As a non American ... :) Mine was a political moment, during the 1997 election in the UK, when I felt I realized that a really small number of people were capable of manipulating events. Often they have a pious- sounding front man like Tony Blair (or they are such a person). And they lack a moral sense. For a while this depressed me terribly. Eventually I somehow went back into myself, and found a kind of detachment from human affairs I didn't used to have.

This is not at all how I used to see the world. In a way though, in the long run I feel more at ease with myself, less urgently feeling I should *do* something. These bastards are stronger than me. I need my own space of reasonableness. I can't ignore the unpleasant triumph of evil people, but I can understand that I'm not responsible for them. — mcdoodle

Never mind my mental problems, mcdoodle. I actually do know that people are people no matter where they are. It's been my practice to withhold respect if I note that a person is bigoted. It becomes a little daunting when I see just how many people there are who I don't respect. If I had a more political nature, I would have long since worked it out and laid it to rest.

But regarding crimes and misdemeanors, you're saying you sort of insulated yourself from the world and its truths? Does that work?

In many possible worlds frameworks, truth simpliciter is defined as truth with respect to a privileged world, sometimes designated w@, that is, the actual world. — The Great Whatever

That's a case of picturing truth as a property of statements, and it works well in managing necessary truths.

The question I have there is: necessary truths can't be false. So how does truth even come up in regard to them? I think it's cases like:

John believes that 4 is a prime number.

John is mistaken. It's necessarily true that 4 isn't prime. John's belief is false.

But if we persist in saying that "It's false that 4 is a prime number"... there's a subtle problem that arises having to do with the status of this false proposition, or really of any proposition. It's the unstated statement problem.

We can ditch that problem by declaring that we're speaking poetically when we talk about a proposition as existing in some abstract way... hanging in the void possibly unknown by any qualified knower. What we're saying is that if anyone believes that 4 is a prime number, their belief is wrong.

Eh... I gotta think about this some more.

I think the only viable understanding of truth (in the propositional not in the 'truth as aletheia' sense ) we have is that truth corresponds to, or is about actuality. (In the 'truth as aletheia' sense actuality is not a state of affairs but the living truth as it is revealed). — John

This is a common view, although it was rejected by philosophers post Frege. In spite of that, it persists as a common view. Some philosophers point out that it has intuitive appeal. Plus indirect realism is pretty much embedded in the average scientific outlook. This causes consternation because correspondence entails dualism of some kind.

One of the problems with a dualistic outlook is the challenge of explaining how the two supposed "realms" relate to one another. In other words... how does a truth-bearer correspond to a truth-maker? This is obviously intimately tied to the issue of how mind relates to the world.

An externalist approach to knowledge says that there is no need to work that question out. We just start by acknowledging that there are sentient beings who interact with their world. We note cases of "reliablity" in these interactions. That reliability is all there is to knowledge.

What do you mean by this? That we use the word "truth" to talk about knowledge? — Michael

You could say that, yea. Truth is the object of knowledge. It's actuality... what is, as opposed to what could be.

Frege's proof that truth is unanalyzable assumes that truth is a property of statements. Obviously there are sentences where truth does not appear in the role of a property. AP tends to dismiss these cases, preferring to examine truth as a property.

When we use "truth" as a property, we're employing metaphor, but this is generally overlooked. This is where the AP trainwreck starts... I think.

Oh cool. I'll call it "Crimes and Misdemeanors"

If your argument is epistemological, setting out what knowledge is, it's generally (although certainly not universally) accepted that knowledge is a justified true belief. That being the case, it's generally accepted that truth is an element of knowledge. — Hanover

Gettier problem. Theories of knowledge are in flux at present. The problem is central to philosophy of mind.

I don't know if it's a priori that all parts of the world must interrelate unless you are referring to the world in an external sense. Dreams need not interrelate with one another, and I don't see why it's necessary that actuality not simply be a dream. I'll acknowledge that we intuitively believe the rock we perceive is "out there," but that's not necessarily true nor is it universally accepted as true. — Hanover

In an external sense, yea, all the parts of the world have to interrelate.

If actuality is a dream, all the parts still have to interrelate. Try to imagine a portion of a dream that in no way relates to anything else in the dream. Give an example of that.

The world may be a dream. If it is, that is actuality. Of all the things the world could have been, that's what it is. When we seek the truth, we seek to know that actuality.

It's not the job of philosophers to dictate the words people use. For an extended period, philosophers have thought of truth as a property of statements. Though this outlook is gravely afflicted, it keeps coming back around.

While pondering knowledge internalism/externalism, it occurred to me that truth is really about knowledge. It's the object of knowledge. In the cases where we speak of it as a property, the use of metaphor is in play. I don't take credit for noticing that. But those who have noticed it have tended to go the route of truth skepticism... which isn't viable.

If some blah are mah
and all mah are grah.
Is it true that some blah are grah?
Is it actuality? — shmik

I don't know what blah and mah are. I think the Actuality Theory could be refined to accommodate the different things we talk about. Philosophers have resorted to examining artificial languages to try to grasp things about language. Some ended up concluding that human speech has no more meaning than the barking of dogs. That sets the bar about as low as it can go, I think.

So I feel free to refine. :)

So again, I said I wanted to discuss the ideas... not philosophers associated with them. I think you're suggesting that this isn't possible.

I do agree. The next bit of my journey is to see whether there's anything in the suggestion that this is rather like what Heidegger was worrying about. With 'being' for 'actuality'. Wouldn't you say? — mcdoodle

Heidegger recognized that being is a combo of subject and object.

I think you might be right. I'm thinking of aesthetic truth.

I'm not quite sure how knowledge fits into that, though.

I'm curious; what difference does it make? Is there something special about the word "truth"? If you want to talk about what happens then talk about what happens. If you want to talk about a statement that describes what happens then talk about a statement that describes what happens. You don't even need to bring up "truth" at all. — Michael

Sure I do. Snake oil salesmen, politicians, and my own tendency to believe my own bullshit require me to focus on it.

Philosophically, it shows up when we ponder the workings of the mind.

That's a restatement of the correspondence theory of truth. It's discussed here in detail, with all the various arguments for and against: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#5

In your formulation, you will need to define "actuality," which you've equated to truth. Is it something as it is, unmediated by the perceiver, and what would that look like? — Hanover

No, it's not correspondence. I'm saying truth is the object of knowledge (or potentially the object of it) as opposed to a property of statements.

Actuality is the world I inhabit (as opposed to some other possible world). Apriori, all the parts of this world have to relate to one another in some way, so actuality is, in a sense, all there is from beginning to end.

One assumes that the world can be accurately perceived. This assumption may be wrong. This is a good thing to keep in mind if you're ever in the bar of the Overlook Hotel and you're being offered free booze.

Nothin' important. Just my own brewing psychosis. I've developed a problem with non-Americans, which is really ironic.

But somehow, I know that the only way to deal with it is to talk to Americans who aren't psychotic.

Dude. Are you an American?

Any state west of the Mississippi is relatively new. Louisiana, of course, isn't really a state at all. — ciceronianus

There is a kind of philosophy that is about how to present a simple idea in as garbled and complex a way as possible. Load on the jargon and make it appear that it's all about what a particular philosopher did or didn't say. This is genitally driven philosophy and it does its job: it makes people feel good about themselves. Scholars report that this has been an aspect of philosophy for a good while now. Some philosophers find favor mainly because they feed this spew of bullshit.

Then there's the kind of philosophy that arises spontaneously from your own life. If it hasn't yet.. give it time. It will. This sort of philosophy cares nothing for what the contemporary trends may be. It doesn't care what the cool kids are saying. It's earnestly trying to understand something.

As for proofs of God... every one of them is defining God in a peculiar way... Anselm says it's the greatest thing, Descartes says it's perfection, Aquinas says it's the mystery of motion.

Your thoughts are more important than any of these and the collective academic establishment.

Because they are your thoughts. Write them down and keep them. Your future self will be amazed by your wisdom.

I think what you're saying is that she didn't have an appealing personality, she had nothing original or even interesting to say, and her books were shit. The notion that there's any more to it is a myth created by deluded people.

Still... the phrase "sanction the victim" caught my attention. For me, exposure to Rand illuminated some features of Nietzsche for me.

It would be cool to dispense with the personalities associated with the ideas and explore the ideas themselves... which I have done on my lonesome, drawing in personal experiences and my ever evolving thoughts about the world. I would actually be pretty eager to discuss that kind of thing with you in particular. Maybe another thread? Maybe not?

I don't understand why she's thought of as malignant, but I haven't studied her views in depth. In some ways, her views are in keeping with liberalism. Chomsky and Robert Reich point out that it's a mark of success for rightism that people accept that some people are going to be poor and struggling, so they don't have an appropriate reaction to it and fight against a system that diminishes the middle class and enhances the power of the wealthy. It's along the lines of sanctioning the victim.

Anyway... if you think Rand is a hag, there are other good Blank on Blank interviews. The one with Ray Bradbury is cool.

If you're thinking of the quantum theory sort of "multiple worlds," something strange is going to happen to truth if you have a transcendent vantage point.

Yea... analytic truths. With those, all we can do is think of truth as a property of statements. We can't think of them as situations that may or may not be actual. Good point.

Yes and no. Rand didn't think the form of an organism brings its material organization into existence as Aristotle did. Her ethics starts with recognizing that a living thing either exists or it doesn't. If it does exist, it's because it is acting to maintain its life. Morality is something peculiar to organisms that can perceive their own existence and reflect on pleasure, pain, and choices.

So in a vague way you're right. She's saying that a human has the potential to discover through reason the basis for all values, a basis which exists for all creatures including plants.

Could you give an example?

What's wrong with "Truth is actuality?" Why doesn't this work?

It's all about atheism, I'm afraid. God died. We're trying to figure out what portion of our interests were affected by that.

We love science. We prefer naturalistic answers to: "It's that way because God loves Americans." That's can't be right. Why would God have a preference for morons?

I'm saying that understanding the cultural mileau of the issue of truth requires understanding stuff like the legacy of Descartes, how indirect realism is assumed by scientists, and catching sight of the high-wire act of Fools trying to avoid Nihilism that characterizes contemporary life.

In other words, the stakes are a lot higher than they might seem to be on casual observation. It's all Philosophy of Mind. Is the universe alive? Or is it dead and our intuitions about ourselves.. just illusions?

We could look at properties in terms of sets. The extension of tallness is the set of instances of it. Do you accept the existence of sets?

Aristotle and Rand were both realists. Would Rand's views be undermined by a rejection of metaphysics? Maybe a little. It would take the claws out of the Darwinian aspects of it.

Me too. I'd like to get Russell, Whitehead, and Carnap together and put a few questions to them. Maybe put Quine in there too.

Why are you leaving — jamalrob

Hey, cousin. I just need to go. Just wanted you to know I think you're cool.

All the best,

Good bye! — Sapientia

Bye dude! I've always thought of you as a little tike. Don't worry.. that's how we old women are. You'll have grey hair and we'll still be seeing the baby you once were. Blessings. :)

Kind of weird for someone with so many of those bloody LIKEs to think that he is not suited to the site. Maybe someone tempted him to go somewhere else as there is such a big business in philosophy sites — Sir2u

Ah.. Sir2U... you spat in my face when I came to PF, you spit in it again as I leave. May you drink much water so you never run out of sputum, and my all who encounter you see in you what I see.. after they clear the mucous from their eyes...

I love both the reading group and the idea of an article section. Did we decide against blogs? Also.. If there was a place a person could drop ideas of articles they would like to read... that would be cool. Should I just make a thread: "Articles I'd like to see written."? or "Articles I would read." ?

Another thing I enjoy is imagining debates between famous philosophers. Two posters each become a philosopher. . Pedestrian?

I guess my "ethical" question goes deeper - should reason be dominated by the passions, or should reason itself become a passion dominating all the others a la Epicurus, Spinoza, et al.? — Agustino

Sometimes, yes. Moderation in all things, though. In some situations, a project of placing reason on the throne complies with both reason and the passions. But there is suspicion that where projects of that kind are too successful, the result is pathological. Passion can't really be dominated. It can be shut out of consciousness, though. And now reason struts around imagining that it's in charge... unaware of the real agendas manipulating thought and perception. Ideally, reason whispers wisdom. It shines a light on the truth... and when it comes to morality, it's the truths we don't want to hear that might be the most important.

I think it's also reason which can suggest that sorrow isn't a property of the world we live in. It's not something we're forced to endure by virtue of being alive. Sorrow resides in the hollowness of the soul. It's with sorrow that we comprehend the fragility of life. Sorrow is one face of love.

One of the things I've been thinking about recently is how speaking about perception in terms of 'embodiment' is not enough. It is not enough to point out that perception takes place in embodied beings. What matters too is the type of bodies involved, and the way in which those bodies are simultaneously shaped by, and shape the environment in which they evolved and developed in — StreetlightX

A number of things fascinated me about Chalmers' views, one of them being the notion that we might one day have some knowledge about what it's like to be a bee.

Bees are literally our distant cousins. We're more closely related to them than we are to pine trees... but pine trees are also our kin. Are we related to rocks? Of course, but obviously not genetically. To avoid the dreaded duality, we'll have to be relaxed about the contiguity between living and non-living bodies.

Brainy has a shocking memory. Nerves are tiny electrical devices. X-) They're in the wrong rooms, though. Blinky should be in Radar's room.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking.

One of my favorite baseball films (a work of 'Art'), but I don't attend the church of baseball. I'm too much like Crash and think Annie is full of crap. — Mayor of Simpleton

:)

Is there any other way of determining the existence of something other than to directly observe it and assume all methods of rational inquiry are working? — darthbarracuda

Indirect observation is sufficient in many cases.... seeing evidence of X without directly observing X. Why do you ask this?

If it helps, I also believe that religion is anything (or what) you can get away with; thus it's similar nature to art. ;) — Mayor of Simpleton

I thought you attended the church of Baseball. Ever see Bull Durham?

The reason I asked for clarification is not so much for an overview of the technical nature but more your own ideas. How can we tell someone is 'Holy'? The way they dress? A title? The way they live? Or the way they think/act? How do we know the 'heart' of a man? Can we ever, truly? — Sentient

Well, Bach, the actual guy, doesn't show up on my beauty-meter. What he created does. Same thing with holy people.

Who or what is a 'Holy person' and how can one identify them? Why? This is utterly fascinating. — Sentient

It's a kind of person. They're usually identified by names like shaman, priest, priestess, monk, bishop, pope, guru, preacher, imam, and so on. Typically, it's a person who stands apart and doesn't lead a normal life, but is attached to the community in an honored role. A holy person might be a sage, like a medicine man or an astrologer. Or the separation from society could be emphasized as with hermits or the Russian "holy fool." It could be a person who plays the role of hierophant, which has a meaning like "tone setter." Or it could be a person who goes on the offensive against the ills in a society like Jesus or Muhammad. Martin Luther King, Jr was a holyman, which means he stood up to lead people in a spiritual way as opposed to a military way.

From it's beginning, Christianity has made a big deal out the concept of the false holyman. It's the idea of a person who has taken the title, but is using the position for nefarious purposes. I have a Christian background, so it's normal for me to distinguish "holy person" from just anybody who has the title. Protestants are especially nervous about false holy people, so it's not unusual to see Protestant churches where the congregation maintains control over who stands as their preacher. How do they decide to kick out a preacher? I imagine it's mostly a matter of politics, but the justification is supposed to be that every person is born knowing the difference between good and evil... which is an aspect of aesthetic truth.