You need for me to give you good reason for believing that Reason is not the sort of thing that is capable of making assertions? Really? — creativesoul

Er, yeah - this is a philosophy thread. I made an argument. Either locate a fallacy, or dispute a premise. Now, we both know you can't do that. But yes, that is what I want you to do - and it is what you need to do if you're to qualify as addressing the OP.

Assertions are assertions of thought and belief. Reason is not the sort of thing that has thought and belief or asserts it — creativesoul

Argument? Where is your argument for this claim - it contradicts the conclusion of my argument, so I've refuted your position until or unless you show there to be something faulty in my argument. Refute my argument without assuming you already know what kind of a thing Reason is - you know, refute me without begging the question.

Tell. Me. How. My. View. Is. Inconsistent. With. Dialetheism.

I. Think. You. Can't. Do. That.

Er, yeah - this is a philosophy thread. I made an argument. — Bartricks

No. You have not. Such evidence could be easily produced and/or reproduced here and now. Show it.

Tell. Me. How. My. View. Is. Inconsistent. With. Dialetheism.

I. Think. You. Can't. Do. That. — Bartricks

That is precisely the belief that you're working from.

There are true contradictions.

Thus, you shrug off the LNC, on pains of coherence.

But know that you're not doing philosophy when you do that. — Bartricks

According to your definition of philosophy, which is necessarily limited by your unshakeable faith in Reason.

According to your definition of philosophy, which is necessarily limited by your unshakeable faith in Reason. — Possibility

You're granting too much... even here. The 'ole chap is not even using the term "Reason" in accordance with it's original usage.

No, absolutely not. If the argument of the OP goes through - and so far no one has challenged either its validity of the truth of its assumptions - then truth is constituted by Reason's assertions. — Bartricks

Gosh, I thought you'd distinguish between Reason and reason - it was your distinction in the first place.

How could a set of tools assert anything? — Bartricks

Indeed, how does Reason assert anything?

Reason is the asserter, bidder, commander. Reason and 'reason' are distinct, just as sight and 'the things seen' are distinct. — Bartricks

Ah, here we go. Same question, how does Reason do these things?

Now, it follows from this that Reason is a mind, a person. For Reason asserts things - and those assertions constitute truth - and among the things that Reason asserts, it would seem, is that minds and minds alone assert things. — Bartricks

And we're answered. Of course, if minds alone assert things, and Reason and mind are not coterminous, then mind and Reason are not the same, and if mind asserts, then Reason doesn't, and vice versa.

Let's set aside the circularity in this, because I don't think that's necessarily fatal.
— tim wood

No, before setting it aside describe it - what circularity? — Bartricks

The circularity in this:

For surely it is a good idea to ask the question "when would we be satisfied that we have the true theory of truth on our hands?" And what is the answer to that question? Well, that we - we who are using reason to find out what's true - will be satisfied when it is clear to us all that Reason asserts the theory in question to be true.
— Bartricks

That is, when do we have true X? When X is true! How do we know? Mind tells us, or Reason tells us; in any case, we're told. How does mind or reason know? Well, because it's true. Now, this wouldn't be so much a problem if the question were whether a given proposition were true - in that case no doubt we could figure it out based on particulars, & etc. But you argue this way on a general "theory of truth." Now make clear how it works.

And it cannot be so-called performative acts of Reason, because, for example, a lie is a performative act of reason, and lies aren't true. And for that matter, how can any assertion be true, assertions being fallible? Assertions assert. In my opinion you can claim a piece of what true is, but that's all you got. And I even doubt you could give a coherent account of that.

Perhaps you could write here a proposition you'd be comfortable proving the truth of - and you may find that harder than you think. Keep in mind the one concept you'll want, of being true, you can't use because that's what's in question. By the way, I don't have the answers; I only know that a lot of smart people have taken the question on and the best they've done is equivocal.

Either locate a fallacy, or dispute a premise. — Bartricks

You're not very good with the spatiotemporal aspects of your own worldview are you?

Both of those endeavors are existentially dependent upon having an argument with premisses clearly demarcated. Otherwise, I'm shooting blind-folded.

Gotta argument?

It's in the OP. Look, it isn't my fault you don't actually know what an argument is.

Let's go though it, shall we - baby steps.

The question is "what is truth?"

Because no-one currently seems to know - there are several theories, but none enjoys universal support among those who are clever enough to be paid to think about such matters - it is worthwhile stepping back a mo and asking a slightly different question: when would all of those clever enough to be paid to think about such things be happy with an answer? They're not currently, but when would they be?

Well, surely they would all be happy with an answer when it is clear to the reason of all of them that the answer is endorsed by Reason - that is, when their reason represents the answer to be true.

Now, that's one of my 'assumptions'. Challenge it if you like. I think you won't succeed, but by all means try.

If - if - that assumption is correct (and I cannot conceive how it could not be, for it is true for any answer to any philosophical question) - then it is reasonable to have as one's working hypothesis that truth itself just is the property of being a proposition that Reason asserts.

You're not very good with the spatiotemporal aspects of your own worldview are you? — creativesoul

Gibberish.

You think worldviews are located in space and time? So, er, they have shapes do they? Does my worldview have a shape? Is that what you think? Are you literally in a straightjacket typing with your nose?

Both of those endeavors are existentially dependent upon having an argument with premisses clearly demarcated. Otherwise, I'm shooting blind-folded. — creativesoul

Gibberish.

Indeed, how does Reason assert anything? — tim wood

Yes.

What are the sorts of things that we say are capable of making an assertion?

Omg!

Reason does assert things! "If a proposition is true, do not also believe it is false" - that's an assertion.

It isn't true because I assert it, or you, or because it is written by someone in a book. It is true because Reason asserts it.

So, premise 1: Reason makes assertions

Premise 2: Minds and only minds make assertions

Conclusion: therefore Reason is a mind

Which premise is false? And provide evidence, don't just blurt.

Reason has her perspective of what is true - it’s a limited perspective, but she’s not aware of this - and she ignores and excludes new information that cannot be reduced to logical argument.
— Possibility

Flagrantly question begging. Reason constitutively determines what's true - that's what my argument appeared to demonstrate. Now, if you think otherwise engage with that argument - challenge either its validity or one of its assumptions. Don't just state a different view, as if evidence counts for nothing. — Bartricks

Wow, you can talk. ‘Truth is an appeal to Reason because I reject anything that is not an appeal to Reason. Therefore, truth can ONLY be an appeal to Reason.’

Is it reasonable for you to consider, just for a moment, the possibility that there might be more to reality than what appeals to Reason - the possibility that your perspective of reality might be limited in some way? That is, before you summarily dismiss that thought on account of it failing to appeal to Reason, of course...

What else is there other than our experience and observation of what is and isn't?

It's in the OP. Look, it isn't my fault you don't actually know what an argument is.

Let's go though it, shall we - baby steps.

The question is "what is truth?"

Because no-one currently seems to know - there are several theories, but none enjoys universal support among those who are clever enough to be paid to think about such matters - it is worthwhile stepping back a mo and asking a slightly different question: when would all of those clever enough to be paid to think about such things be happy with an answer? They're not currently, but when would they be?

Well, surely they would all be happy with an answer when it is clear to the reason of all of them that the answer is endorsed by Reason - that is, when their reason represents the answer to be true. — Bartricks

There are a plurality of assumptions within the above quote. Despite that, you assert the following...

Now, that's one of my 'assumptions'. Challenge it if you like. I think you won't succeed, but by all means try. — Bartricks

That is gibberish.

What else is there other than our experience and observation of what is and isn't? — ep3265

What non-humans experience and observe.

Reason does assert things! "If a proposition is true, do not also believe it is false" - that's an assertion. — Bartricks

You made the assertion. You are not Reason.

You're granting too much... even here. The 'ole chap is not even using the term "Reason" in accordance with it's original usage. — creativesoul

I’m a generous person...

premise 1: Reason makes assertions

Premise 2: Minds and only minds make assertions

Conclusion: therefore Reason is a mind

Which premise is false? And provide evidence, don't just blurt. — Bartricks

Both the primary and the secondary premiss is false. The conclusion is rendered irrelevant.

Oh, good point. Brilliant. I am clearly up against one of the best. Anyway, my dad is bigger than your dad.

I am so getting owned. So sorry, I misjudged you. Now tell me again how you won that chess game by whizzing on the board - I love that one, he so didn't see it coming!

Is it reasonable for you to consider, just for a moment, the possibility that there might be more to reality than what appeals to Reason - the possibility that your perspective of reality might be limited in some way? That is, before you summarily dismiss that thought on account of it failing to appeal to Reason, of course... — Possibility

Address the argument I gave. You're not humble if, when confronted with overwhelming evidence that a proposition is true, you continue to take seriously that it is false.

That's what religious people are like. You show them that the evidence indicates their god does not exist. They then pretend they're the reasonable ones if they continue to take seriously that the god does exist.

No, they're not being reasonable - they're just ignoring evidence.

Now, perhaps their god does exist - perhaps there's excellent evidence their god exists.

the point, though, is that a reasonable person does not ignore evidence and keep playing the 'but let's be reasonable and accept the possibility the view is false" card. That ain't being reasonable, sonny boy, not when evidence has been given that it is true. It's just a pathetic attempt to avoid having to accept a belief you may not like.

Now, engage with that evidence - that is, try and refute my argument.

Now you're presupposing that I've told you how I won a game of chess?

I've not.

Thus...

I am mocking you.

Let me explain how that works. Clearly one cannot win a game of chess by whizzing on the board. That's not a legitimate move. It's not a bad move, it isn't a move at all - that's how bad it is.

What I am suggesting is that your response to my argument is analogous to whizzing on a chess board. That is, your response to my careful opening gambit has been to shower the board with urine.

Any and all arguments appeal to apparent assertions of Reason. So it cannot coherently be denied that Reason makes assertions.

I have argued that truth itself is constituted by Reason's assertions, for any thesis that there is more, or something different to truth than this will itself have to appeal to Reason's assertions. And so there is really nothing more that can be said in favour of a view about truth, than that it appears to be being asserted by Reason - in which case it is reasonable to suppose that truth itself is one and the same as that property.

Your response? "Whizzzzz"

Address the argument I gave. You're not humble if, when confronted with overwhelming evidence that a proposition is true, you continue to take seriously that it is false.

That's what religious people are like. You show them that the evidence indicates their god does not exist. They then pretend they're the reasonable ones if they continue to take seriously that the god does exist.

No, they're not being reasonable - they're just ignoring evidence.

Now, perhaps their god does exist - perhaps there's excellent evidence their god exists.

the point, though, is that a reasonable person does not ignore evidence and keep playing the 'but let's be reasonable and accept the possibility the view is false". That ain't being reasonable, sonny boy, not when evidence has been given that it is true.

Now, engage with that evidence - that is, try and refute my argument. — Bartricks

I’m not ignoring the evidence - you only think I’m ignoring it, because I’m not giving it the same weight as you are. My subjective experience (which you reject as well as your own because it fails to appeal to your perspective of Reason) gives me sufficient reason to doubt that either of us have enough information to confidently assert the truth about ‘truth’ itself. My response to this awareness is to propose that we consider what is beyond reason in our understanding of truth. Your response is to exclude it or isolate it from any consideration of what truth is - thereby reducing truth to your limited perspective of Reason.

I am mocking you. — Bartricks

Looks like an accounting malpractice to me... from what propositions are... through what an argument is... through what sorts of things are capable of making assertions... and all the way into the quality of my objections and/or your purported 'arguments'.

I have taken no stand on what propositions are, apart from the (uncontroversial) view that they are the bearers of truth. But I'm not even committed to that - for the topic is what the property of truth is, not the nature of that which bears it.

all the way into the quality of my objections and/or your purported 'arguments'. — creativesoul

They're not purported arguments. They 'are' arguments. The truth of that claim doesn't depend on your comprehension skills (thankfully).

Again, if the most we can ever say in support of any view about anything - including any view about what truth is - is that it appears to be being asserted by Reason, then truth itself is reasonably considered to be that property (the property of 'being asserted by Reason').

You have said precisely nothing in objection to that view. Note: objecting to a view, or to the holder of it, does not an objection make.

Any and all arguments appeal to apparent assertions of Reason. So it cannot coherently be denied that Reason makes assertions. — Bartricks

Not very good at that are you?

Assertions are made with language use. Reason is not the sort of thing capable of using language. Reason cannot make assertions.

Again, if the most we can ever say in support of any view about anything - including any view about what truth is - is that it appears to be being asserted by Reason... — Bartricks

Then we better find a better way to talk...

Reason is thinking about thought and belief.