Under your definition of "proposition" though, a proposition must have a special type of understanding, a shared understanding. But this is impossible because understanding is not the type of thing which a person shares with another. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem is that the definition doesn't reflect the real use of the word, so the "presuppositions", or in this case "propositions", which are described are articles of fiction, they are not the presuppositions or propositions which are talked about in normal discourse. — Metaphysician Undercover
As everyday conversation demonstrates, we do share such understandings. — Banno
So you think it's OK to believe things without having any rational justification for doing so? If that's true, then why bother trying to practice philosophy at all? — Janus
And again you seem to have failed to notice (just like MU) that I did not say that every truth requires a justification, but that everything we count as being true requires justification. Can you not understand that distinction? — Janus
Could you hope to find a better example of blatant self-contradiction than is exemplified in these two statements? — Janus
How does conversation show that we share an understanding? Talking about the same things is a far cry from sharing an understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover
it's not a vicious circularity — Janus
I did not say that every truth requires a justification, but that everything we count as being true requires justification. — Janus
Here again, you think meaning is in one person's head, I think it is something we build together. I'm right. — Banno
The question is whether something can be true without this verification process which establishes that it is true. — Metaphysician Undercover
Janus seems to confuse justified with true, and Banno argues that a proposition can be true without any act of verification which would justify the proposition. — Metaphysician Undercover
We're not talking about meaning, we're talking about the understanding of, and interpretation of meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover
Sure, but coherentism is circular. — Banno
And what we count as being true... is the stuff we believe, isn't it? Which is what I am saying.
SO now we agree? — Banno
What is meaning. then?
I sugest it is the understanding of, and interpretation of - the use of - our utterances.
Again, meaning is not in the head of an individual. — Banno
I can suppose verification would show something hasn't been proven false, so in that light it would make an assumption of truth rational, but aside from particles verifying only brings light to truth, but it can't create it. — Cheshire
I'm not really reading Janus quite the same way. If we count 1000 things as true, we'll probably discover some amount were actually not true at a point later in time, so allowing for this inevitable seems worth while to me. To be counted as true allows for errors, to simply be true ignores the reservation. — Cheshire
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.