No, if it were then philosophers would have to be linguists and definitions could easily be resolved by the dictionary. — Pseudonym
The dictionary is a good start, but you will notice that some definitions are not perfect for they do not state the essential properties; they only give a vague description of the term, which is sufficient for most readers to understand the meaning, but not capture the essence. Look up the dictionary definition of 'knowledge' for example.Again, if that was the case then the work has already been done. The staff at the various dictionaries have already invested far more time than you or I ever could in determine exactly what the common usage of words is in the real world. So what more work needs to be done? — Pseudonym
You misunderstood my original point. My point was not to determine how we know others disagree, but what makes them disagree.I wasn't commenting on the value, only that, contrary to your assertion, it is not the Socratic method which allows me to know when two philosophers disagree, a simple empirical study of their words does that. The expression "I disagree", for example, would do the job. — Pseudonym
You are right regarding your examples; but regarding the definition of knowledge, Gettier did not attempt to disprove the original definition, but only to show it was incomplete. And the fact that the original definition held up for so long shows that it must have been close to completeness, otherwise people would have found exceptions earlier.No. Consider the earth-centred solar system, the flat-earth, humours as a cause of disease, phlogiston, creationism. An idea's persistence has no bearing on its rightness. — Pseudonym
Claims are made valid or not depending on if the reason that backs it up is valid or not. Gettier backed up his claim by finding counter-examples that aim to falsify the original definition. Whether he was successful or not is besides the point; the point being that even he used the Socratic Method.He didn't "discover" some property was missing. He claimed some property was missing, others disagreed, and still do. That's the point, he simply made a claim it was grammatically possible to make and no one had any means of determining if he was right or not. — Pseudonym
Does it follow that your comment, made of nothing but words, is meaningless? :joke:The assumption here is that there is a something that is the meaning of a word; [...] But there isn't, of course. — Banno
Agreed. This is why it is so important to identify that real meaning or concept.if this meaning-of-a-word were identified, we would all agree on it. — Banno
Does it follow that your comment, made of nothing but words, is meaningless? :joke: — Samuel Lacrampe
if this meaning-of-a-word were identified, we would all agree on it.
— Banno
Agreed. — Samuel Lacrampe
Is it really so inconceivable that words not have a "real meaning"?This is why it is so important to identify that real meaning or concept — Samuel Lacrampe
Both. I think it is applied because even your description of sifting the meaning from a proposition by context is still using the Socratic Method on a particular test. I also think it ought to be applied, because it is the scientific method applied to definition of terms as used in the common language. If the scientific method works, then this should work too. — Samuel Lacrampe
The assumption here is that there is a something that is the meaning of a word; and further, if this meaning-of-a-word were identified, we would all agree on it.
But there isn't, of course. — Banno
The dictionary is a good start, but you will notice that some definitions are not perfect for they do not state the essential properties; they only give a vague description of the term, which is sufficient for most readers to understand the meaning, but not capture the essence. Look up the dictionary definition of 'knowledge' for example. — Samuel Lacrampe
It is important in philosophy to find the essence of things in order to find essential truths about them. E.g., is x always y? — Samuel Lacrampe
And the fact that the original definition held up for so long shows that it must have been close to completeness, otherwise people would have found exceptions earlier. — Samuel Lacrampe
Claims are made valid or not depending on if the reason that backs it up is valid or not. Gettier backed up his claim by finding counter-examples that aim to falsify the original definition. Whether he was successful or not is besides the point; the point being that even he used the Socratic Method. — Samuel Lacrampe
The problem with this view is, if words don't point to real things (concepts), then no proposition ever spoken can be objectively true, for truth means 'reflective of reality'. Example: The proposition "The Earth is round" cannot be objectively true if the words 'Earth', 'is', and 'round' don't point to anything in reality.Well, yes, apart from it's use. Which might be to have you think in terms of use rather than meaning. [...] Is it really so inconceivable that words not have a "real meaning"? — Banno
Of course not. I was merely stating I find no flaw in your logic for that quoted sentence; though the conclusion that words don't have meanings doesn't follow from this.So we should do philosophy by vote? — Banno
That is indeed part of science, but a topic is truly scientific only if it is testable, verifiable, falsifiable. Thus the hypothesis definition is tested and falsified by finding examples and counter-examples in the common language that uses the defined term. This is essentially the Socratic Method.Science proceeds by looking and generalising rather than repeated questioning. — Banno
if words don't point to real things (concepts), — Samuel Lacrampe
Same demonstration as given here (middle section).How do you know that there are essential properties for such words to be found? — Pseudonym
Sure is. It is one of the best ways to arrive at principles. E.g. "Knowledge implies justification", by definition.Is it? — Pseudonym
You gave examples of hypotheses that have been debunked. The original definition of knowledge has never been debunked, but at most, added on to. The fact that it has never been debunked and there was a long time lapse in adding more properties is indeed not a proof, but makes it reasonable to suppose that the original definition is close to the truth.This just repeats the same error; that people would have found some flaw if there was one to find. My examples surely must cause you to question that assumption? — Pseudonym
This statement seems to contradict your previous claim, namely, the fact that people did not find a flaw is not a proof that there is not one to find. Using the same rationale here, the fact the people merely disagree on the result of a method is not a proof that the method is bad. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, merely stating others' opinions without the justification for their opinion is not productive.If he used the Socratic method, but was unsuccessful in sufficiently backing up his claim, and if every other person using the Socratic method to make such claims was also unsuccessful in backing up their claim (empirically true, since no such claims have been taken to be unquestionably 'right'), then at least by inference that pushes us to conclude that the Socratic method does not work as a means of backing up a claim. — Pseudonym
Justified true belief. Does anyone dispute any of these properties as being essential? — Samuel Lacrampe
I agree, it's important in philosophical conversation to clear up our terms.Being relatively new on this forum, it surprised me that many discussions start with a well formulated question, but without defining the words used in the question even when it's not clear wich definition applies. Wich could (and in many cases does) result in confusion about what is being discussed. — Tomseltje
Almost; but rather, the concepts in our mind reflect intelligible beings in reality. What else does it mean to call a statement "true"? A statement is called true because it reflects reality. So the statement must be connected to reality in some way. Since statements are made of concepts (represented by words), then the concepts themselves must be connected to reality. If there is connection between concepts and real beings, then no proposition ever spoken can be called "true"; which is absurd.Real things are all concepts? That's not right. — Banno
statements are made of concepts (represented by words) — Samuel Lacrampe
Words are made of letters. The word 'apple' is made of the letters A, P, P, L, E. Words are symbols or signs that point to concepts. A Concept is the intelligible meaning intended by the word. E.g., the words ‘apple’ in english and ‘pomme’ in french are two words that point to the same concept (the fruit thing). On the other hand, the same word ‘bank’ can point to one concept as found in ‘river bank’, or another concept as found in ‘bank account’. This is sufficient to demonstrate that words and concepts are separate things.Are they? I don't see any good reason to suppose that this is the case. Indeed, while I have a clear idea of what sort of thing a word is, I have no clear idea of what sort of thing a concept is. — Banno
Words point to concepts, and my point is that concepts coincide with real beings. That's what I mean when I say concepts must be connected to reality. To use your example, the words "Samuel Lacrampe" indeed refer to the real being which is me.So language works by referring to concepts rather than to things in the world? [...] Further, I would have thought that "Samuel Lacrampe" refers to you, and not to my-concept-of-you. — Banno
That depends on the argument Kripke or yourself have to back up that claim. Now admittedly, I am not familiar with the notion of descriptivism. Is it what we are discussing here?That is, descriptivism is pretty much dead, finished off by Kripke. Am I wrong here? — Banno
A Concept is the intelligible meaning intended by the word. — Samuel Lacrampe
I thought you believed the meaning of a word is not a real thing. — Samuel Lacrampe
↪Pattern-chaser
Could you give a case example where a person rightfully "knows" something, but that knowledge is either unjustified, untrue, or unbelieved?
Granted, when we say "I know this person", we are here using the word ambiguously. We do not mean here that we believe any truth about this person, but merely that we have met them. Now we are not talking about this type of knowledge, but the type that is about a statement, like "I know x is y". — Samuel Lacrampe
Justified true belief. Does anyone dispute any of these properties as being essential? — Samuel Lacrampe
Yes. None of them is necessarily essential. As ever, it depends on context. For lightweight everyday social chit-chat, none of them need intrude. In a philosophy forum, a little more rigour might be expected. :wink: — Pattern-chaser
For simplicity, it is true that we might as well say that concepts are the real beings; or at least their intelligible part. The subtle difference between a concept and a real being is that the real being can exist without the concept existing in my mind if I have not apprehended that being. E.g., a baby has no concept of apples despite apples existing in the world.ANd if you have to introduce the apple in order to show how our concepts allow us to communicate, you may as well have not introduced concepts in the first place.
What I would like you to see here is how counter-intuitive it is to suppose that a name refers to something other than what is named; to suppose that the word "apple" does not refer to the apple here before us; or that "Sydney" does not refer to that city. — Banno
Indeed, my concept of apple, your concept of apple, and the form of apple from the real being must be one and the same. The problem of location is solved by inferring the immateriality of concepts (the universal kind), forms, and by extension, minds. Thus universal concepts don't have a physical location. The argument goes as follows:A first problem, to get us started. Where are concepts located? Do I have an apple-concept in my head, while you have an apple-concept in your head?
If so, when I present you with an apple and say "Here is an apple", "Apple" refers to the concept-of-apple in my mind; but for you it refers to the concept-of-apple in your own mind. The implication is that, despite the apple being there before us both, we are not referring to the very same thing. — Banno
[...] it is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if any one maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. — Pascal
it seems your new position is that words do refer to real things; thereby moving away from your original position. — Samuel Lacrampe
Which is obviously not correct. If that was the case I would not bother to look at the thing. An "Apple" is not in the mind but a real thing that is in the world. In being-in-the-world there is always being involved but that is not reason to talk nonsense. Everyone knows that you think you have an apple there if you say so, but you do not refer to something inside your head - it is in the world.If so, when I present you with an apple and say "Here is an apple", "Apple" refers to the concept-of-apple in my mind — Banno
Remember that if some words do not refer to beings, that is, are meaningless, then propositions that use those words are also meaningless and thus cannot be true. What would be an example of such words?So to be sure, Nouns refer to things, real or otherwise. Lots of other words do not. — Banno
...if some words do not refer to beings, that is, are meaningless... — Samuel Lacrampe
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.