Interesting! I didn’t really follow plato’s definition: how exactly are you defining truth then? Is it a platonic form for you? — Bob Ross

I don't know if it is a platonic form of definition. But I would define truth as "the reality itself when it is perceived objectively".

For you, it sounds like, perhaps, truth is just being, which is the light, so to speak, of reality (as plato thought?)? — Bob Ross

Exactly.

What I tried to argue is that truth or reality are independent selves. They do exist there objectively, but the significance and definitions are mind-dependent. Here is where I agree with you. Yet, we can end up in a complex situation regarding the interpretation of truth: hallucination. The latter is part of our "subjectiveness" more than we wish and then, can elaborate biased definitions and interpretations while the reality and truth are just there.

It is true that there are some concepts which, without mind perception, cannot exist. For example: colors. But there are also other objects that already existed even before our own existence. For example, the universe. I think we apply a lot of "inter-subjectivity" in terms of defining both groups. My conclusion is that the universe is a reality or truth that exists independently. It doesn't need to be linked to our minds to make an "existence".

Empiricists cut through the issue by reducing the objects of perception to the perceptions themselves. This would make it difficult to define what a hallucination even is, or how my perceptions relate to those of other people, but it certainly is a matter of pushing Empiricist principles to their logical conclusion. Berkeley and Hume are good at that.
George Berkeley's motto for his idealist philosophical position that nothing exists independently of its perception by a mind except minds themselves.

Human or divine perception?

According to Berkeley, the mind of God always perceives everything. Unlike God’s perception of his own perfect ideas, human perceptions are imperfect and so provide incomplete or unclear knowledge of reality.
Nonetheless, Berkeley’s ’esse is percipi’ has been criticized for implying epistemological solipsism, the main argument being that different minds cannot harbor numerically one and the same idea.

I cannot say that truth is objective, because without a subject it cannot exist; however, I cannot, equally so, claim that it is subjective (for the truth is surely not equivalent to the asserted being but, rather, its correspondence to reality). — Bob Ross

Hello Bob Ross!

I cannot say that truth is subjective either. But you claimed that reality is mind-dependent and thus, there can be no asserted being without a subject. If I didn't understand you mistakenly, your point here is that, despite the fact that truth is not objective or subjective, it cannot really exist without our minds.

Well, I personally think that truth can be objective.

I have another definition of truth from Plato: “This reality, then, that gives their truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say is the idea of the good, and you must conceive it as being the cause of knowledge and of truth in so far as known.”

A year ago, I read an interesting paper by Richard A. Fumerton called Metaphysical and Epistemological Problems of Perception. He asked to the participants the following question: How do we know when there is and when there is not a real object? If you are interested, here is the link to the thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12945/hallucination-and-truth/p1

I agree with his points that “real objects are phenomenal, as we ordinarily treat them; and the things that appear are, most of the time, real.”
Yet, this assertions can be contradicted by your arguments and I thought it was interesting to share them in your thread. I personally think that truth exists objectively but we even interpret wrongly due to hallucinations.
Conclusion of what I try to argue: reality does exist objectively but we manipulate it through our mind and that’s why we never really know if something is “real”

I look at threads based on topic not popularity and assume literally everyone else does too … why wouldn’t they? — I like sushi

Well, you are referring to your own criteria. You can't really know what the mind of the rest is or what they are attracted by.

I simply do not understand why, depending on the person, one thread gets more relevance than the other. It is just strange to me. As you said, people chime in threads because of the topic, like if they were acting objectively. I disagree, using the arguments I mentioned previously. I have evidences that - not exactly but similar - threads about ethics or Philosophy of Language get more attention depending on who the author is, not the content itself.

I understand. The participation of many users in a single thread can be chaotic but the line of importance/attraction is blurred in these cases. Maybe it is not your case, but whenever you login into TPF and you see some threads with a considerable number of replies, the users quickly think that those threads seem to be interesting while others with, lack of answers/participation are not. Well, I completely disagree in this point, but this is how this forum works. It is obvious that whenever you start a discussion you wish to have some acknowledgement or feedback at least.

So, you need to get some participants and replies. What is the clue of posting a thread and not receiving any replies at all?

Sometimes it seems as if it is not the OP that generates the interest so much, but the first 2 or 3 responses. — Tom Storm

I agree. But here we end up in the same dilemma. If one thread doesn't get one or five replies at least, it will not be considered as "interesting" or "philosophical" and then, it will disappear from the pages of this site. For example, this thread of Alkis remained silent for two months. I was lucky to discover it, but who knows if I never wrote the first reply. We wouldn't be debating this morning when it is clear a good OP, even more clear and substantive than others that always remain in the main page.

I disagree with Focus and Participation. — I like sushi

OK. Why?

I know that some of you don't act in the way I refer to in my arguments. But you are just a few. What I tend to argue is some facts about why some discussions get more relevance or "activity". I still maintain that who the author is is very important rather than the content of the OP itself. To be honest, I have always tried to publish substantive threads with the aim of having exchanges. Nonetheless, other users, - more famous or original than me - posted similar threads but they got hundreds of replies. Why did this happen?

I think @Leontiskos explained pretty good. The threads which do not stick to the rules provided by the moderators are the ones that receive more attention paradoxically.

But then I noticed that almost no one is following those guidelines, and the OPs that do follow them receive much fewer replies. This doesn't mean that the "research" model for OPs is suboptimal, but that model probably produces more pondering and silent listening, which in turn produces ambiguous silence. — Leontiskos

Good point.

How well does this translate to a philosophy forum? For one, there is no requirement for someone to pretend to be interested in a thread or to say something in order to count as participating. In addition, there is no expectation that members know enough about a topic to have something to say. — Fooloso4

I am curious about this fact. I think there could be two groups of members: one group where the people don't take part in discussions because they don't have enough data in the discussion itself (5 % or 10 % of the overall) and those who don't answer because you are not friends with (90 % or 95 %)
The experience and two years and a half on this site make me end up in this conclusion. I guess my discussions are not that complex, sometimes I had a good number of replies, others not. But they are threads by which you can express yourself so easily. Most of the users around here can maintain arguments.

Absolutely right, nobody has the aim to participate in a thread, but what I feel is that there is not equity. The level of interaction of a thread doesn't depend on if it is clear or attractive but who is the author.

Right, but what is the connection between activity and importance? It is easy to post something that will generate a lot of response, but this can be a poor measure of the significance of the thread. — Fooloso4

I agree that activity is not necessarily connected with the importance of a thread, but when any of them doesn't get any reply at all, it seems that it lacks relevance. It has happened to me a few times. After posting my OP and seeing literally zero replies, my first impression is that my thread is bad or not important.
Whether it is a poor measure of significance or not, it affects you anyway. Because, as I explained, a thread depends on the number of replies and it is incomprehensible why some appear on the front of the page and others (more interesting) don't.
For example, the Donald Trump and Ukraine Crisis threads should be put in The Lounge, because these are not philosophical but political. Yet, they hold a lot of activity.

I was not aware that there are any. But famous or not, I agree that some members grab attention and others go unnoticed or are deliberately ignored. Those who are ignored certainly play some role in this. — Fooloso4

Exactly. This is what I was trying to say. :up:

Added: I am speaking in general terms, not about the author of this thread, with whom I have had some interesting discussions. — Fooloso4

@Alkis Piskas is an original thinker and a good person, indeed.

To remain silent may be an important form of participation. One in which one thinks about what has been said rather than thinking about what to say. — Fooloso4

Interesting thought. You are right in this point.

But I think it is complex to apply it on this site where the activity depends on the number of replies that each thread can get. If a thread doesn't have enough answers, it can end up in absolute forgetfulness, passing one page and another, and then disappearing in the endless information stock of this forum.

This is where I guess the issue starts. The number of replies in each thread doesn't depend on how hard you worked on your thread. There are other facts that can condition your OP: if you are not "friends" with others; if you are not likable; if you don't talk about religion and AI, etc. The example of Alkis is excellent. I personally believe that this thread is interesting but it remained without participation for two months. Why did this happen?
I bet that if one of the famous and common "philosophers" of this site put the same OP, they would have had multiple answers!

What I noticed is that some remain silent because they just ignore the users, not because they are thinking about what I posted.

But it's not a thread. It's an article and that's why I have posted it in the 'Article Submissions' section.
Yet one would expect at least a simple acknowledgent ... — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I am aware that it is not a "thread" at all, because it is posted in "article submissions" with the aim of having some exchanges and maybe not a deep philosophical debate.
Yet, I don't understand why this didn't have replies or feedback. I share the same feeling as Clarky. I don't remember seeing your post on the main page. Otherwise, I promise I would have posted something.

This is why I prefer to use the INBOX for personal exchanges. From the amount of chit-chats I see in here, I believe most people here never use it. — Alkis Piskas

I agree. Well said.

I believe that too. People like more to discuss with "friends", independently of how interesting and useful a topic and its description by the PO is. — Alkis Piskas

Exactly. :up:

Hey, Javi... Thanks for bringing this back up. — T Clark

You are welcome, friend. :up:

Quality response. — Pantagruel

Indeed.

What a good thread, Alkis! I do not understand why you didn't have any reply at all. You explained pretty well what each thread should have. I wish each one could stick to these standards. I think it is not only good for keeping this site with quality threads but also for the moderators in general, because - sometimes - they lack of having arguments on discern which thread deserves to be on the main page, in The Lounge or even removed.

Participation: It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible. For that reason, they should not be dominated by just a few participants. Side conversations tend to be distracting and should be avoided. — Alkis Piskas

Well, this point never gets taken seriously. I think each thread would have more or less participation depending on the author, not the content itself. I bet that even some members do not read the content of the threads just because of who is the user that wrote it. I think it is unfair, but we have both debated this issue a lot...

Yes.

Just as you can have quantity without quality, you can have quality without quantity. — Pantagruel

Well, it is a big debate on what we consider "quality" on this site when the subjective interferes and depends (a lot) on who is the author of each thread.

Actually, moderators, you ought to move this question to metaphysics or ontology. — alan1000

No. They should move this “thread” (just a question and an emoji) to The Lounge. :smile:

Can't believe that an OP of just two phrases is not put in The Lounge.

jack-in-the-box toys... — Dawnstorm

Actually you did here the same as I do when I am not sure and I don't want be to harassed by the grammar police. Rewrite the sentence to avoid the problem. — Sir2u

Clever move, indeed!

I don't know exactly how correct I am but I mostly use a rule for things like this that I learned somewhere a long time ago.

If the noun-phrase or compound noun has several heads that are of equal value, when it is obvious that as a whole it refers a single object that cannot be broken down into separate pieces without losing its meaning or is used as a noun to describe an object the S goes at the end of the line, — Sir2u

Interesting! I am going to use your wisdom from now on. Again, I appreciate all this information which helps me out.

And frankly I don't even know what I'd have used if it weren't in a linguistic discussion. Maybe I'd have intuitively said "jack-in-the-boxes", too? I don't — Dawnstorm

I agree! This is why I find this debate funny and entertaining. Everything started when I was reading examples of how some phrases came onto one word.
"Jack is in the box" -> "Jack-in-the-box" or "break a fast" to "breakfast".
All of these are the key facts to keep understanding English and how works.

It is true that is difficult to find a context or conversation to use such a word in plural. Yet, it seems to be tricky and I never thought it could make a brief/short debate regarding to pluralize. It is a hidden gem inside the beautiful world of linguistics! :smile:

To be honest, if I have the opportunity, I would use or Jacks-in-the-box " or " Jack-in-the-boxes" but not altogether. I still see the latter complex.

How many jacks do you see here? — Sir2u

Well, I don't see any, but I presume Jack is there, but the toy hasn't popped up yet.

Having a picture of the toy can explain why I can only imagine "independent" objects. It is complex to visualize a Jack in different boxes or Jacks in a one box. 

Now there is a jack, but the name is still "Jack-in-the-box" — Sir2u

That's a perfect example of today's debate, indeed. :lol:

This is sort of weird because I have not been able to find any use of Jacks-in-the-box on the most popular web sites, they all return Jack. — Sir2u

I agree. I only found it as an example in Steven Pinker's book.

Javi is actually right here (in spirit): — Dawnstorm

Thanks :up: I appreciate your comment and support.



By the way, coming back to the original post and focusing on your analysis. 

I. It's interesting how you interpret "Jack-in-the-box" as a phrase and not as a word. I highlight this because, according to Steven Pinker, there are two different groups: those who interpret it as a phrase and those who interpret it as a word. He explains that they are not wrong, but in terms of pluralizing, that is when the debate starts up.


II. Yes, I am on the side of the idea that, using grammar analysis or "logic", the "s" goes to the phrase's head. But this specific argument made me ask myself some questions: is it plausible to say "Jack-in-the-boxes"? And why do some use plural in both: "Jacks in the boxes?"
It is complex but funny because, for a non native speaker like me, it is another activity to keep learning.

These are good books to read, especially if you are not native speakers. — Sir2u

Thanks for those books recommendations :up:

So what? — Jamal

Why are you keeping posting here? Didn't you consider this OP as “not philosophical”?

OK, I respect your decision!
Muchísimas gracias Jamal! I thought you had a different opinion on me.

You can even remove it if you want. But please do not be a hypocrite regarding what OP deserves more respect than other. At least we are not debating about religion or AI like the other 25161836 posts of this forum.

If I were @Banno or @Quixodian your opinion on my post would be different right?

Twenty boxes containing ten applesin each. Could not be an apple in boxes.
Twenty boxes containing ten Jacks in each. Could not be a jack in the boxes. — Sir2u

Oh! in each object, yes. You are referring to a scenario where there are multiple objects: twenty boxes and then twenty Jacks. I understand your point about using plural here. 

Yet, I thought that "Jack-in-the-box" was one word (which came from a phrase). So, in my view, I only considered the nouns separately. Either "Jacks in the box" or "Jack in the boxes"

As Quk points out, multiple Jacks in multiple boxes would be Jacks-in-the-boxes. — Sir2u

But how can we know that? I thought this word is tricky because of its plural conjugation precisely. Either you can pluralize Jack or pluralize box, I believed (maybe wrongly) that we can't pluralize both at the same time.

Nonetheless, @NOS4A2 thinks that the easiest way to resolve this grammar dilemma is to pluralize altogether :chin:

@Sir2u and @T Clark stated that there is plural of Jack. Thus, more than one Jack in a single box. The latter doesn't change.

Jacks-in-the-box would imply that there are more than one Jack in one box, so it is grammatically incorrect as a plural when used for more than box. — Sir2u

The problem is that "Jacks-in-the-box" could be more than one Jack in a single box. So, I vote for that. Ambiguous and a little goofy. I am a big fan of ambiguous, goofy language. — T Clark

OK. This is so interesting. Clarky is American, and sir2u is British. Yet, you both have interpreted the same regarding that there could be more than one Jack in the box. So, the subject of this example is Jack, not the boxes. Ergo, plural would always be applied to Jack instead of box (right?).

I know you are a fan of goofy language, Clarky! :wink:

I cannot actually say that I have ever heard anyone say "runner-ups", but it definitely sounds wrong. — Sir2u

I agree with you. When I was reading the paper by Steven Pinker, I had some difficulties with the pronunciation, and my tongue suffered instead of being easy. So, yes, it sounds wrong, or at least weird.

As I am an agnostic atheist, I'm unable to contribute with helpful comments in this discussion about "God's bodies" and "Plato's ideas" etc. I'm sorry. — Quk

I like your comments and you contribute with good arguments. They make me think for a while, indeed. I was just debating with you, that's the nature of a philosophy forum.

I think it doesn't matter if someone is an agnostic atheist. Everyone is, somehow, free to express arguments on religious matters. Respecting and avoiding insults, that's for granted. :up:

Yes, but that doesn't exclude the idea of seeking for mercy in an overly controlled way rather than in a randomly surprising way, does it? — Quk

What is the main difference? You can seek for mercy in both controlled way and free will.
I would include redemption in our acts. But a Christian (or other religious person) is not necessarily overly controlled. They are even aware that some acts escape out of from their control.




 

So, I am asking how do you see the relationship between religion and sexuality? — Jack Cummins

The relationship is contradictory because religion seeks purity while sex is, somehow, related to "corruption" of the bodies. With the aim of reaching purity, a believer needs to avoid tentations, and sex is included in one of these. Our bodies only belong to God, and we should not "rot them." I do not want to get out of context, but with this argument, it is explained why religion bans suicide too. Conclusion, We are not free, and we can't play with our bodies and souls, because they are not "ours."

Related to this topic, I recommend you read Kazantzakis. Excellent writer and novelist. He made some interesting conclusions on the "humanization" of Jesus Christ, Francis of Assisi, etc.

I think religious persons seek control more than other persons do. — Quk

No. A religious person only seeks for mercy.

Wow! you are deep in Murakami's world!
I know that feeling. When you start reading his books, it is impossible to get rid of him.

Thanks for sharing. Another important and informative video. Some points to consider of:

I will never be enough grateful to all of those scientists and researchers who do this to open our eyes, and escape from lies and corruption from governments.

Yes, it is important to point out that most of the researchers are independent. He said that the paper is important because is not made by "money searchers"

Minute 9:16. Yes, I would be furious too if I were not well informed about the risks of the mRNA-1273 Booster vaccine. Completely unacceptable.

Minute 11:46. An informed consent statement is usually a trap. But this is the subject of another thread.
I agree with him. Let's get legal implications.

Loved the way it started simply with a lost cat and gradually branched into a complex story that came together in the end. Loved the rich and beautifully flowing writing. — praxis

I am glad that you are enjoying Murakami's wind-up chronicle :up: Yes, it is beautifully written, and it shows the skills of the novelist in developing such a complex story.

Be careful with Noboru Wataya :eyes:

I understand. Yet, this is where I disagree or at least I am against it. We can’t allow changes in a language if they are “back-peddling” and destroys the real sense/nature of the vocabulary, syntax or lexicon.

I think the core of the of decreasing culture and art is in these examples. There is a time where it seems that people don’t care about speaking and writing correctly. For example: if the past-tense of think is thought, we can’t allow people to keep saying “thinked”. Doesn’t matter if a big group use the second form.

I think that there are nearly 2 billion English speakers in the world, it would be difficult for them all to change to one way of speaking, and I don't just mean accents. — Sir2u

I agree. It is a difficult task. Nonetheless, I guess those 2 billion English speakers maintain the basic structure of grammar. Otherwise, They would be destroying the language.

This position is not necessarily from a traditionalist or conservative.

There is a history of attempts to reform and regularize language. France and Sweden have had government regulation for more than 100 years. When Greece acquired independence from the Ottoman Empire, there was an move to revert to pure Greek, divested of all those pesky bits of Turkisn that had crept in. The result was two dialects, "purified" for use on formal, official occasions and "popular" for everyday life. — Ludwig V

This point is interesting, and yes, some governments have ruled on linguistics. France is indeed a good example. But, if I am not mistaken, the competent authority to rule on this matter is the Académie française. This public (or private?) institute has the simple goal of keeping well written and spoken French. Nonetheless, it has received a lot of criticism, for being "classic" and "euro- centralised" and not taking into account other kinds of French, such as the one that comes from Africa.

Well, this also happens in Spain. We have the so called "Real Academia Española" and it receives the same criticism as above.  Speak and write accurately in whatever language is important. Yet, I think this issue is not part of politics but philosophy of language and linguistics.

Only 180? You surprise me. — Ludwig V

It surprised me too!

Perfect tense takes the past participle. — Hanover

OK, thanks a lot. I get it now.

Knowing who isn't from your tribe can matter, especially historically. — Hanover

To be honest, for me, it is the main cause of irregular forms. Otherwise, they just complicate the process of learning and understanding. I don't want to remove it, and I am aware that it is not impossible to learn, but it surprises me how some words or verbs are just there because of etymology rather than rules. Interesting indeed... After years of studying and reading English, I am conscious that the past tense of come is "came" not "comed". Pinker says that there are 180 of these exceptions from regular forms, and he states that we have to do the effort to allocate them in our memory, despite the fact that the lexicon and syntax are not regular...