So there is no possibility for different views with regards to truth. — Agustino
I will start; for me the most convincing atheists are Epicurus — Agustino
That's practically for all means and purposes an atheist - I am aware of that though.Believe it or not Epicurus was not an atheist. He had an argument for the existence of gods. He just also believed they had nothing to do with us, and that we are on our own. — anonymous66
Yes, that's what I'm saying. And no, it isn't an argument that just because others think their own views are right, therefore they also are right. Thinking that your view is right doesn't make it right - what makes it right is correspondence with reality - with the way things are.but you're rather saying that per your view, truth is something where there's only one objective thing that's universally correct. Of course, that's just another view about what truth is, and you think it's right, but so does everyone else who has a view about truth. — Terrapin Station
And no, it isn't an argument that just because others think their own views are right, therefore they also are right. — Agustino
Okay so? What reason do you have to think that your view (that everything depends on who is assessing it) corresponds to reality for example?Which isn't what I said. I just said that everyone who has a different view about truth (such as me) also thinks that it's right. You think your view happens to be the one right one contra everyone else's view. I hope you do not believe that you're unique in that. Everyone else, with all of those different views, thinks the same thing. — Terrapin Station
Decades of observations, thinking and doing philosophy about it. That's the same for all the other philosophers who've been around long enough for "decades" to count and who have radically different views than both you and I.Okay so? What reason do you have to think that your view (that everything depends on who is assessing it) corresponds to reality for example? — Agustino
The decades themselves aren't a reason for holding that it's true. What's the actual reason? What are the observations in question?Decades of observations, thinking and doing philosophy about it. — Terrapin Station
The decades themselves aren't a reason for holding that it's true. — Agustino
So effectively you refuse to provide a reason why you take your statement as true?Yeah, it's an abbreviation for the decades worth of particular material, which understandably, I'm not going to write a set of books detailing on a message board (assuming I'd even be able to remember all of it, which I wouldn't). — Terrapin Station
Well your view seems to have serious logical and conceptual difficulties. First of all, it can't even be true, because if it's true, then it really isn't true, because it's just an opinion. That's fucked up.It's not like I have some stupid little 5, 10, 50 line argument for it or something like that. That's not how I formulate views or how I think they should be formulated. I might have some compact argument about some very specific thing, but that's not the case here--this isn't some very specific thing. — Terrapin Station
First of all, it can't even be true, because if it's true, then it really isn't true, — Agustino
Okay, what exactly is theory x and what is theory y? Get down to specifics, I doubt you'd be able to pass one of your own introductory classes with such general writing.All you're saying is that if it's true (under theory x), then it really isn't true (under some different theory, y). — Terrapin Station
No wait a minute. You said if it's true under theory x. So "everything depends on who is assessing it" is true UNDER "everything depends on who is assessing it". That doesn't follow.theory x would be the theory in question. — Terrapin Station
What's my theory?y is some incompatible theory, yours for example. — Terrapin Station
No wait a minute. You said if it's true under theory x. So "everything depends on who is assessing it" is true UNDER "everything depends on who is assessing it". That doesn't follow. — Agustino
What's my theory? — Agustino
Say person X is getting beaten up. Does the truth value of "X is getting beaten up" depend on who is assessing the proposition?I would say that truth-value depends on who is assessing a proposition. — Terrapin Station
So part of what I'm saying is the view (or unanalyzed assumption as it often is) that "Joe is getting beaten up" somehow (a) has meaning, and (b) matches or fails to match states of affairs in the world independent of someone thinking about it is nonsense. — Terrapin Station
Sure, but what would you take your opposite to be? :PIs there any room for deists in this discussion? Or pantheists, or panentheists? Or believers in Logos? — anonymous66
But truth - when you consider the meaning of truth besides merely "truth value", applies to the world. The truth includes the facts that hold true, and their connections. So certainly "Joe is getting beaten up" is true if Joe actually is getting beaten up regardless of whether there is someone to affirm it. The notion of truth is built into the notion of fact - a fact is something that is true. I can't speak of false facts. If they are false, they aren't facts at all.So part of what I'm saying is the view (or unanalyzed assumption as it often is) that "Joe is getting beaten up" somehow (a) has meaning, and (b) matches or fails to match states of affairs in the world independent of someone thinking about it is nonsense. — Terrapin Station
The thing with Hume... it's very easy to take out his atheism and replace it with theism given his philosophical framework. Johann Georg Hamann did exactly that.The most "serious" atheist philosopher, in my view, is probably David Hume. Problem is, his arguments only work against the moderns. They don't really apply to the classic and medieval philosophers. — ThePhilosopherFromDixie
Well, let's just say that I went through an atheist "phase" and that I was influenced by the history of the concept of Logos in general. I was also influenced by Paul Davies (I'm reading The Mind of God- I also would like to read The Goldilocks Enigma) the Stoics in general, and Max Jammer and his book Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology.Sure, but what would you take your opposite to be? :P — Agustino
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.