Whenever I get to your construct
thought/belief
— creativesoul
I get stuck and must move on to a different post, thread, forum or activity to reboot my mind. — Banno

Try now. I eliminated it.

I like the T-sentence.

I think it can be eliminated. Those particular marks... I mean. Most often though, the reader can choose either one and carry on just fine.

Demand in one hand... shit in the other...

You never answered the question. Will you demand an originalist interpretation?

You'll see it for yourself. Hang tight. Keeping watching. I know you will. You're a media puppet like others here.

Have you read the Mueller report? Have you read the transcripts of the Mueller testimony? Have you watched the video footage?

Correspondence.

That is what makes statements, beliefs, assertions, thoughts, and propositions true. Correspondence to fact/reality is presupposed with all thought, belief, and statements thereof. That's what makes "is true" a redundant use of language when talking about sincere speech acts.

The statement "A cat is on the mat" is true if and only if a cat is on the mat.

The statement "I believe a cat is on the mat" is true if and only if the speaker believes a cat is on the mat.

The statement "I believe 'A cat is on the mat' is a true statement" is true if and only if the speaker believes a cat is on the mat.

Notice there is no difference in the truth conditions of the last two(what makes them both true) and the first. That marks the difference between belief and truth. Truth is existentially dependent upon belief. However, belief is inadequate for truth. Truth requires more.

Here's the rub Banno alluded to earlier...

A statement can be true regardless of whether or not a particular person believes that it is. In that sense, in such circumstances... the particular individual's belief is completely irrelevant. It's not needed.

There are two uses of the word in play. One is about what we take to be true. The other is akin to absolute truth. — frank

The former is belief not truth. The latter is very problematic, as Banno has been demonstrating.

The focus should be on the conflicts that arise due to these two uses, not annointing one to be correct usage and the other incorrect. — frank

Can we focus upon what counts as good ground to reject both?

So, now we have an interesting situation. The quote in your OP says that everything is a matter of interpretation. I interpret Tarski to be referring to an actuality in his t-sentence. Maybe Tarski thinks he is not. Is there a privileged interpretation of the T-sentence? What would determine the truth in this case? — Janus

Tarski's own thoughts, beliefs, and ideas are the standard by which we determine which report of Tarski is more commensurate with and/or amenable to Tarski.

If Tarski never used the term "actuality" then Tarski was not referring to actuality.

It seems to me that Tarski's schema shows the irreducibility of an account of truth.

On the left is a statement, belief, assertion, thought, or proposition. The middle reminds us of what we're doing(setting out what makes a statement, belief, assertion, thought, or proposition true). On the right are the truth conditions of the statement, belief, assertion, thought, or proposition on the left. The right sets out as precisely as possible what must be the case in order for the statement, belief, assertion, thought, or proposition to be true.

I do not use the term "truths". That is to conflate true statements, assertions, thoughts, beliefs, and propositions with what makes them so.

What sorts of things can be true, and what makes them so?
— creativesoul

You want us to list the things that all truths have in common? — Banno

No.

I want us to list what it takes for statements, assertions, thoughts, beliefs, and propositions to be true.

Truth-makers are a distraction, not a help — Banno

Doesn't make it true...

:smile:


What sorts of things can be true/false, and what makes them so?

Looks like the most helpful question one can ask when one seeks to understand.

We know belief alone is not enough.

Regarding the idea that truth is redundant.


Assuming sincerity in speech, 'X' is equivalent to "X is true" or "I believe X is true". Let X be a belief statement.

"Is true" is what's redundant here.

The late Russell tried to drop propositions in favor of beliefs, but it's generally accepted that that doesnt work. — frank

I would beg to differ.

:wink:

Banno beat me to it. Differently too!

I'm curious...

When it comes to establishing the standard, the metric, the criterion for what counts as a clear cut case of an American president abusing the executive powers granted to the office of the presidency...

When it comes to what constitutes being an abuse of power...

Will we demand an originalist interpretation of the Constitution?

I do.

You've flippantly dismissed out of hand and/or derided everything I've explained, so I'm not sure you deserve one. — NOS4A2

What's the difference between invoking executive privilege and abusing it?

Assuming sincerity in speech...

All who claim knowledge of what's important are crystal clear about what's important to them(at the time of speaking). I see no reason whatsoever to deny that simply because a person is a Trump supporter.

The general claim that I object to is that Trump supporters are crystal clear about what’s important. — praxis

I'm not at all certain how you would ground such an objection.

Those who've reasoned their support are prone to reason their way out, but not if they are vilified for being a Trump supporter.

To quite the contrary, the only thing that all Trump supporters have in common is that they are Trump supporters.

That's too broad a brush. Not all Trump supporters think/believe the same things. Explanations with supporting facts easily show/prove beyond a reasonable doubt that regulations are inevitable. "Big government" is horoscope language. Fill it out as one sees fit.

Look at the governmental institutions. Look at what they've done. Does it make sense for an institution like the Department of Education to take action which increases the the inequality of American education? Does it make sense for the Environmental Protection Agency to rescind earlier regulations that were deemed mandatory for protecting the environment? Etc.

I agree that the Republican narrative is resistant to change. I do not attribute that resistance to it's cohesiveness.

The Republican narrative has been very cohesive and it has dominated much of the public discourse.

The point, I think, was to point out the power in the consequences of the narrative. Which terms are used to talk about which things makes all the difference in the world when it comes to how people feel and/or think about those things...

Bernie=Socialism=not American=bad

You get the picture.

I think one of the things in our purview is to change the kinds of conversations that dominate the public space, and change the terms of what is important. I think the power of this is massively underestimated: normalizing ideas, altering the landscape of what is possible. The right I think understood this incredibly well, and still continues to. — StreetlightX

The importance of this cannot be overstated...

if it is truly DEFINITIONAL, then it's not really racism, is it. — tim wood

Right. If it's really racism it is never truly definitional.

:roll:

All memory meets that criterion.

The challenge, as always, is to recognize it, understand how privilege is made manifest, and fight for those who are deprived of it.
— Maw

Ok. I recognize it and realize when failures are the result of bad decisions versus a bad environment. — Hanover

Bad luck anywhere in there?

Emotions like the ones I mentioned (fear, anger, insecurity) that a person has not found a means to discharge and thus are "trapped" in his mind.

This can be somewhat benign. Lets say I spilled a cup of coffee over my desk and it frustrated me. This emotion then needs to be discharged. I may go for a walk or perform some physical exercise. I may express my frustration verbally towards a colleague. Or I may bottle it up and be moody for the rest of the day. Since the source of frustration is gone, this sort of emotion tends to resolve itself in time.

It can also be more severe in nature. Imagine the same sort of process, but with a heavier emotional load. Perhaps someone has had a difficult relationship with their parents. Perhaps someone was deeply hurt in a relationship. It is possibly for such events to become internalized, whereby the actual source of the emotion is gone, but the mind itself becomes the new source. This starts getting in the realm of mental trauma. — Tzeentch

Mental trauma?

When memories of emotionally devastating situations perpetuate past feelings of fear, anger, and/or insecurity.

Internalized?

As if memories, emotions, and being devastated were not always - in part at least - already internal to begin with. How does something go from already being internal to being internalized?

Is it good to use as defense against an inconsiderate or insulting attack of some kind? — schopenhauer1

It's always good to be considerate. Being considerate does not equal being defenseless. One can be both considerate and well defended. It's always good to be considerate and well-defended.

Not all insults have the same effect/affect upon the listener. An insult can be appropriate. Here, on this forum, it can exemplify any number of different underlying situations. Some considerate people insult others as a result of careful consideration.

If behaving morally/ethically requires being considerate to others, and being mean is a kind of inconsiderate behaviour, then yes... by definition alone mean people are immoral.
— creativesoul

Ok, but then what is the basis for being considerate? At what times should one be considerate and at what times should one not? Is it all the time? Is it good to use as defense against an inconsiderate or insulting attack of some kind? — schopenhauer1

Are you asking if being considerate is good while being inconsiderate is not?

Well...

If behaving morally/ethically requires being considerate to others, and being mean is a kind of inconsiderate behaviour, then yes... by definition alone... mean people are immoral(have a moral flaw).

I'm always a bit puzzled when someone says that white people cannot 'see' white privilege. Generally speaking, I take the notion of white privilege to mean something along the lines of the accumulated advantages of being white. I've even watched documentaries on white privilege when white people accepted the idea that they could not see white privilege, therefore when asked about it, they answered that they did not know because they were white and couldn't see it as a result.

I don't know, perhaps I'm being a bit close-minded or harsh, but...

How could you not see it if you had any close black friends and/or loved ones?

Yeah....

Nevermind.

...all moral value is a kind of value... — Bartricks

Cool. What makes it moral - in kind? What do all moral things have in common such that having it is what makes them moral things, as compared/contrasted to things that are not?

All moral value is value.
Not all value is moral value.

Agree?

So, are you now rejecting your original argument? The one you just presented is new.

Something being valued is not equivalent to something being morally valuable. — creativesoul

The above is true. We all know that much. Even the OP has admitted not all his values are moral values. What's curious is how he can still somehow think/believe that the first premiss in the OP is true. It contradicts with the way things are.

You could always address the earlier arguments. I've shown enough.