However real talk now - philosophy is a search for truth, and truth is the opposite of opinion. There can be different opinions, but the truth has to be one. So there is no possibility for different views with regards to truth. I mean yes we can have different views about truth, but either (1) one of us is wrong, or (2) we're both wrong.

So there is no possibility for different views with regards to truth. — Agustino

There would be no way to square this with the actual body of stuff that is conventionally considered philosophy.

There would be no way to square this with the actual body of stuff that is conventionally considered philosophy. — Terrapin Station

I mean yes we can have different views about truth, but either (1) one of us is wrong, or (2) we're both wrong. — Agustino

So when you say "there's no possibility for different views with regards to truth/philosophy," you're not saying that there's literally no possibility--after all, philosophy of full of different views about everything conceivable re both what truth is and what claims are true, so obviously different views are not only possible but ubiquitous--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.

I will start; for me the most convincing atheists are Epicurus — Agustino

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.

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

That's practically for all means and purposes an atheist - I am aware of that though.

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

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.

And no, it isn't an argument that just because others think their own views are right, therefore they also are right. — Agustino

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.

It's like the folks who are objectivists on aesthetics. Naturally, what they like the most always factually is the best stuff, contra all of those other folks who've just got it wrong. But they all think that, despite liking different stuff.

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

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?

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

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.

Decades of observations, thinking and doing philosophy about it. — Terrapin Station

The decades themselves aren't a reason for holding that it's true. What's the actual reason? What are the observations in question?

The decades themselves aren't a reason for holding that it's true. — Agustino

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 it all on a message board (assuming I'd even be able to remember all of it, which I wouldn't).

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

So effectively you refuse to provide a reason why you take your statement as true?

Not to mention that you don't seem to see the very obvious logical incoherence in what you're saying. If "everything depends on who is assessing it" is true, then that truth also depends on who is assessing it. If it depends on who is assessing it, how is it different from opinion? >:O

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.

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

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.

First of all, it can't even be true, because if it's true, then it really isn't true, — Agustino

There's a very rudimentary scope problem in that criticism.

All you're saying is that if it's true (under theory x--namely, the theory in question), then it really isn't true (under some different theory, y).

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

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.

theory x would be the theory in question.

y is some incompatible theory, yours for example.

theory x would be the theory in question. — 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.

y is some incompatible theory, yours for example. — Terrapin Station

What's my theory?

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

I can't make sense out of that set of sentences. The biggest hurdle is the last sentence--"That doesn't follow." I don't get what's supposed to be following what here. Also, the part in quotation marks isn't something I said or would say. I would say that truth-value depends on who is assessing a proposition. Truth value isn't "everything" however. It's rather a very specific activity that persons engage in, and that's it.

What's my theory? — Agustino

The pertinent part is objectivism re truth.

I would say that truth-value depends on who is assessing a proposition. — Terrapin Station

Say person X is getting beaten up. Does the truth value of "X is getting beaten up" depend on who is assessing the proposition?

Yes. To understand what I'm saying, first it's important to understand that I'm making a distinction between "truth" and "fact."

Facts are states of affairs (of or in the world).

I'm not at all saying that facts depend on anyone's assessment (at least in most cases--there are exceptions, of course, such as when we're talking about what someone's assessment is. There's a fact about that).

I'm agreeing with the received view in analytic philosophy that truth value is a property of propositions (and not a "name for" a fact).

What I'm saying that's unusual is twofold: One, that propositions only obtain in individual's minds, which I believe because of my semantics (my philosophy of meaning).

Two, that the property of propositions in question--in other words, the property of truth-value, is a matter of an individual making a judgment about the relation of a proposition to something else--such as facts in the world if they're using correspondence theory.

So someone is getting beaten up--let's say that's a fact. That fact in no way hinges on what anyone thinks about it. But facts and truths on this view are not the same thing.

Truth is rather a property of a proposition, such as "Joe is getting beaten up." Again, this part is the standard view in analytic philosophy.

My unusual view, however, is that the only way that property of a proposition can obtain is via someone (a) thinking the proposition--that is, assigning meanings to those words in that sentence in that combination, and (b) making a judgment about how that meaning "matches" states of affairs in the world (if we're using correspondence theory).

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.

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

Would you also argue that independent of someone thinking about it, there would be no moon?

@The OP
Is there any room for deists in this discussion? Or pantheists, or panentheists? Or believers in Logos?

Is there any room for deists in this discussion? Or pantheists, or panentheists? Or believers in Logos? — anonymous66

Sure, but what would you take your opposite to be? :P

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

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.

Maybe Kant. — Michael

Why?

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

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.

Sure, but what would you take your opposite to be? :P — Agustino

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.