He's not understanding that correspondence needs to occur or obtain somehow, and I'm focusing on just how it occurs or obtains. He's not addressing that. He just keeps taking for granted that it works without wanting to analyze how it works. — Terrapin Station
I don’t know what dilemma you’re referring to, — AJJ
I've explained this a number of times. The dilemma is that correspondence/matching--whatever we want to call it that amounts to the same thing--has to work some way. It needs to be some process that occurs, or some property that obtains in something . . . somehow. We need to be able to describe how it works, or just what the property is. I gave you a couple examples of the sort of answer that addresses this dilemma from "your side"--from a perspective claiming that correspondence can occur mind-independently, and I talked about what the problems with those answers are for this particular issue. — Terrapin Station
I’ve given my explanation several times of how correspondence obtains. — AJJ
No, you said things like "S proposes a description and then the description corresponds with a fact" (paraphrasing, obviously). That doesn't address how the description corresponds with a fact, especially not mind-independently. You're leaving the actual correspondence part unanalyzed. — Terrapin Station
Because the thing they’re matching is not in a person’s mind. I’ve been asking the whole time: What role does a person play in correspondence, beyond thinking up the proposition?
Checking whether a proposition matches is beside the point. What I’m saying is they can match whether anyone checks or not. There’s an independent reality in play; if a proposition conforms to it then it’s true regardless. A proposition conforming to reality would mean it described a specific event, such as a particular cat being on a particular mat, with that event being a reality. — AJJ
So correspondence requires thought on your view? — Terrapin Station
The words that indicate that he understands that correspondence can't occur outside of making a judgment about it. — Terrapin Station
Judgment is not truth. If it were, there could be no such thing as mistaken judgment. — creativesoul
I don’t want the confusion to disappear. Knowing what’s true is important, and so is being unsure of things. It doesn’t seem coherent to say there is no objective truth, and I assume it can be known; I don’t know how a person could consistently live otherwise. — AJJ
if i say nothing matters and then i have somethings that i hide that are in fact important. That is a contradiction. — christian2017
To say that in my view there is no objective truth is not to say that nothing matters, it is to say that some things matter to me, and what matters to others is not necessarily the same as what matters to me. Why would something not matter to me just because it doesn't matter to everyone? — leo
If you assume it can be known, then how? Can you give any example of such objective truth? — leo
You can live consistently by your truths, that's what people do. Some believe in a higher truth that doesn't depend on them, but again I simply see that truth as their truth. — leo
What I wonder is why do you so badly need a truth that doesn't depend on you? What are you afraid of? — leo
The cup is on the table. Person A judges that false. Person B judges that true. According to you, both are mistaken. — creativesoul
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.