I need you to show me an example of the difference between holding a belief and holding something to be true
— Harry Hindu
Read the opening and second posts in the debate. — creativesoul
:roll: Look up the definition of "believe", creative, and you will find that it means to hold something to be true which means that propsitions are not necessary to hold something as true.The cat believes there is a mouse behind the tree. <------that's holding a belief.
The cat's owner saw the same events. The owner also believes a mouse is behind the tree, and that "a mouse is behind the tree" is true.<--------------that's holding something to be true. — creativesoul
Which contradicts what you said above. If it is impossible believe in a falshood then believing is always holding something to be true.They do not. Cannot. It is humanly impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood. — creativesoul
Which account is true? — creativesoul
I'm spending some time trying to understand what a proposition — ZzzoneiroCosm
Well, I’m not very familiar with his views (which he also revised over time) so I’m not sure how to answer. As far as I’ve understood, Moore initially takes propositions to be mind-independent abstract entities (a view that was probably inspired by Frege’s views) that constitute the objects of our thoughts and the meanings of our statements. My understanding of meaning (in semantics) is highly influenced by Wittgenstein’s views (as reported in his “Philosophical Investigations”), so for me meanings are not mind-independent abstract entities, but rules that present themselves in the course of actual and contextual linguistic practices: this implies that meanings are neither mind-independent, nor practice independent, besides they are not “objects” of thought since they regulate how we think about “objects”, they kind of operate in our thinking when we think more than being things that we consult in order to think.I'm spending some time trying to understand what a proposition — ZzzoneiroCosm
"I believe that clock is working"?
or
"I believe that stopped clock is working"?
Which version most accurately says, implies or suggests what Jack actually believes? — ZzzoneiroCosm
Be well to all... — creativesoul
That gives me a nice place to start. I'll have a look at Sense and Reference. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Jack also believed that that stopped clock was working, but clearly did not believe that "the stopped clock is working" is true. — creativesoul
Jack believes that apple is on the table — neomac
That Fuji apple is on the table — neomac
...for the belief when put into propositional form, would not be held as true by the believer. — creativesoul
In other words: even though the clock is stopped, Jack's belief isn't about - a stopped clock. It's about a clock — ZzzoneiroCosm
What Creative put into propositional form is not Jack's belief. — Banno
CS is obviously being purposely obtuse regarding your rebuttal (and mine), yet you continue with wasting your time trying to restate it, when there are more pertinent points in this thread to address. :roll:Just to restate my rebuttal concisely: — ZzzoneiroCosm
As well as Banno's and ZZz's because they've have an emotional attachment to their beliefs about beliefs.creativesoul's ideas about belief ascriptions sound not only preposterous (and justifiably so for me), — neomac
Agreed. But that is difficult to do when people maintain their grip on their understanding of propositions with their emotions and don't respond to questions about what propositions are when the questions get tough.The philosophical debate about propositions starts (or should start) from some strong intuitions that should be readily acknowledged by all competent speakers. — neomac
Yes, how can three different strings of scribbles mean the same thing?1. All the following statements say “the same” in different languages:
That apple is on the table (in English)
La pomme est sur la table (in French)
Der Apfel ist auf dem Tisch (in German) — neomac
Mind independent abstract entities seems to be a contradiction. Abstractions are defined as existing as an idea and not as physical or concrete. So how can something that is abstract be mind independent?As far as I’ve understood, Moore initially takes propositions to be mind-independent abstract entities (a view that was probably inspired by Frege’s views) that constitute the objects of our thoughts and the meanings of our statements. — neomac
This sounds like what I was hinting at here:My understanding of meaning (in semantics) is highly influenced by Wittgenstein’s views (as reported in his “Philosophical Investigations”), so for me meanings are not mind-independent abstract entities, but rules that present themselves in the course of actual and contextual linguistic practices: this implies that meanings are neither mind-independent, nor practice independent, besides they are not “objects” of thought since they regulate how we think about “objects”, they kind of operate in our thinking when we think more than being things that we consult in order to think. — neomac
In what form do the rules present themselves if not the visual and auditory experiences you have when learning how others use language? This is no different than learning the rules of anything else, like object permanence - the realistic notion that entities continue to exist even when they do not exist in the mind - like the mouse that ran behind the tree.What form does a language you don't know take? How does that change when you learn the language? Do the scribbles and sounds cease to be scribbles and sounds, or is it that you now know the rules to use those scribbles and sounds? — Harry Hindu
wasting your time — Harry Hindu
My point was that it is a waste of your time when it's obvious CS doesn't care about wasting his. That was obvious several pages ago. Yet you avoided the the tough exercises and the tastiest popcorn.I'm not wasting my time. I'm trying to help creative see he's wasting his time. And also enjoying the puzzle. This kind of philosophy is just a popcorn exercise to me. Great exercise, though. — ZzzoneiroCosm
they've have an emotional attachment to their beliefs about beliefs. — Harry Hindu
My point was that it is a waste of your time when it's obvious CS doesn't care about wasting his. — Harry Hindu
So you'd rather engage them half-assed? Sounds like a waste of time to me.That's why I don't engage with them fully. — ZzzoneiroCosm
CS was even more odd as you even admitted that he was wasting his time, yet you spent more time addressing his waste of time than my "odd" view. :roll:You're view here is odd to me. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Why when there is no objective morality or ethics? What good would your notion of good do for me?I would refer you to the recent thread on 'doing good.' — ZzzoneiroCosm
So you'd rather engage them half-assed? — Harry Hindu
CS was even more odd as you even admitted that he was wasting his time, yet you spent more time addressing his waste of time than my "odd" view. — Harry Hindu
Mind independent abstract entities seems to be a contradiction. Abstractions are defined as existing as an idea and not as physical or concrete. So how can something that is abstract be mind independent? — Harry Hindu
This sounds like what I was hinting at here:
What form does a language you don't know take? How does that change when you learn the language? Do the scribbles and sounds cease to be scribbles and sounds, or is it that you now know the rules to use those scribbles and sounds? — Harry Hindu — Harry Hindu
:lol: What was CS doing if not insisting? You keep contradicting yourself.I engaged them up to a point. Until further engagement seemed futile and there was no fun puzzle to solve.
I didn't see a fun, interesting puzzle in your post. Just your insistence and insistence is no fun. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Thank you, neomac for answering my question.Yes it does. — neomac
Thank you for the example.Many philosophers take the technical notion “abstract entity” to mean something that is not the result of some mental operation (“abstraction”). According to them “abstract entities” are to be contrasted to “concrete entities”: indeed both of them are real (i.e. mind-independent) entities , the difference (at least according to many) is that abstract entities are not located in space and time, and they are causally inert, while concrete entities are located in space and time (or at least, in time) and are not causally inert. Propositions, numbers, sets are often taken to be some common cases of abstract entities by those who believe in their existence. So for example, while a sentence is a concrete entity, the proposition that the sentence is meant to represent would be an abstract entity of the sort I’ve just described. Frege seems to have proposed this view. — neomac
What was CS doing if not insisting? You keep contradicting yourself.
Sure, difficult questions that, when answered, point out your contradictions can't be much fun. That's why you don't answer the question. And not being fun isn't an argument against anything that I've said. It's just a thinly veiled ad hominem.
All this time you've spent with me now could have been more constructive if you just answer the question. — Harry Hindu
What was CS doing if not insisting? You keep contradicting yourself. — Harry Hindu
1. Are pictures/images propositions? — Agent Smith
What was CS doing if not insisting? You keep contradicting yourself. — Harry Hindu
Until further engagement seemed futile and there was no fun puzzle to solve.
I didn't see a fun, interesting puzzle in your post. Just your insistence and insistence is no fun. — ZzzoneiroCosm
CS is obviously being purposely obtuse regarding your rebuttal (and mine) — Harry Hindu
What is happiness? — The feeling that power increases — that a resistance is overcome. — Nietzsche**
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. — Some Gunneddown Gunless Johnny**
...down [or was it up] the garden path... — 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.