:up:They're not representative of the types of claims made in philosophy, which deal with complex concepts and objectives, and require sophisticated interpretation and thinking. — Judaka
This is what I meant by "useful fictions create truth", now replacing that to be "created categories create truth". — Judaka
There's a competition, where "It's true that this approach is likely to succeed at maximising the outcomes I care about" might decide which ideas are best. The "truth" part can be forcibly added, but it's trivial. — Judaka
How does one hold up a meaning (the meaning of an assertion) against the world to compare that meaning with a state of affairs right ? — plaque flag
When I call an assertion true, I am basically endorsing or repeating that assertion. — plaque flag
The next issue is whether it is raining. — plaque flag
It has to be an explication of a logic we mostly use transparently. — plaque flag
I think that phrase of mine was awkward. I meant describing the world [accurately.] I 'intend a state of affairs' as 'actual.' — plaque flag
For Gadamer, following Heidegger, our interpretative prejudices are otherwise invisible to us. We think they are the world, but they are glasses we can take off. — plaque flag
A big part of philosophy is converting false necessity into optional contingency ---a journey toward greater freedom and a wider view. — plaque flag
You might like this essay on the topic. I do think Brandom is great in general. — plaque flag
I'm sure you're not extrapolating as though there's zero difference, but I'm unsure about the differences you do perceive. — Judaka
If you clarify this I might agree.... it's just a matter of whether it's correct to reference the weather as raining. The nuances of this are far more apparent when dealing with a word such as oppression. — Judaka
I don't think truth is a word about describing the world accurately. — Judaka
For Gadamer, following Heidegger, our interpretative prejudices are otherwise invisible to us. — plaque flag
What do you mean by "glasses we can take off"? — Judaka
Could you clarify what you mean? — Judaka
This might be the essence:I am ADHD and thus struggle to follow even small essays, but I am going through it. How much of this paper coincides with your understanding? Anywhere you notably disagree with it? — Judaka
If you clarify this I might agree.
But let me offer this:
Does
The assertion that it is raining is warranted.
mean
It is raining. — plaque flag
For us to confidently say that "it's raining," certain conditions must be met:
Precipitation: Rain is a type of precipitation where water droplets fall from the atmosphere. So, for it to be raining, there must be a significant presence of falling water droplets.
Observation: Someone (or something) must have observed or detected the falling water droplets. This could be a person visually seeing and feeling the raindrops or a rain gauge measuring the amount of precipitation.
Consistency: The presence of falling water droplets must be consistent over a certain period of time. A brief drizzle or a few isolated drops might not qualify as "it's raining."
Not Other Forms of Precipitation: To distinguish rain from other forms of precipitation like snow, sleet, or hail, it's important to confirm that the falling precipitation is indeed liquid water droplets.
Corroborating Evidence: It's helpful to have corroborating evidence such as wet surfaces, the sound of rain hitting roofs or windows, or changes in visibility due to the falling precipitation.
Meteorological Criteria: In meteorology, there are specific criteria and instruments used to officially measure and record rainfall. These criteria might include a certain amount of water collected over a specific time period, which is often measured in millimeters or inches.
In essence, for us to confidently declare that "it's raining," we need to observe a consistent, significant presence of falling liquid water droplets that align with meteorological and observational standards. — ChatGPT
So prejudice is simultaneously enabling and limiting. — plaque flag
'Oppression' has a role as a token in a 'game.' It's like a virtual object in conceptual space. People see this object differently. The word has different meanings for people. The argument is about how the token/word ought to be understood and used. It's my private perspective on this 'object' that I want foisted on everyone else. I want 'them' to see oppression as I do ('correctly.') — plaque flag
:up:You cannot say "it is raining" in a non-linguistic way. There is no "actually raining" or "actual state of raining" — Judaka
"Rain" is a straightforward concept, it obscures most of the subjectivity at play in language and truth, which is why it's wrong to extrapolate from them. — Judaka
All we ever have is belief. But we use 'true' and 'false' to endorse or dispute beliefs. Establishing which beliefs are warranted/ justified is where the real work happens, except that our discussion is valuable for making all of this clear to ourselves, getting the power cord untangled.
How does that sound ? — plaque flag
If we have a community that cares about God and believe in God, then someone saying 'God is love' is sharing their own conceptual view of this entity. — plaque flag
I agree that all we ever have is belief, but truth is technically a function of logic, the term does not endorse or dispute but affirms or denies the conditions as being met. — Judaka
You cannot say "it is raining" in a non-linguistic way. There is no "actually raining" or "actual state of raining. — Judaka
To me it seems like you are wavering between trying to explain what makes a true statement true and how 'true' is used. But I don't think the first mission is possible.
It does not work to talk about prelinguistic stuff making linguistic stuff true. It gets paradoxical, because 'prelinguistic stuff' is linguistic stuff. — plaque flag
I understand truth as a correct reference, in other words, it can't be disentangled from language. — Judaka
A central idea in philosophy is fairness, but arguably, this term tells us absolutely nothing about the world. — Judaka
I thought you meant a word referring to nonword stuff. — plaque flag
Our understanding of the word would, I claim, be an understanding of part of the world. — plaque flag
A dog is a dog, an animal, a mammal, a loyal companion, a pet, but not a building. It's not true that a dog is a building, it's an incorrect reference. Even if dogs went extinct, it changes nothing, the rules are all made up, and they only change if we change them. — Judaka
I could dispute a belief for any number of reasons, but to call something untrue is a particular type of dispute. — Judaka
I think (?) your are implicitly picturing some naked reality (from no perspective, but really still yours) that MAKES a statement true or untrue. — plaque flag
In that sense, all beliefs are true, as an expression of how the world is seen by the mind by a person at that time --- but only about their view on the world. — plaque flag
Discussing is people working together toward better beliefs. [People might say 'truer,' but this leads to confusion, because 'true' is simply [mostly] used to agree with 'mere' belief.] — plaque flag
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.