For one thing, Schopenhauer's argument for morals cites suffering as a condition of humanity. I'd say, he is using a fact that there is suffering. (Those who would argue against suffering as a fact of life need only to look at illness, death, and disappearance statistics (all facts).Explain to me how. — T Clark
For one thing, Schopenhauer's argument for morals cites suffering as a condition of humanity. I'd say, he is using a fact that there is suffering. — Caldwell
I don't think you read my OP very carefully. — T Clark
Oh cause you said morals deal with values not fact. So, I countered it with a response. — Caldwell
Metaphysical claims can't be true or false, you say. — TheMadFool
Scientific antirealism is the view that science should refrain from making metaphysical claims, it being possible that metaphysical claims are true or false. — TheMadFool
you reject metaphysical claims — TheMadFool
scientific antirealism holds that truth is not what science is about. — TheMadFool
What's so different between saying "God exists" is neither true nor false and believing "God exists" isn't what's important? — TheMadFool
Metaphysical claims can't be true or false, you say.
— TheMadFool
Yes, I said that. — T Clark
I do not reject metaphysical claims. — T Clark
metaphysical propositions are not true or false, only more or less useful. — T Clark
I didn't say philosophy doesn't deal with facts and truth. I said philosophy does not deal with questions that have true or false answers. For example, from Wikipedia entry for Coherence Theory of Truth - "Truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole." This statement is about "truth," but, I claim at least, it is neither true nor false — T Clark
So, in what sense do you accept metaphysical claims. I have some idea of what that would look like — TheMadFool
I think, therefore I am. — Artemis
P.s. As for the coherence theory of truth... well, I give you the correspondence theory of truth:
The correspondence theory, in contrast, states that the truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world. (From the Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia) — Artemis
In more common terms philosophy is more concerned with the validity of questions and science is more concerned with answering questions. — I like sushi
As far as I can discern them, the basic difference between philosophy and science is the latter concerns defeasible reasoning towards the best explanations / predictive models (cognitivity re: theorems, theories ~ propositions) whereas the former concerns reflective reasoning towards better, more probitive, questions / conceptual interpretations (noncognitivity re: ideas ~ suppositions). In other words, scientists strive to know nature (presence) and philosophers seek to understand reality (absence). — 180 Proof
Is this true? Is it false? If it's true, is it true in the same sense that "1 + 1 = 2" is true? — T Clark
Is "The truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world," a true statement? If so, is it true in the same sense that "Paris is the capital of France" is true? — T Clark
This just feels like we're going around in circles. — T Clark
The cogito is, as far as I am aware, the most indisputable truth there is. That was Descartes whole point. — Artemis
The other is trying to make sense of objective, non-constructed reality and ourselves (not as constructs, but as objectively existing observers) therein. — Artemis
There are many philosophies and psychologies which do not recognize the existence of the self - me, myself, I. — T Clark
More "indisputable" than A=A? I doubt it. Anyway, tell me what Descartes actually proves with his "Cogito".The cogito is, as far as I am aware, the most indisputable truth there is. — Artemis
No. I think of interpretations of "QT" & "cosmological data" as theoretical, not just conceptual.I'm not sure if this is different from what I wrote or not. A question and a comment. 1) When you say "conceptual interpretations" do you mean like the various interpretations of quantum theory? Or maybe the big bang theory as an interpretation of the meaning of cosmological data collected by scientists? — T Clark
In "experience", I agree; philosophically, however, reality delineates (some of) the conceptual limits (i.e. ontological incompleteness) of nature.2) In my experience, "nature" and "reality" are often used as synonyms.
Metaphysical propositions have no truth value, they are only more or less useful in particular situations. I — T Clark
Never heard of one that actually disputes the cogito. — Artemis
it's a truth claim. It's either true or false. — Artemis
Philosophy and science both make metaphysical claims. They differ in focus, but not in kind. — Artemis
A truth-claims' "status" changes from undecided to positive truth-value when demonstrated and then to negative truth-value when refuted. "Earth is flat" is a refuted truth-claim aka a falsehood rather than a true statement, no?... the status of "truth claim" doesn't change even when something is indeed proven false. — Artemis
OKLet's just go back to absolute basics for a second: — Artemis
...and you can ask these questions only because you are embedded in a world that includes a language, other people, and a culture in which to employ that language.Metaphysics and Epistemology ask, do I exist and how can I know I exist?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.