counts, we just can't account everything. And most things are not very stationary but passing into haveing to be referred to in past tense so quickly, especially in this age of much haste, this is why I emphasize on the way of remembering. A far bygone subject and object is confined to records--books, songs, traditions, paintings and photographs, video footage etc. It is our way to retain things through such ways of remembering that keeps the gift of fire bright of being truth and becoming ever more. When we are discoursing in offhand circumstance though, this is in bare body of what and how we remember knowledge to the very syllable only our own impressions and learnt words toward. So it is on the sharpness thereof truth relies while referring to anything past or present in this mesh. How can we do anything but commonly share some common mode of regarding something by referring to some cheif or seeming obvious nature or will of a body. There is always something peoples can agree on eventually in some way or another however remote by the appearances, signs or actions etc. Do we have a choice? We have to have a ground where we can at least have a common assent. This is of the outwit and inwit of all opinions perhaps a midwit, or common ground where wits chime best they can or go crazy. Truth is to knowledge as present is to past. Must needs be due amounts forgetful and ignorant. It is is stuck here and we cannot get it out , it seem only as much as things are present at the moment in how much and how we remember, things are truth. I now believe if we didn't forget or ignore at all I think there would be more chaos than if we were able to do the opposite! [This message has been edited by Essorant (09-02-2002 03:38 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, you wrote... " Language doesn't represent things, it doesn't change Nature or represent Nature outside of us, it changes us. And in that sense it changes Nature. " You also made the comparison that Ron and I had an affinity for the metaphor of a mirror in describing two different things... perception and language. But I would ask you what is the difference? Perception represents "Nature" outside of us. When our eyes perceive the color red, the perception has to do with actual wavelengths of light in the object we are seeing. I understand that there would be no such thing as "red" where eyes are not ... if people, or animals with eyes did not exist. But that is not to say that our senses are not accurate (except in pathological cases) representations of a physical reality "outside" of us. If I see a hole and avoid falling in it, this should be proof enough for me that my senses are communicating a truth, ie.. that there is in actuality a hole in the ground which poses a risk to my clumsy feet. I know there is alot which our minds add, but the physical dimensions of the hole are there despite my perception. Even If I weren't there, the existence of the hole would be a potential danger for someone else, even someone else who didn't percieve it, such as a blind man. If a blind man fell in, my question would be, are the man's injuries, due to his perceptions only, or were they caused by his lack of perception of a physical reality that was well established quite apart from him? If perception is a reflection of a physical universe (although admittedly not exhaustive in it's reflection)... then why should language be any different? It may have some different dynamics but the principle is the same. Perception is my "reciever", while language is my "transmitter". One I obtain knowledge by, the other I relay knowledge by. How can you really assert that language is not representational? If I say to you "There is a tree in my backyard". Is the truth of this statement really dependent upon the sentence itself? Or did the object to which I refer exist prior to my speech, or even my thought? I agree where Ron said "insisting that only sentences can be true does not remove the need for some other NONLINGUISTIC condition to render the statement true". Language is a tool as you say. But I believe a mirror or a painter's canvas is the most descriptive metaphor. That does not mean however that the metaphor of a sculptor's chisle and hammer does not apply. Language does change things, even nature, because it moves the minds and subsequently the hands of people in the world. But the very fact that we are concerned about a "world" that exists apart from our descriptions of it, proves to us that language is not the measure of all things. How can a tool itself be the scupture? The sculptor's stone has physical properties of it's own before the chisle ever even makes it's mark, and still has them after the last mark is made. I agree that Ron and I have both been speaking from different vantages. Ron moreso in the realm of physics (where I am woefully ignorant, though fascinated) and myself in the realm of ethics/ morality/ spirituality. But in both cases truth is operative independent of both our language and our perception. Thankfully it is not ungraspable in practical ways either to our languages or to our perceptions. That's why you don't expect to pour coffee on your floor when your eyes tell you that you are pouring it in your mug. That's why you are kind and affectionate and less selfish toward your wife in your better moments... it makes good "sense". But there is after all I assert something behind these senses. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Here is an interesting article about Rorty and Postmodernism from a Christian perspective ... it shares some of the same assertions that Ron made. I think it will be interesting for everyone, and challenging to Brad. I am reading about Rorty and post-modernism on both sides and learning alot. http://www.leaderu.com/aip/docs/geuras.html Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Brad asked: quote: For the same reason two people can add up a column of numbers and come up with different answers. Especially if a few of the numbers are smudged and difficult to read. Brad said: quote: Random syllables mean nothing and can change nothing. Language changes us only when we assign meaning to it. When it becomes representative, then and only then does it have power. Interestingly, from a writer's perspective, the closer our the words come to "truth," the more power given to them. A good metaphor, after all, is just a way to move closer to a truth. Brad asked: quote: The inability for a physical object to travel faster than the speed of light is really, really close to an Absolute Truth (so far). It's certainly not redemptive (so far), and it's not even very convenient. Is just "is," and we have to deal with it. (Personally, I have a sneaky suspicion that someday it will be redemptive. The value of truth, in both science and philosophy, isn't always immediately seen.) Brad said: quote: And that's indicative of the problem I have with Rorty; he plays on the ambiguity of ALL language. And I suspect "plays" is a good choice of verb. His arguments, rather than add meaning to language and bring us closer to a truth, divorce language from ALL meaning. He gives us nothing but a steep hill covered in ice, little realizing that he's sliding down that hill on his butt with the rest of us. The danger, of course, is that Rorty is half-right. Language is an imperfect tool. The answer is to realize that language is dynamic and can move itself closer to the truth with each step taken. Illuminating its weaknesses is a good thing, but falls far short of helping to eliminate those weaknesses. Brad insisted: quote: We're getting into entirely different spheres here, but essentially I believe Absolute Truth and Free Will are incompatible in the same sense that Gravity and jumping over the moon are incompatible. Break the laws of man and you will be punished, but the Laws of the universe are enforced a little differently, making punishment superfluous. Many of those physical laws are as close to Absolute Truths as we've yet to come, and every single one of them sorely limits our choices. By extension, if corresponding moral truths were equally absolute, they would be equally impossible to break, and would destroy the concept of Free Will. Absolute Truth is much more than just foreknowledge. Knowing you can't jump over the moon doesn't stop you from trying, but gravity nonetheless thwarts even the likes of Michael Jordan. And, no, I'm not forgetting Neil Armstrong, but even he didn't get to the moon by breaking the physical laws of gravity. (And every metaphor can be carried too far.) The supernatural, I believe, is possible (even inevitable) because none of the physical laws of the Universe are absolute. Could Jesus turn water to wine? Not if He was bound by absolute physical laws. Can God tell a lie? Not if He is bound by Absolute Truth. If we are to believe that God has choices, that His free will is the template for our own, there can be no Absolute Truth. (Please note that "Can God tell a lie?" and "Would God tell a lie?" are two very different questions.) Again, however, we're getting into different spheres, tangents from the real topic. Maybe it's inevitable that Absolute Truth and religion will circle the same star, but that's not the ride we were taking. Jim's original post in this thread centered not on Absolute Truth, immutable and unchangeable, but rather on Objective truth. Truth that can be measured and tested, even if imperfectly. Postmodernism takes a small truth, that any measuring and testing is necessarily done by humans, and uses that to turn reality into a linguistic game that can NEVER be won. Recognizing the infallibilities of our perceptions and language is, I'll admit, a good thing. Scientists have been doing that for over eighty years, and have even used that recognition as a springboard for new discoveries. They've learned that what we can't see or describe can nonetheless still exist and, more importantly, can affect things that we CAN see and describe. Not coincidentally, each new discovery extends our language (if sometimes only mathematically), bringing us to a slightly better description of truth. That seems a little more useful, to me, than throwing up our hands in defeat because those truths might someday change. Objective and Subjective are probably not single points on a line, but rather describe a continuum. Just because I might never reach the far end of Objective doesn't mean I'm ready to crawl into bed with the Postmodernists on the other end. To me, that makes little sense and offers even less value. Stephen said: quote: That's a bit like telling a poet that meter is cold and mechanical, Stephen. Constraints don't necessarily limit creativity. Like poetry, there is a passion to mathematics that can only be experienced and never fully described. p.s. The article by Dean Geuras was a useful resource for my earlier post about Rorty, and although I do not agree with several of the author's points about Rorty, I enthusiastically agree with his closing warning against turning Christian solidarity into just another version of Postmodernism. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, Sorry about that. When I said that math was cold and mechanical in ways I was only trying to draw the distinction (albeit clumsily- there's the weakness of language again... or at least my language) between the life of God and physical/ mathematical laws as relating to absolute truth. As you pointed out earlier, I was speaking on a different topic than you. It might correspond this way in life... the difference between a good natured mechanic and the science of engine technology itself. Is God mathematical? Obviously. But Mathematics is not God. It doesn't exhaustively express what is in God's mind, or he wouldn't have made poets as well. A new testament writer who came forth in a scientifically inferior age whom we may do well to suspect knew much more of God than we ourselves wrote that "God is love". Could it ever be said that "Math is love"? That was the only distinction I was drawing. Even the moral laws (which according to scripture are the most apt reflection of God's mind...ie righteousness) apart from the heart of God become a "dead letter" according to new testament writers, And I agree. Both mathematics and the moral law were supposed to lead us to a greater discovery. Anyway, my apologies for insulting an obvious passion of yours. I understand passions and how wonderful they are. Mathematics (though I am fairly ignorant- never having gone past college algebra) is after all like everything else (Music is a great passion to me for example) in demonstrating the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God. Because I am sure you would agree that the principles of mathematics were also layed for us to discover and express in language. No one created "one plus one equals two". In other words it was not arbitrary on our part. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-02-2002 10:13 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, it doesn't look like I'm going to get very far around here until I can at least get you to question the idea that language is representational. That is, I have to ask you to at least give me the possibility that it's not. Is a scream of pain a representation of that pain or a reaction to pain? Where do we start? Let's start at the sensory perceptions of an amoeba. It's really very sophisticated but does it make sense to anyone that the amoeba's sensory equipment are representational in nature? Does it make sense that somewhere in there, an amoeba represents the outside world in order to react to it? Isn't it better and easier to see the sensory equipment in an amoeba as a reactive tool to the outside world than it is to see it as somehow representational? What about plants? Do they have some sort of representation in there somewhere? How about Starfish? Do we really see insects as having a picture in that little head that helps them decide which chemical signature they are supposed to follow or do we think that they are genetically predisposed to follow a specific genetic signature because that's the way they are built? When we laugh at a joke, are we reacting to the joke, or are we representing our reaction to the joke Now, of course, we can imagine a representational quality in any of these species, Disney does it all the time, I've written poems doing it, but does anybody here really believe it? Well, I've been surprised before but I'll make a safe bet that most people don't really see this, in fact I'll make another bet and say that no one has ever thought that we should look at these entities in that way. Why not? Because we can predict the actions of these entities, more or less, without a representative quality assigned to them. It gets more difficult, however, when we move into the more complex animals, especially mammals and primates. One, they look more like us, they have eyes, that window to the soul, and so it makes sense to give them more of the qualities that we already believe we have. But do they have this representational ability? It certainly can't be linguistic representation (well, elephants and primates seem to have a kind of language, but it's far from clear if it's representational, it's simply one way of facillitating coordination. Do primates and elephants engage in philosophical conversations on the nature or Truth? Does a lion need an ontology to kill an antelope?). Reacting to the world (amoeba), coordinating action (ants), and complicated social formations (chimpanzees) are all present in the Natural world as we see it. When we ask, "Can we see those pictures?", are we asking for permission to see those pictures or representing asking for permission But when did we acquire this representational ability? For a Christian, this is easy to answer, God gave it to us. For someone who believes that we are a species in an evolutionary chain it's a little harder to see where it comes from. Of course, you can still believe in God and evolution but I'll put these people in the evolutionary group for the moment. For someone who believes that our senses and languages are the products of an evolutionary process, it's hard to see what representationalism really gives us over and above an incredibly sophisticated and complicated reaction and coordination system. Why is this ability inside us? It's easy to understand why many believe we have it. Descartes came up with the metaphor (but the actual idea of an Apparent World and a True Reality has been around a lot longer) and it's trickled down to us as truth. It still give us reason to believe in a soul, noumena, a true self somewhere deep down inside, a non-linguistic self, a pure self. It allows us to move beyond language to the outside world and to the inside self where we should all be really looking because that's where truth is. If you believe it, if you believe it to be true (they mean the same thing), it can make no sense to argue against it because every argument you give to prove representationalism already presupposes representationalism: I have a concept that stands in for tree, when I see a tree, it fits my representation of a tree, therefore, my concept is representational. or I have a string of noises, I need something to represent my concept (as yet unthought, only felt), I'll use this string of noises to represent my non-linguistic concept. However, if you follow the evolutionary explanation above, there's no reason to believe that these explanations are the only way to explain what it is that we are doing. So, how do we rewrite the above examples so that the tree concept and the non-linguistic concept make sense without representation? The concept tree categorizes our perceptions of a tree in order to better react to the world. It's not an imperfect representation of one tree or of some perfect tree out there, it is a generalizaton of a distinction. An amoeba also makes distinctions. It wouldn't exist for very long if it didn't. and There are no non-linguistic concepts. There are non-linguistic dispositions, feelings, and habits of action among other things. We don't need a language to feel hunger or pain or desire, we need a language to conceptualize these things. But again the relationship between hunger and the concept hunger is not representational but purposive. When you hear a child say, "I'm hungry," do you see it as representation of his hunger or a way of trying to get something to eat? Now the obvious objection to this is to say, "No, Brad, it is both a generalization/categorization and a representation, it is both a representation and purposive." And you know what, I'll give you that. As long as I can get that language, any noise that has significance for us, does not have as it's primary function representation, but a use value. If I can get a reactive or causal function as well, and that most of the time we should consider that as the primary function of language, I'm half way there. Is there such a thing as a purely representational sentence? I'm hungry. [This message has been edited by Brad (09-02-2002 11:12 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad you wrote: "When we ask, "Can we see those pictures?", are we asking for permission to see those pictures or representing asking for permission"? The representation comes in only as necessary for communicative purposes. Yes, of course we are asking permission, but that is impossible without representation for the one who is asked. There is a real desire, a real picture, and a real person to ask, with or without language. A person may desire to see a picture who doesn't know language. As to your request for an example of a purely representational sentence... I'm not sure there is one. But what does that show except that representation is always useful to the fulfilling of some desire, or want, or function? So representation is useful. . . I never said it wasn't. And aren't we all glad it is? But neither can you remove the concept of accurate representation from usefulness. I would reverse the question, are there any purely utilitarian sentences? It seems the burden of proof would be on the one who says "language is not representational". As I see no real reason to doubt that it is. Our experiences suggest otherwise. And to be honest, I really function quite well despite someone's philosophical belief that language is not representational ... in that sense I am much a pragmatist too. (smile) My assertion is that a sentence is useful primarily because it is a true (though not exhaustive) representation of reality. I have no problem with these two coexisting. But I think you give no adequate reason as to why we should doubt that language is representational. You yourself even seem to be able to admit it's coexistence with usefulness. It's almost like a "which came first the chicken or the egg" dilemma. Are sentences true because they are useful? Or are they useful because they are true? I say the latter is more correct. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-02-2002 11:46 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think of language as another body of the soul, we must feed it, excerise it, and build its thews to a wit and strength that can serve well, and meetly exteriorize the soul. There is lot of ache and clumsiness as well in this body too, but I think these overall nurture toward a more graceful expression and cooardination to truth. Just my thought. [This message has been edited by Essorant (09-02-2002 09:31 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Sitting beside my desk is a fairly nondescript claw hammer, the kind found in any carpenter's toolbox. It is made out of steel and wood. It's function is to remind my computer to not get me too angry. Works most of the time, too. Language has a function, much as does my hammer, and yes, that function is often manipulative. We use language, and especially sentences, to help us change our environment. But just as my hammer is composed of steel and wood, sentences are made up of words. And words ALWAYS represent something, else we consider them nonsensical. In fact, words are rarely manipulative except when used in or as sentences, in crossword puzzles, or to get a triple word score in Scrabble. Can we describe language as manipulative? Sure, in the same sense we can describe a chair as something used for sitting. Representation by function is useful. But, at best, it's an approximation and reveals little of the essence of a chair. In particular, it gives us no ideas for OTHER potential uses of a chair. Tell me the chair is made of oak and I may forego sitting in order to stay warm this winter. Tell me that words represent reality and I just might use them to help me understand the world I can't readily touch or see. (You'll notice, I'm sure, that I've avoided the word reactionary. This is one of the toys that Rorty loves so much, because it can so easily be abused and, in so doing, made useless. Everything we do or say or think is arguably reactionary.) Brad, if it helps, I'll readily grant that the purpose of language is survival. I'll even refrain from arguing that said purpose is thwarted without an accurate representational model at the foundation. I'll even go you one better, perhaps saving you an unnecessary post, and grant that our use of language (or misuse) often effects our perception of reality, and our perceptions effect our reactions, and our reactions can then change our reality. "I think, therefore I am," all too easily becomes "I think I am, therefore I am what I think." None of that changes my basic contention. Language, both its representational essence and its manipulative function, is an internal construct of man. Remove language from the universe, expunge man from existence, and the stars will continue to shine. Truth is out there, waiting to be discovered, not in here, waiting to be invented. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Isn't there truth within as well that exterorizes, not just truth without that internalizes? [This message has been edited by Essorant (09-02-2002 09:24 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: quote: I think you are confusing the issue. To a person who is subjected to pain, the scream is a reflex action. To a person who hears the scream, the association of it to pain is conditioned and, therefore, the scream, to that person, is a representation of that pain. A baby, who lacks the experience to draw the connection between hearing another's scream and associating it with pain, may be startled by the scream and begin crying. Over time, and before the baby develops the sophistication necessary to make this connection, the baby may very well begin crying whenever it is startled by a loud noise, not because it associates loud noises with pain, but rather because it associates loud noises with the unpleasant experience of being startled. In this sense, even a loud noise becomes a representation of something more than it is and elicits a fear response in the child (i.e., crying). quote: How about, "Roses are red"? Language (I'm not talking about reflex pain utterances), in its simplest form, manifests as a request or mand to meet a felt need (hunger, cuddling, change of a diaper, etc.). As human beings develop, language becomes more complex and abstract. The "roses are red" statement is an example of a tact or labeling. If you respond by saying, "Well, some roses are yellow, others white, and others yet are pink," then we are engaging in an even more complicated form of communication that has little to do with our physical needs. "I'm hungry" is a very simple example of expressive language that can result in a more complicated and abstract (or "representational") dialogue. "What would you like to eat?" ... "I want an apple." ... "We don't have any apples, would you like something else?" ... "Do we have any chips?" ... "No, all we have is beer." ... "Cool." For amoeba, reflex actions will never stray far from being "pure" or unconditioned reflex (I am not certain to what extent reflex actions in amoeba can be conditioned). Certainly dogs can be conditioned to salivate upon hearing the chime of a bell or monkeys can be conditioned to anticipate an electric shock and experience biochemical changes if that shock is paired with a flash of light. Language can be both driven by reflex and representational or abstract. It begins as being driven by physical need and becomes more complex as as person becomes aware that the thoughts of others do not mirror our own thoughts. I think this awareness is necessary in order for language to become more "representational". Is language ever purely representational? Probably not. But complicated language functions are certainly a result of conditioning and can become very far removed from the early foundations of our language development. I think it is more accurate to say that language is behavior. Gotta run. Enjoying the thread. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (09-03-2002 07:32 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jim, You're making my argument for me (and Ron has helped as well). Alright, what's the difference between representation and saying, "The baby is crying because she is in pain."? Eventually, I want to get back to your original question. I agree with you basic premise. The problem, I think, is that I'm not sure you want me to. I'm not sure you want this because "with friends like me ... You know the rest. Brad |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: If I seemed to disagree with you, it was probably because I am not familiar with the language you are using to describe the concepts you are asserting. The answer to you question: It would depend on from whose perspective the statement is being made. From the baby's, I think the crying, arguably, could be a response to pain. I don't think that this would fit your definition of "representation" as you describe it. From the perspective of a parent, the crying would be a "representation", since the baby's crying behavior, in addition to being a response to pain, also communicates the baby's pain to the parent. I said earlier that language is behavior. But it is also true many times that behavior is language (and words are not necessary for this to be true). Jim P.S. I only fear agreeing with you, Brad, when you are flatly wrong about something. I'll spare you the examples in this thread. |
||
|
The Napkin Writer Member
since 2002-06-28
Posts 70 |
Sorry I got in late on this but here goes it….. What is the truth? Consider the barer of a message. Is the message barer believable? Is the message a true statement, or a statement of truth? A true statement being, regardless to the message barer, it is the actual truth, and a statement of truth being, the barer recited the message accurately, or truthfully. Yet, the originator of the message is an unknown liar, and as such we have marked the barer as being a liar! Therefore, is our opinion of the barer of the message truthful? And history has proven in many such cases, such as one “example” rendered Quote: _____________________________________ An example ... if one eye-witness is asked, "Did you see Brian at the scene of the crime, holding a gun on the teller", and Essorant answers, "Yes" even though she didn't see you, she may be saying something that is true. _____________________________________ No, you are wrong! There have been too many cases where individuals have been sent to prison on the testimony of liars. This so called “eye-witness” swore to tell the truth on what many regard to be the truest document known to man, the Holy Bible. The question was simple and direct! "Did you see Brian at the scene of the crime, holding a gun on the teller" The “TRUTH” is no! No I did not see Brian at the scene of the crime, holding a gun on the teller. How can we as a nation of human beings continue to use examples of a lies, to prove the questions of what is truth? If this is an example of what truth is, then I question the perception of knowing how to interpret the truth! As far as the OJ trial is concerned, we can go right back to the example given, or my first paragraph considering the message barer. In this case that would be Mark Furman. Is Mr. Furman a racist? Did he believe OJ to be guilty initially and sought to make sure of his conviction by doing something unjust? I don’t think that was proven either, but he was proven to be a liar. Therefore, what do we believe coming from the mouth of a proven liar? If a liar is the best witness to the truth, the jury did in fact do their job. They based their verdict on believable evidence, and not on the testimony of a proven liar. But, when I stop and ask myself what Mr. Furman lied about, after swearing on the Holy Bible to tell the truth, he lied about possibly being a racist. Now do that mean that the rest of Mr. Furman’s testimony was untrue, “no it does not!” It means that OJ was acquitted because the prosecution unknowing put a liar on the stand as its major witness! “As such these type of witnesses chance the possibility of being jailed for perjury!” And, to use liars as examples of to getting to the truth, are bad examples of finding the truth. Since I know this question may come up later, I’ll give my answer now, no! No I don’t think OJ did it, I think he hired someone else to do it, and went to see if they in fact had done it, and became freaked out at the site, and high-tailed his butt to Chicago. As for what our hearts feel, that is the truth! Our minds only interpret the feelings and give them meaning. If we have heartache, of course the heart can’t figure out what’s causing the heartache, we rely on the mind to tell us what’s going on. Our minds could tell us that it’s heartbreak, or heartburn, or just a simple case of gas, based on what are the happenings surrounding what issues are taking place, that may not even be a concern of the heart. If I cut my leg and my mind lead me to believe that it’s nothing, that I’m a big boy and I don’t need a doctor, but in heart I know it hurts like hell, so I go to the doctor, and he says, “good thing you came in, or gangrene would have set in,” then where does the credit go for saving my leg, if I had listen to my mind, I wouldn’t have a lag to stand on! We always use the term, “I should have followed my first mind.” Well that first mind is not your minds evaluation of the issue, that first mind is your gut instinct, your feelings. Or one might even say, “in my heart I knew it was a lie, or that I knew he was a liar, but I figured!” You don’t figure anything the heart, you feel with your heart, and you figure with the mind, and our minds have been wrong too many times not to question what we choose to believe as the truth! Edit: "The truth is in our hearts!" [This message has been edited by The Napkin Writer (09-03-2002 01:03 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
If you follow my animal sequence and Jim's description of how children acquire language, I think the next question is how important is a concept of truth for an animal and an infant? I don't think they worry about it. This is a distinction between meeting one's needs (this is important for all biology) and the specific needs of human beings to separate the true from the false. As a child, at some point (or more likely over the course of time), we begin to see more than what is good and bad for us, we begin to see things as true and false. What's the difference? We begin to be able to see that some things are true but not good for us and this allows us to make decisions that an infant simply cannot make. As adults, we can decide to drink something that tastes bad because it's good for us (it's true that it's good for us even though it's not immediately obvious.), we don't complain, we do it because we believe it to be true. We can do this without the kind of behavioral conditioning that a dog must go through to salivate to bells or without the ever present authority of a parent. We can decide to do this. This doesn't mean we can't be conditioned, we can and we are, these two ideas (along with genetic dispositions) all interact in such a way to produce a specifically human experience, but it is this third component (the decision) that is what makes humans distinctive. The ability to make this decision, I believe, is the result of complex language. If you find this silly, go back and read what Ron is willing to concede on what language does, it is these factors that allow us to see things as true or false as opposed to good or bad. If this is right then that means we live in a semantic world and that true and false distinctions are not mind independent, the mind needs them in order to be independent, however slightly, from genetic dispositions and behavioral conditioning. That is, these concepts are needed in order to have minds. Now, before people jump on me tell me that this or that is true, it's important to see that this says nothing about what is or is not true. I've attempted to explain Davidson's theory of truth which says nothing about particular truths. It does say however that when one attempts to leave the semantic world for the sub-semantic ("Truth is in the heart") and/or the super-semantic ("Truth is discovered, not created"), we run into a problem. In either case, we can't decide on whether it is true or not for we have no conditions (contained in the semantic) to judge their truth or falseness. The Heart (the sub-semantic) and the World-Out-There (the super-semantic) can never be wrong. But that means they can never be right. Truth isn't created or discovered, it is decided upon. Now you can jump. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, "The Heart (the sub-semantic) and the World-Out-There (the super-semantic) can never be wrong. But that means they can never be right." Of course if you insist on this, it also of necessity means that we can never be right. Because if there is no absolutism (in any form) to be found without us, on what basis can you say that it is to be within us? But you might say that we decide corporately what is right or wrong... but that is the same thing as arbitrarily deciding isn't it? Ultimately everything including all our decisions and language ends up merely "being". Nothing is right or wrong, or true or false, at best, it just "is". Unless of course the super-semantic is rather personal ... unless that which can be called truth has a will and a mind. If that is so, it is of necessity possible for us to be right and also wrong. Deep inside we also know it is very possible to be right and wrong. This is where we cannot shake the ideas of morality which are imposed on us by conscience... If all moral convictions are societally formed and defined then they are abitrary and I ask why should I feel obliged to keep them? On what basis are we to assume that society is "right", especially if there is no ruling standard to which it can be compared? "Truth isn't created or discovered, it is decided upon." This is the point of debate isn't it? You assert that we author and define truth. I assert that truth is authored by the Creator of all things. It puts him along with his created universe in the realm of that which is unknown by us (though not altogether unknown) ... and it puts us in the realm of responsibility, to seek out knowledge ... both in the realms of science and spirituality. But why seek, and why strive for a "better" (whatever that might mean) world if there is nothing firm or absolute to be found or known. This whole thing is an epistemology which I cannot accept because it is self contridicting. How can any form of societal punishment (by Governments or anyone else) be justified on the basis of solidarity alone? We can't say they are wrong... we can only say their opinion is not the same as the majority. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-04-2002 01:00 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: Ahhh. Now I think I see where our positions depart. I don't think the next question has anything to do with whether infants worry about truth. In acquiring functional communication, the infant relies on predictability. If, for example, crying did not lead to consistently being fed but, rather, cooing and smiling was reinforced with feeding, the infant would stop crying to request food and begin cooing and smiling when fed (behaviorists have verified this). Whether the baby worries about why a feeding follows crying doesn't matter. What matters is that the infant's acquiring functional communication depends on the predictability of the response of another to its utterances and the consequence that follows. As the child matures into adolescence and adulthood, the "why" becomes more important because, in order to acquire more sophisticated skills, a greater understanding of contingencies is often necessary. In a sense, truth IS discovered progressively thoughout a person's development ("truth", in this case, being rooted in the scientific theories of operant conditioning). In my opinion, our ability to make right decisions is limited by our capability of ascertaining consequences of those decisions. Our ability to reason helps us to identify antecedants outside of ourselves that influence or even control the decisions we (and others) make. Once we identify these antecedants, we gain more control over our selves and over our immediate environment. Even our verbal behavior is often under stimulus control, even when we aren't aware that it is. The "truth" of this has always been there ... our discovery and understanding of this "truth" is rather recent ... and for some little guys, the continued exploration of these truths is very, very important. Jim |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
The baby is crying because of the diaphram ( a group of muscles underneath the front part of our rib cages specifically designed to draw breath in and push breath out of the lungs ) and the larnyx. They are responsible for making the sound or sounds that comes from the larnyx or vocal chords. They are what make the sounds we hear as singing, speaking crying and so on. The baby may however be considered to be crying due nociceptors activating, thus transmitting signals to the brain that may result in pain. Of course the ancient greeks believed pain was an emotion. J |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Jamie: Actually, the baby is ABLE to cry because all of these physical functions are able to operate properly. Ability to cry and the purpose of crying should not be confused. Pain is not an emotion ... it is a stimulus that elicits emotional responses (e.g., anxiety). The other "J" P.S. And some ancient Greeks thought all matter was composed of air. They were wrong about that too. |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
I don't recall thinking they were right--lol |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephen, quote: As far as I can tell, you're saying that we can never be certain that we are right. I think that's right. This is the cautionary use of truth: We can explain everything and predict everything but our explanations may not be true. I used to laugh at such statements, I used to say, "So what?" I still think that sometimes, I now think that's a good thing to have. However, I still think that it's only a good thing to worry about in certain contexts, in certain times and certain places. quote: I don't know what you mean by 'corporately' here, perhaps it's 'cooperatively'? Not criticizing because I do the same thing sometimes, I just don't understand what you mean. If Davidson's semantic theory of truth or as Rorty and Ramberg have said, a semantic theory of error, is indeed correct, our decisions aren't arbitrary and true at the same time. The decision making process is backed by all those other beliefs you have, it's also backed by how it works in the world. We do not randomly decide things. quote: Only if you work from a picture that's outside the universe, does this work. A math test may merely 'be' at one level, but at another it's pretty important to get it right. quote: This is a nice trick. If a linguistic community is what sets up the ability to determine true and false, can you question that linguistic community? Sure, you can do that. What you can't do is jump completely outside that community and pretend you are going to be understood. Ron and that article make much of the ambiguity inherent in linguistic community, but I don't think it's such a big deal. Are we part of multiple linguistic communities? Yes, we are. How do we know we're a part of linguistic community? Our vocables seem to work in the way they think they should. How are you sure that you aren't in a particular linguistic community? It doesn't look like they understand you. It doesn't work. Is there a sure line between any of these points? No. Do linguistic communities change? Sure. Can we change them? Yes. quote: This is the point of debate isn't it? You assert that we author and define truth.[/quote] No, I didn't. I said that we decide what is true and false. I said that in order for something to be true it can be false. That's it. I want to address your other points in a little more detail. I want to do this by pretending that we are taking a math test in the same class. Later, Brad How can any form of societal punishment (by Governments or anyone else) be justified on the basis of solidarity alone? We can't say they are wrong... we can only say their opinion is not the same as the majority. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, Sure, I love Math tests! ...  Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-06-2002 12:00 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The Truth and how we arrive at the truth are very different topics. And, hey, I want to give a math test, too! |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
If anyone believes that OJ Simpson did not murder his wife, I have some tickets to sell you for the upcoming comet lift to the 3rd heavens. Seriously... If one does not believe that OJ commited the act of murder then that person either: 1. Did not follow the entire trial and therefore did not digest all the facts of the case. 2. Subjectively, for whatever reason(s), does not want to believe this fact. 3. Cannot understand the evidence presented. There may be more reasons, but these are most likely the three major ones. Proving OJ Simpson's guilt was lost during the jury selection process, period. IMO ~ Mark Furman's testimony coupled with an incompetent Judge only accounted for the jury's quick decision. [This message has been edited by Opeth (09-08-2002 12:17 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
If you'd like to start a new thread, Opeth, by all means do so. But let's try to stay on-topic and not go into splintered directions. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
The truth is, this is an interesting thread that could go on and on. I still have trouble with courtroom scenes: "Yes, it's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." How many times have I heard an accomplished liar say "so help me, God" as they've sworn on a stack of Bibles to tell the truth. Sometimes truth seems to be the same as beauty...it's in the eyes of the beholder. Yet I do believe it is a truth that the earth is more globelike than rectangular. And I do believe (or hope?) that the truth shall set you free. But what truth? free from what? free to do what? I do know one absolute truth. I love my daughter, unconditionally. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The truth is: We give up? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No, I just dropped the ball. Part of the problem is Ron's point. The Truth and the process of getting there are two different things. Yet, Jim makes noises about both in his opening comment. I think the Truth is a 'category mistake' (to follow Davidson, who I quote somewhere around here.). Truth is a necessary part of how we think, we can't 'think' without it, but that doesn't mean 'the Truth is out there'. Truth is something we decide upon, but it's not decided upon arbitrarily. I've described this here, but the term Davidson uses is triangulation: you, another speaker, and the world interact to decide upon the truth. This isn't much different, from my point of view, that truth is inter-subjectively defined with the presupposition that it works, but Davidson takes it much further. He argues that, if this is true, most of our beliefs must be true already. When someone says, "That's your truth and this is my truth," it's a mistake, I suspect it's a way of arguing that whatever it is that is being talked about isn't significant at that moment. If it were, what is true becomes damn important. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Bingo? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Uh, help? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"When someone says, "That's your truth and this is my truth," it's a mistake, I suspect it's a way of arguing that whatever it is that is being talked about isn't significant at that moment. If it were, what is true becomes damn important." But Brad, people are in error quite often about what is significant or not, at any given moment. There are such things as ignorance, denial, and even unethical motives at play in the human psyche. For example, what do you think of the man who chooses to drink Alcohol right up until his family is destroyed and his liver is beyond repair, and who still asserts that drunkenness is "his truth"? Do you think this is in actuality something which is not significant in his life, or is he rather in denial of the significance ... which affects his life and the lives of others in a profound way? Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
If I want to do anything else here, I want to argue that is misplaced use of 'truth'. It may be his satisfaction, his slavation, his revelation, his hobby, or whatever, but it is not his truth. Look at it this way: Truth=(his drunkeness) Truth=(plug in your personal preference) 2+2=4 2+2=(plug in your personal preference) If you can plug in your personal preference, truth, in much the same way that 2+2 loses all use value. You can't be wrong and therefore you can't be right. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
