So, if you were to take a hierarchy of truths that are less and less conditional and more and more complete in ascending order, then the "absolute" truth would be at the top. — Apollodorus
I qualified certainty to mean a public matter so that;....varying levels of certainty in a collective sense. — Cheshire
Doesn't reduce my position to a matter of personal tastes. So, if it's going to be dismissed, then it should be for a different reason....but thats a curious piece of biography, not a conceptual distinction. — Banno
Not so much a hierarchy of truth. Isn't something either true or false? — Banno
I can make sense of a hierarchy of believe, or of justification. Not so much a hierarchy of truth. Isn't something either true or false? — Banno
In contrast to contemporary philosophers, most 17th century philosophers held that reality comes in degrees—that some things that exist are more or less real than other things that exist. At least part of what dictates a being’s reality, according to these philosophers, is the extent to which its existence is dependent on other things: the less dependent a thing is on other things for its existence, the more real it is. Given that there are only substances and modes, and that modes depend on substances for their existence, it follows that substances are the most real constituents of reality. — Internet Encyc. of Philosophy, 17th C theories of substance
Now the uneducated have some knowledge of that truth, the educated have more, and the highly educated have most of it.
But a small elite group of specialists or experts know all of it. The latter group hold the "absolute" truth. — Apollodorus
That looks like degrees of knowledge, not of truth. — Banno
↪Cheshire Then I think the same question I put to APo, goes to you"
I can make sense of a hierarchy of believe, or of justification. Not so much a hierarchy of truth. Isn't something either true or false?
— Banno — Banno
Should we be advocating a return to levels of reality? — Banno
But truth depends on our knowledge of it. — Apollodorus
I can make sense of a hierarchy of believe, or of justification. — Banno
but there can't be things we know that are not true. — Banno
You called a truth necessary and claim not to understand a hierarchy of truth. — Cheshire
there can't be things we know that are not true. — Banno
Is the same as "Once we know something, we are 100% sure our belief can not be false" no? That's what I interpreted it as. — khaled
You also propose a state (knowing) where the belief in question cannot be false. — khaled
but there can't be things we know that are not true. — Banno
Only because if something we thought we knew turned out to be false, we only thought we knew it. — Banno
I think the two are incompatible. One either calls some truths necessary or denies a hierarchy of truth.You called a truth necessary and claim not to understand a hierarchy of truth. — Cheshire
I'd rather not detour from the point above for obvious reasons.You think this implies that a necessary is true in a way somehow different to a contingent truth? — Banno
I'd rather not detour from the point above for obvious reasons. — Cheshire
How do you know that you know? — Banno
because if something we thought we knew turned out to be false, we only thought we knew it. — Banno
SO do you have a different scheme? — Banno
A way to understand the qualification of "necessary" not creating a subcategory of "unnecessary". Or a way that creating the subcategory does not define the creation of a hierarchy of truth. Because, you have claimed there can be no hierarchy. I think you will have to admit there is in fact a hierarchy or necessary carries the same significance as terms you would easily dismiss. Thus winning my genius trophy and solving conclusively all that has or will vex the misadventurers we know as philosophers.↪Cheshire So what do you want? — Banno
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.