The dog is on the rug. If the dog is on the rug, then that proposition matches a fact. If it isn’t, it doesn’t. I’m not seeing where I come in to that matching process. — AJJ

So "The dog is on the rug," in terms of meaning, is a set of mental states in someone's head. You said that you agree with that. So how do we go from that to the meaning in an individual's head matching a fact, where we're no longer talking about the meaning in the person's head?

So "The dog is on the rug," in terms of meaning, is a set of mental states in someone's head. You said that you agree with that. So how do we go from that to the meaning in an individual's head matching a fact, where we're no longer talking about the meaning in the person's head? — Terrapin Station

I’ve not said anything about the meaning leaving an individual’s head. I’m saying the meaning either matches a fact or it doesn’t. What role does a person play in the matching of fact to proposition, beyond thinking up the proposition?

Right, and I'm asking you to specify the details of how the matching obtains. We have the meaning in the person's head and we have a fact. What determines if the two match? What are the details for that?

The irony here is you seem to be making the same objections I was making to you about this in my objective values thread.

The meaning describes a possible state of affairs. If that state of affairs is actual, then the meaning/proposition is true. Is that not basically what you’ve said to me?

The meaning describes a possible state of affairs. If that state of affairs is actual, then the meaning/proposition is true. Is that not basically what you’ve said to me? — AJJ

I'm not sure what you're thinking of, but no, that's not what I would have said.

But I'll work with it for a moment. "If that state of affairs is actual" per what? What's making the determination if something described is actual? That's the question here. Let's detail how the determination is made, because that's the matching.

On correspondence theory, "The cat is on the mat" (a proposition, which we're denoting by putting it in quotation marks) matches the cat being on the mat (the state of affairs that the cat is on the mat).

I don’t see how the above is really any different from what I’ve just said, but whatever.

But I'll work with it for a moment. "If that state of affairs is actual" per what? What's making the determination if something described is actual? That's the question here. Let's detail how the determination is made, because that's the matching. — Terrapin Station

It’s actual if it’s actual. You’ve said in this thread you believe there are objective facts. How we tell something is an objective fact is beside the point; the point being that if a proposition matches an objective fact then it is true. I’m asking what role does a person play in this matching, beyond thinking up the proposition?

It’s actual if it’s actual. You’ve said in this thread you believe there are objective facts. How we tell something is an objective fact is beside the point; the point being that if a proposition matches an objective fact then it is true. I’m asking what role does a person play in this matching, beyond thinking up the proposition? — AJJ

You're not understanding the issue here. Describing a cat being on a mat isn't identical to the thing in question, is it? And neither is the meaning that someone might assign to "the cat is on the mat" identical to the state of affairs of a cat being on a mat, is it?

Truth and objectivity are not the same thing. One can arrive at true theories in a non-objective way. Indeed, one can hit upon the truth purely at random. Conversely, objective theories are not necessarily true. The history of science provides plenty of examples of the objective formulation and defence of theories that have turned out to be false and have been replaced by other theories. Objectivity is no guarantee of truth, any more than truth can only be the outcome of objectivity

The problem with thinking of objectivity exclusively in general terms, as elimination of prejudice or bias, is that it encourages an absolutist view of objectivity. The prime example of such an absolutist conception is the view from nowhere.

There are two problems with this conception. First, the idea that we are being guided towards *the* truth is wholly misleading. What we are being guided towards are the best answers to the questions that we pose. If you deploy objective procedures in answering a misconceived, confused or misleading question, it is highly likely that the answer will get you nowhere.

Second, any attempt to assimilate objectivity and truth faces the difficulty that they behave in different ways. Note in particular that objectivity comes in degrees. One theory can be more objective than another, but a theory cannot be truer than another.
Whereas truth is absolute and does not come in degrees, objectivity *only* comes in degrees. The idea of absolute objectivity is a misconception. encouraged by thinking of it as a view from nowhere.

What we are seeking to do in imposing standards of objectivity in our judgments in modern science is to identify and separate the informative and the uninformative, with a view to producing reliable results.

I’m not saying those things. If I have you’ll have to quote where I did.

I’m not saying those things. If I have you’ll have to quote where I did. — AJJ

What? I'm asking you questions in order to try to give you a better idea of what the issue is.

And I’m saying your questions are irrelevant, since I haven’t said anything about meanings being identical to states of affairs.

You're not understanding the issue I'm getting at. Given that, how can you say whether the questions I'm asking are relevant to understanding it?

I infer everything from subjective experience. What other experience does a person have of the world?

You could say that it is the case that there is an abstract universal "truth" that all knowledge stems from subjective experience and that, in so far that there is "objective truth", there is only one objective truth which is that, but, to speak of "objective truth" within such a worldview would effectively be meaningless.

Your questions indicate the issue is around taking meanings to be identical to states of affairs, which is not something I’ve been saying. But fine: I agree that meanings are not identical to states of affairs. Now what?

I infer everything from subjective experience. What other experience does a person have of the world? — thewonder

Your experience is subjective, but what it's experience of often isn't subjective.

Imagine we have the word "manusive," defined as "of an arm or hand." Manusive taking is something your arm & hand do. But what you take isn't manusive. You're not taking your arm or hand. You're taking things like cookies, baseballs, etc. Subjective experience is the same.

So matching isn't a matter of them being the same. What is it a matter of instead?

It’s a matter of a proposition describing a state of affairs.

And a description isn't the same as what it's describing but it has what relationship instead?

A description is a picture in words or representation of something.

A description is a picture in words — AJJ

It's obviously not literally "a picture in words." How could it amount to being "a picture in words" aside from someone thinking about it that way?

All right mate, I figure you’re just messing around now. Good talk, all very interesting.

Oy vey. I'm trying--unsuccessfully, apparently--to impart an understanding of the issue re "matching" or "corresponding."

There is, of course, a world that exists outside of myself, but, all that anyone knows is situated in their own subjective experience. "Truth" does not exist. It is just simply agreed upon.

Feel free to explicate that if that was really your intention, but without the questions.

Feel free to explicate that if that was really your intention, but without the questions. — AJJ

You're not going to understand it if you don't think about it in a focused way. The questions are designed to do that.

What I should have asked you was about the relation between a description or meaning or whatever you'd claim and the state of affairs in question. Correspondence or matching is a type of relation. So where and how would you say that relation obtains? For example, the relation of being "the parent of" obtains via an entity being temporally prior to another and having causal connections to the later developing offspring. Or the relation of "being to the left of" obtains when two things are looked at from a particular frame of reference and one thing is spatially oriented towards the other in a particular way from that frame of reference.

The matching or correspondence relation would have to obtain somehow, where we'd need to be able to describe just what's going on that amounts to the relation.

There is, of course, a world that exists outside of myself, but, all that anyone knows is situated in their own subjective experience. — thewonder

Which is similar to saying that all anyone takes is situated in their own manusive experience.

Well, yeah. Duh. You have to use your arm/hand to take things with your arm/hand. That's just like you need to use your brain in a mental capacity to know things because knowing is something you do with your brain in a mental capacity. But we can't conflate that with what we know. We can't conflate the manusive with what we take. We're not taking our own arm/hand, even though we need to take with our arm/hand.

Re truth, again, I agree that it's not objective, but because of what I explained earlier (and I'm explaining in far more detail re the conversation with AJJ)

I understand all that perfectly well mate, no need for the daft questions. But isn’t correspondence theory your thing? You’re in effect arguing against yourself in my objective values thread here.

Anyway: I would personally say the relation of being a description obtains via a set of words with particular meanings representing a person, object or event by way of concept and mental imagery.

Please don’t ask never ending questions in disagreement. Just say if don’t agree, then explain your alternative.

I honestly haven't read the entire thread. I just figured that I should chime in since I am a bit of a "relativist". I'm also somewhat confused as to what you mean by stating that all that a person knows is situated by their own subjective experience is similar to stating that all that a person knows is situated by their manusive experience. I guess I don't think that we "know" anything. There is no thing that we call "truth" that gets discovered through inquiry. There are just things that people generally agree upon or generally accept.

Truth simply bears the semblance of being revealed to a person. All that is discovered are the particular deviations and convergences as to how a person agrees or disagrees with whatever it is that is considered to be "true".

I don't think that I confuse my experience of the world with the world itself if that's what you're suggesting. There is a world that exists and it does exist in a particular way, but, all that I can know of it stems from my own limited subjective experience. Because everyone is like that, the validity of the concept of truth gets called into question. By stating that "nothing is true", I do not mean that there are not things that people can generally agree that do exist. This forum, for instance, exists. We can both agree that it exists by that we are both using it. I only, however, see this forum from the laptop that I am using at home. My experience is situated by that I only interact on the forum as such.

.......ignores half the problem....... — Echarmion

Sorry......I’m missing halfs. For my benefit alone, and for no particular reason other than peace of mind....what are the halfs you had in mind? General idea will do; no names needed.

And I take your edit to indicate not all formulations of idealism should be treated as solipsism, to which I would agree.

There is some confusion here between truth and belief.

As always.