I'm not saying we don't have things we call 'inventions' and 'creations'. But they are all imitations of some function already existing in nature.
Books, typewriters, computers -> imitations of some brain functions.
Human thought and belief, social constructs -> we had them before we were consciously aware of mental process. They are instinctive. We didn't create or invent instincts.

As much as we think they depend on us, we also depend on them. That is my point.

There is considerable disagreement here, but that isn't my interest. My interest is setting out human thought and belief. One means is existential dependency. I am quite hesitant to employ the notion of "instincts". It's historically a catch all phrase for autonomous behaviours and the like. It's an ad hoc explanation that fills in all the gaps of our ignorance regarding where causality meets pre-linguistic basic human behaviour(s).

Are you claiming that hard determinism is incompatible with the notion of being existentially dependent upon humans?

I'm not pro determinism or any other -ism. (I hate -isms, they limit philosophy to human bias)

You seem stuck on dependence; on humans being some kind of 'gods' or on exemplifying human genius.
My point is interdependence. Thought and belief are part of human activity. If they were created or invented at some point, wouldn't that mean there was a time when they didn't exist? Is that your point? That, there was a time, prior to their creation/invention, when thoughts and beliefs didn't exist?

My point is that thoughts and beliefs are part of the human process. We did not invent/create them, we just realised we had such capacities and applied them deliberately.

I'm not pro determinism or any other -ism. — BrianW

Ok.

So, there is no common historical school of thought that you find agreeable/amenable to your own worldview in enough ways that you would self-identify with it.

You seem stuck on dependence; on humans being some kind of 'gods' or on exemplifying human genius. — BrianW

None of this follows from what I've written. I'm afraid you've misunderstood.

My point is interdependence. Thought and belief are part of human activity. If they were created or invented at some point, wouldn't that mean there was a time when they didn't exist? Is that your point? — BrianW

No.

Rudimentary human thought and belief are neither invented nor created by us. That I can say emphatically.

...there was a time, prior to their creation/invention, when thoughts and beliefs didn't exist? — BrianW

Agreed if we change "prior to their creation/invention" to "prior to their existence". That would be a rather trivial claim though.

My point is that thoughts and beliefs are part of the human process. We did not invent/create them, we just realised we had such capacities and applied them deliberately. — BrianW

There is nothing prima facie disagreeable here.

What is thought? And what is it that thinks?

In an existential affirmation of freedom, the freedom of Dasein is as such, alongside the fact of the existentiele Dasein-with.

So, there is no common historical school of thought that you find agreeable/amenable to your own worldview in enough ways that you would self-identify with it. — creativesoul

Was Jesus a Christian? Was Buddha a Buddhist?

It's okay to learn from others as long as we remember our duty to ourselves. Understanding is an individual aspect no matter from whom or where it is learned. I do learn from notable philosophers but I do not pretend that my thought processes are aligned with (or limited to) theirs. Most of those we learn from were not limited to the schools of thought they have been ascribed to. So far, these distinctions to knowledge seem to be a modern and progressive theme. Moving back towards antiquity, we find a unification of disciplines where philosophy, mathematics, alchemy, science, astronomy, astrology, spiritualism/religion, metaphysics, etc were all part of the same discipline.
Presently, most of the -isms we have are just shades of fanaticism. Schools have become like religion -> they want to be special in an exclusive way. (I don't mean specialization. Even in the olden days it was possible to specialize without the exclusion of other disciplines. Also, most great scholars and philosophers had multiple fields of study, experience and practice.)

Was Jesus a Christian? Was Buddha a Buddhist?

It's okay to learn from others as long as we remember our duty to ourselves. Understanding is an individual aspect no matter from whom or where it is learned. I do learn from notable philosophers but I do not pretend that my thought processes are aligned with (or limited to) theirs. — BrianW

Understood. We are alike in this way.

It is my well considered opinion that no discipline has gotten thought and belief right. Thus, the thrust of this thread is to correctly set out thought and belief as the first step in establishing the consequential scope that that has had.

By virtue of getting thought and belief wrong, we've gotten something or other wrong about everything ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written...

Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believed. William Blake

But what is knowledge? Can knowledge give truth?

I am of the strongly held position that how we use language affects/effects how we subsequently think. Poor language use results in poor thinking. Conventional notions of thought and belief lead to poor thinking.

Your use of the term "truth" is exemplary of this.

A proper understanding of thought and belief reveals much about truth.

mmm
And what is knowledge of something other than the 'truth' of that something? If I say, I see the sky. The sky is blue. The sky contains birds. The sky is mostly nitrogen. If I say all these things, do they not give me some knowledge of that which is the object of it? Wouldn't it be the case that the truth of something is the object of the knowledge of it? If not, then what? Untruth? Relativistic idealism?

How you use language will not dictate how you think. How you think will dictate how you use language.

And yes, I am aware. I personally choose Heidegger's explication of Aletheia to understand truth.

I personally use the method of understanding thought and belief, and then apply that understanding as a means to help determine whether or not some account or another warrants my assent/agreement.

What is truth?

It's a word that has several different acceptable uses.

Does it have a being of its own? If so, is that being ascertainable? Is it at all? Or does this fall under an ontological argument?

How you use language will not dictate how you think. How you think will dictate how you use language. — Blue Lux

I'd love to have a formal debate about this. There is a sub-forum here just for that sort of thing.

How do I do that? I am new to this forum.

Does the word truth have a being of it's own?

Is that what you're asking me?

If truth is, then what is the 'is'?

The word reflects a truth does it not? The Truth of Truth is something. What is it?

If truth is, then what is the 'is'? — Blue Lux

What sort of question is this?

"If truth is"

???

If truth is... what exactly?

...

Knowledge consists of an endeavor to truth. Perhaps I am speaking too generally?
Knowledge seeks truth or to establish truth or to characterize the truth of whatever is the focal point of a knowledge (asking a question about something implies that that something is capable of being questioned and therefore has some type of being). If truth is presupposed then knowledge is presupposed and then what? What does knowledge represent if not truth?
I am asking you. What is Truth? If truth is not; that is, truth is inascertainable or incapable of being apprehended by knowledge then knowledge is completely incapable of giving any actual substantiation or credible account of something. That is the purpose of asking if truth has any being of its own or is completely imaginary or an abstraction.

The word reflects a truth does it not? — Blue Lux

It does not. The word reflects - if we must talk like that - nothing specific whatsoever.

Different people use the word "truth" in different ways. All of which are accepted senses of the word. Not all of which can survive valid scrutiny. Some senses of the word take account of that which requires no language. Others do not.

As it pertains to the thread, if rudimentary thought and belief is prior to language, then soo too is everything it is existentially dependent upon. The presupposition of truth(as correspondence to fact/reality) is one such thing.

The Truth of Truth is something. What is it? — Blue Lux

"The Truth of Truth" is a language use that I find no use for.

So truth represents nothing specific... But it does in the case of knowledge. For what could be the intentionality of a consciousness of knowledge other than the truth of what would be that knowledge?

So truth represents nothing specific... But it does in the case of knowledge. For what could be the intentionality of a consciousness of knowledge other than the truth of what would be that knowledge? — Blue Lux

I said the word "truth" reflects nothing specific...

But it must be something specific, for it is itself something...
Are you saying it is fragmented? Then what would knowledge be then?
Knowledge would be thus nonspecific... And therefore incapable of delivering any specification at all.
Knowledge would be de trop.

Is this the case?

I am asking you. What is Truth? — Blue Lux

I answered. It's a word that has several different accepted uses. Here, you've capitalized it. Why on earth would you do that?