humans must work together and agree on some things in order to make a society work. Common values is important to some extent. — christian2017
I’m afraid, or troubled anyway, by you lot; because I think you’re motivated in your belief by a desire to avoid right and wrong. — AJJ
What I was saying was you can’t live consistently as if there’s no objective truth. You have to behave as if certain things are objectively true, such as that rat poison affects the body differently to aspirin. — AJJ
Some humans already agree on some things. What about those who don't agree, what should we do in your opinion? Force them to change their mind? Lock them up? That's not the dream society I have in mind. That's a society ripe for totalitarianism, tyranny. Sure, tyranny seems fine when you're the tyrant. — leo
The cup is on the table. Someone says "the cup is on the table". Person A... — creativesoul
Perhaps you can answer this for me:
State of affairs (objective fact): the cat is on the mat
Proposition: “the cat is on the mat”
Person A judges the proposition true
Person B judges the proposition false
Who is correct (from our perspective)?
Person A, Person B, both, or neither — AJJ
If the example proposition doesn’t correspond to the state of affairs unless I judge it to, on what basis am I making that judgment in the first place? — AJJ
since I’ve judged the example proposition to be true also. All of that is mind-dependent judgment. — AJJ
You performed a mind-independent judgment? :brow: — Terrapin Station
If the example proposition doesn’t correspond to the state of affairs unless I judge it to, on what basis am I making that judgment in the first place? — AJJ
It seems, so long as you lock truth within the mind, you get an explanatory regress. — AJJ
I would rather say, not so much an explanatory regress, but a tentative quality of knowledge, and by association, of truth itself. I shy away from explanatory regress because there are theoretical predicates for the human rational system, logically consistent and governed by the principles of universality and necessity. In other words, laws. But then, no matter what anybody says about it, somebody else can say something else, so.......so much for laws. That being said, experience informs us empirical knowledge is never static, even if pure a priori knowledge most certainly is. — Mww
You’re making it on the basis of whether the proposition relates properly to the state of affairs. That too is a judgement, which you’re making on the basis of what? — AJJ
......explanatory regress, which in effect means there is no foundational reason for judging a proposition to be true. — AJJ
The thing is you can oppose tyranny and believe in objective truth, and you can be tyrant who believes there is no objective truth; so I don’t buy your claimed motivation.
If it’s not objectively true rat poison harms people (barring some peculiar exceptions maybe), then there’d be no problem arbitrarily feeding it to children. Its harms might be true to you, but not to the parents feeding it to their kids. So there’s no problem with them doing that, right? — AJJ
I think it's harder to be a tyrant when you see that your point of view is a point of view, rather than when you believe it applies to everyone everywhere for all eternity. — leo
The parents are feeding rat poison to their children. The children are dying. The parents, however, believe it’s true the rat poison is harmless and they’re actually looking after them. According to you they’re not wrong. — AJJ
We have a proposition (we can just leave that unanalyzed for a moment--what it is for there to be a proposition).
We have a fact.
Now, we need matching of the proposition and fact to occur or obtain somehow.
How does that work? — Terrapin Station
Maybe it’s easier because you think you can do no wrong. — AJJ
The parents are feeding rat poison to their children. The children are dying. The parents, however, believe it’s true the rat poison is harmless and they’re actually looking after them. According to you they’re not wrong. — AJJ
The cup is on the table. Someone says "the cup is on the table" Person A judges that false. Person B judges that true. According to you, both are mistaken. — creativesoul
Sure. So why do you think I'd say they're both mistaken? — Terrapin Station
On my view, a mistaken truth-value judgment is either (i) a different person having a different judgment about the relationship of a proposition to a state of affairs--it's mistaken in the different persons' views, or (ii) the same person having a different judgment at a later time, where they feel they should have had the later judgment at the earlier time (and it's mistaken in their view, but perhaps the revision is what's mistaken in other persons' views at that point) — Terrapin Station
...facts are always already in propositional form. If you disagree then give me an example of a fact that is not in propositional form. — Janus
The problem is how can you tell the way things are? You can tell the way things are to you, if others disagree with your idea of the way things are what then? Who is right? — leo
If you belong to an objective reality, you don't look at it from the outside, you are within, your thoughts and perceptions depend on that reality in some unknown way, so you don't have access to the way things are, your thoughts and perceptions do not show you the way things are, they show you something that depends on the way things are. If we can't tell what's objectively true then what's the point of using the concept? — leo
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.