lol

Including:
Fantasies are real?
Logic of language is irrefutable?
Everything Kant wrote is true?
Philosophy as taught at universities is true?
People are born into sin?
Life is a misery?

↪A Seagull Doubtless; I have honours and a masters, and have been studying philosophy for over forty years.

But I could lean some more.

So, educate me. — Banno

I am not here to educate people.

I would only say that there is a distinct distinction between history of philosophy, which is the main focus of universities, and philosophy itself. The distinction is similar to that of actually climbing mountains and reading accounts of people who have climbed mountains.

Philosophy is necessarily based upon assumptions, a good philosophy will identify those assumptions, a poor one will just leave them as implicit.

What assumptions does your philosophy make?

Here's a fine fly-bottle. A Seagull who writes eloquently, yet without knowing.

I put it to you that you know plenty of cool stuff, but philosophy tells you otherwise. Drop the philosophy. — Banno

I suspect that if you knew a little bit more about philosophy you would realise how little you actually know.

↪Banno I get that metaphysics is different from epistemology, but epistemology relies upon metaphysics because the T in the JTB is a direct link to what is. — Hanover

Yes and that is the rub. Metaphysics is beyond epistemology and hence is beyond knowledge which means it is indistinguishable from fantasy. The T of JTB is cannot be directly linked to 'what is' , it is based on naïve reality, in other words it is a fantasy. All one knows is what can be derived from epistemology.

...yes, indeed; so we treat what you said as a reductio, and conclude that your "For someone to claim that a statement or proposition is true, it means ''I believe this statement'" is wrong... — Banno

Your claim that it is wrong is false.

"The cat is on the mat" is true IFF the cat is on the mat.

That's all there is to it. — Banno

But without a process of actually determining whether the cat is actually on the mat or not it is effectively meaningless.

That's not right. As in, you've just sown that you do not understand the redundancy theory. — Banno

Perhaps you do not understand it, it does seem fairly simple.

IF that were so, no one would ever be mistaken; for to be mistaken is to beleive that such-and-such is true, when it is not. — Banno

People can still be mistaken, in fact people are often mistaken.

Can anyone elaborate as to why isn't happiness a choice?

I mean we all want it, and even it seems some need it; but, very recently I view it as a choice between competing interests. At the moment I have no competing interests or wants and kinda feel happy. — Wallows

Happiness is a goal to which everyone inescapably aspires; how they get there is a matter of choice, everyone takes a different path

So is it also meaningless to state that a statement is false?

Or are you in the process of re-inventing the redundancy theory of truth? — Banno

No I agree with the redundancy theory of truth, 'truth' is just a label of convenience (as is falsity).

For someone to claim that a statement or proposition is true, it means ''I believe this statement'. if the 'I' is removed from the claim then the claim becomes meaningless.

It is meaningless to state that a statement 'is true' ( As opposed to having a 'label of true'), except that the statement is part of an explicit axiomatic formal system; and even then it is only true within that axiomatic system.

Propositions are true when they CORRESPOND to an idea that is considered true. — Arne

And what is meant by 'an idea that is considered true'? Sounds tautological to me.

Propositions are labelled as 'true' when they are an accurate representation of an idea that a person believes.

Indeed. But that is not necessarily "as it should be." For Example A Seagull is essentially pushing a correspondence theory of truth that could be fruitful if tweaked. — Arne

There is no correspondence.

Perhaps the point to realise is that your model of the world differs from everybody else's and that their is no perfect or 'real' model with which to compare it.

One way in which it can work, is to (arbitrarily) declare particular basic sentences to be true. Next, all sentences that necessarily follow from these basic sentences are also true, in accordance with the rules of logic that you consider to apply. Therefore, a sentence is logically "true" when it has the same truth status as the basic sentences of the theory created by the basic sentences — alcontali

Ok. you can 'declare particular sentences to be 'true'. But what then? What logical process are you going to use to find those sentences that 'necessarily follow from those basic sentences'? Even if you do have such a logical process, those sentences that follow and are declared 'true' are only true within that particular system; ie they rely on the truth of the original basic sentences for their truth.

If one wants a simple, self-consistent and comprehensive philosophy, then IMO it is not only the best but the only way to go. — A Seagull
'Better/, 'Fruitful' for what? What is it these systems are trying to achieve that you think this approach might make more likely? — Isaac

What people want from philosophy ( or at least what I want from philosophy) is a simple, self-consistent, accurate and comprehensive system for describing what knowledge is and how it is achieved as this will allow for a more effective and efficient means of interacting with the world; a system that can link all facets of one's experience of the world from the inner to the outer without schisms or discontinuities and without arbitrary assumptions.

It makes more logical sense to only assume that we have a model of the world. — A Seagull
Yes, let us create a model of the world, declare it to be the real, and treat the world as less real than the model of the world. That is not a winning argument. — Arne

One does not need to declare that a model of the world is 'real', all one needs to do is to realise that the model is all one knows about the world.

Propositions (or statements) can be labelled as 'true' when they are considered to be an accurate representation of an idea that the brain/mind has labelled as 'true'. — A Seagull
I would tweak it as "an assertion is true if the entity toward which it is directed shows itself to be as asserted." As a result, we move beyond a correspondence between a proposition and what the mind has labeled as true to a correspondence between a proposition and how entities within the world show themselves to be. We have now shed the pesky and unnecessary "representation of an idea". — Arne

You seem to be making the assumption of 'naïve reality' whereby the world is pretty much or even exactly as we perceive it. For me this is a naïve assumption, albeit a popular one.

It makes more logical sense to only assume that we have a model of the world.

Propositions (or statements) can be labelled as 'true' when they are considered to be an accurate representation of an idea that the brain/mind has labelled as 'true'. — A Seagull
Sure, but that would be a really weird use of the word. Totally out of kilter with the way it's used at the moment so I don't think you'll get many takers. — Isaac

I don't expect to get many 'takers'. And yes it is at odds with many people's ideas about truth.

But that doesn't mean it is not part of a better system.

If one wants a simple, self-consistent and comprehensive philosophy, then IMO it is not only the best but the only way to go.

think there is substantial agreement about what is 'true' in the world. — A Seagull
I agree (using your 'labelling' type definition of 'true'). But if the definition were limited to the sort of thing about which there is such agreement, then virtually no proposition in philosophy could be labelled 'true'. — Isaac

Propositions (or statements) can be labelled as 'true' when they are considered to be an accurate representation of an idea that the brain/mind has labelled as 'true'.

We learn to recognise what is referred to as a 'blue' object. Then we can categorise all the objects that appear blue as being 'blue'. It is the same with truth, we label ideas as being 'true' when they have the appearance of being true. Sometimes those ideas can be summarised in statements, so we label those statements as being 'true'. — A Seagull
I don't see how this could be the case. If there was substantial disagreement about which things were 'blue' it would be impossible to learn how to use the word. There is substantial disagreement about what is 'true'.

Maybe you could use that argument to justify a simplistic correspondence theory of truth. In which case virtually all of philosophy is misusing the word 'true'. — Isaac

I think there is substantial agreement about what is 'true' in the world. And I think people actually label things as being true in much the same way. The disagreement arises when people try to make truth out to be some objective property of the world or statements. Whereas truth is necessarily subjective. Without a brain/mind to label ideas or statements as 'true' there would be no truth.

#1 How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place? — Monist

Truth is a label, in the same way that colour is a label. We learn to recognise what is referred to as a 'blue' object. Then we can categorise all the objects that appear blue as being 'blue'. It is the same with truth, we label ideas as being 'true' when they have the appearance of being true. Sometimes those ideas can be summarised in statements, so we label those statements as being 'true'.

How one recognises which ideas have the appearance of being true is another question.

Typically when we talk about equality we're talking about economic equality, which is of course a very real issue. My main question is why does the discussion have to stop here. — BitconnectCarlos

But who wants equality anyway, economic or otherwise?

Apart from equality of education, I , for one, do not.

Who would want to live in a world dominated by mediocrity?

Without inequality there is no motivation and without motivation there is no life.

Perhaps the Pareto distribution (20%/80%) is the natural order of things. So it would be natural. and perhaps unavoidable, that 20% of people will own 80% of the assets etc..

For example, the Pareto distribution would predict that 20% of the members of this forum would produce 80% of the posts, which, I suggest, is a far more accurate prediction than 50% of the members produce 50% of the posts.

Clearly you are stuck inside your own negative premises. From which there is no escape without motivation. — A Seagull
No I mean it — schopenhauer1

It is like encountering someone who is stuck down a well and you offer to assist them in climbing out but instead they insist that although they are miserable they like it down there and invite you to join them. One can only walk away sighing and laughing in equal measure.

Enjoy! Life is for enjoying! — A Seagull
Say that to someone extremely ill. Is the illness supposed to be good because if one gets through it life seems better? You gotta do better than that. — schopenhauer1

Clearly you are stuck inside your own negative premises. From which there is no escape without motivation.

So barring cliched suicide responses and an appeal to therapy, is there any philosophical insights for people who simply dont like the premises of life? — schopenhauer1

Then you can look for and find some other ones, or failing that create your own..

Enjoy! Life is for enjoying!

It is true that I can only experience my own thoughts and not anyone else's.

And everyone claims that to be true for their own selves.

But what if the others are lying? — god must be atheist

And what if you are lying?

This is all to counter the idea that you could call philosophy an opinion but not physics. As you suggested above.

Mode of thinking sounds just like another way of saying opinion, btw. But a=a is a fact of the universe. A law which all things abide by. A more certain law than any of the things physics could possibly point to. — Artemis

You seem to be suggesting that 'a=a' is somehow fundamental to philosophy and hence not an opinion and hence philosophy is not opinion.

But what does 'a=a' actually mean?

I will tell you: It means that in a logical system 'a' can be substituted for 'a' without affecting the validity of the logical process. And also, by inference, that any string of symbols eg 'xyz' can be substituted for the same string of symbols 'xyz' without affecting the outcome of the logical process. In this way the substitution of 'xyz' for 'xyz' is a null operation, it changes nothing.

So 'a=a' is really nothing special, it can only be used within some logical system and hence cannot be foundational.

The more I read about Cogito Ergo Sum, the less I understand existence.

Descartes presupposed I; he took existence as a starting point to prove existence. In doing so, he failed.

All I want to know is that I exist. I want to know that my thoughts are my own. But I have found nothing that proves certainty.

Anyone help? — Kranky

I thought we covered this in the other thread..... perhaps not.

Perhaps you misunderstand what philosophy is or perhaps in this case what philosophy is not.

Philosophy provides ideas and guidelines, it does not produce certainty and proofs about personal matters or in fact any matter beyond a formal system.

If you are still troubled by questions regarding your own existence I suggest you consult a psychologist, or psychiatrist; or perhaps your mother would be a good place to start.

Yes they can. One is an opinion about the modalities of the rule set and the other is an opinion about the meta data. Two different areas of knowledge/opinion. — Isaac
a: What is your opinion on the Jabberwocky?
b: Pretty negative.
a: Do you know what the Jabberwocky is?
b: Not a clue.
a: That means you have no idea what you have a negative opinion about or what it even means to have a negative opinion thereof. Basically, your opinion is not really an opinion at all, because it is about nothing and means nothing.


Artemis

19 minutes ago — Artemis

What you are talking about here is internal self-consistency, which is certainly an important criteria for any philosophy or system. . But that is not the only criteria that is required for a meaningful philosophy; it must be explicitly connected, presumably empirically, to the real world. If it is not, then it is only of interest to people who want to explore those ideas and worry about its relevance later, ie philosophers.

For non-philosophers it may appear no more than an academic exercise. and a meaningless one at that.

Even though it would mean exactly the same as the sentence above, the following is not allowed:

truth(┌s1┐ ⌜s1⌝\ulcorner s1 \urcorner) ↔ ↔\leftrightarrow truth(┌s2┐ ⌜s2⌝\ulcorner s2 \urcorner) — alcontali

You are referring to a specific formal system. And you can have many theorems and analyses within that formal system. You can even specify an interpretation of 'truth' within that system. But you cannot apply that system to statements about the real world without going outside of that system to a domain where the rules, axioms and 'truths' of the system do not apply.

They've simply invented a game, the full impliations of which are quite complex and so understanding them is 'hard and heady'. They still know nothing more about anything outside of chess. — Isaac
Yes, but certainly you would defer to their expertise on all matters chess, or at least recognize that they probably know better than you about the best way to move the rook.

I'm talking about laypersons who specifically won't defer or acknowledge the expertise of the...,yknow, experts on philosophical matters. — Artemis

But is it the same game they are playing?

Take the field of ethics for example; is the rather theoretical ethics that philosophers discuss the same
domain as that empirically experienced by non-philosophers? And perhaps more importantly do the non-philosophers consider it to be the same domain? For if they don't consider it to be the same domain and thus not relevant, they will not acknowledge the expertise of philosophers on the matter.

If philosophy is not relevant to non-philosophers, then philosophy becomes indistinguishable from an academic game.

That said, I believe that philosophy is relevant to non-philosophers, but in somewhat subtle and indirect ways.

What do you mean by "philosophers" and "non-philosophers"? — Artemis

I didn't use the word 'philosopher'.

By 'non-philosopher' I mean people who do not engage in any serious or formal way with philosophy.

Nevertheless, such people might have use for philosophy, perhaps politicians, social workers, teachers and so on.

So we can be certain of our existence as well as the exact content of our conscious thoughts at the time of their awareness.

So is that beyond what Descartes meant by I think therefore I am? — Kranky

I have no idea what Descartes actually meant. All we have is his statement; do with it what you will.

You have certainty of your own existence; what more do you want?

↪A Seagull

I am sitting here with the awareness typing this reply. That single thought is therefore certain in that it is happening? — Kranky

Certainly for you it is. And I have no problem in believing it.

That's exactly what I mean.
If I have one thought in my head that I am conscious of, the context of that exact thought is certain.

So we can be certain of our existence (because of the thought) and certain of the thought itself? — Kranky

Well yes, just so long as you have sufficient capacity for thoughts about your thoughts; and without any evidence to the contrary, I can confidently (but perhaps not certainly) assume that you do.

So once one gets the thought that one exists (eg 'I am') then it is irrefutable and certain.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

If I am aware of a thought, that exact thought is certain. If it were not certain in exactly how it was occurring to me, then it's existence (and therefore mine) could be doubted? — Kranky

It depends upon what you mean by 'certain'.

Certainty is a state of mind. If you only had one thought in your head, no matter what it was, I expect you would be certain of it; in fact I am certain of it, for there would be no capacity for doubt.

Oops Please ignore this comment.

BTW I hope you realise that ad hominems are a disappointing tactic used by people who cannot put forward any rational argument. — A SeagullWell, to be fussy, no, I don't think that's the case. I have seen people mount excellent arguments and use ad homs. It might be a tactic used by someone who cannot put forward a rational argument or it might not. — Coben

Well, you do have a point. Philosophy is all about opinions and as such is personal. But this doers not mean that the ideas presented cannot be evaluated entirely on their own merit and, particularly on a forum such as this, the integrity of the poster be respected.

For a person not to do so is an indication that they are not so much interested in exploring the ideas of philosophy as they are determined to preserve their own opinions.

Once a discussion has devolved into ad hominems, it is the end of the discussion.