I wouldn't say "everything," but "all truth." Not everything is truth (judgments). That's just one activity that sentient beings engage in. It's a very small percentage of all phenomena in the world. Also, this part is my idiosyncratic view. On the standard view, just how the property obtains is left unanalyzed. — Terrapin Station

Okay, so how does a property of meaning, truth, depend on who is assessing it? Do you mean to say that truth is assigned to meaning by the person?

So therefore, "(the truth of) everything depends on who is assessing it" - the meaning of that corresponds to the facts right?

They're not language per se, they're meaning. — Terrapin Station

Okay, so according to you, truth is a property of meaning right? Meanings can be true or false?

You understand that propositions are not the actual words used, right? — Terrapin Station

Can propositions exist outside of language?

How is that not a proposition? — Terrapin Station

Does my dog understand propositions?

How does it show that? Not by indicating something like "There (is) . . ."? — Terrapin Station

Yes by indicating "there it is". But even my dog understands what pointing my finger means - it means "there's the ball" - a fact, not a proposition in this case, because my dog doesn't understand language, and isn't a language using animal.

What meaning does it have? — Terrapin Station

It shows them the state of affairs they're interested to know about.

Pointing your finger has no meaning? — Terrapin Station

It has meaning, but that meaning is not a statement. It's not a proposition.

As I JUST SAID: They want the person to MAKE A STATEMENT — Terrapin Station

Okay, say I don't make any statement, and I point my finger to a drawer opposite me. They seem to be satisfied by that, and yet I made no statement. So how for fuck's sake do they want me to make a statement?

Okay, so are they asking for a proposition or are they asking for the facts?

You're not at all comprehending the idea that philosophical analysis is NOT a reporting of how someone happens to think about a term re their beliefs about what it is. — Terrapin Station

No this isn't about their beliefs. This is about how they're using the term. What are they asking you for when they ask for the truth?

I would say that philosophical analysis of a term like "truth" is largely an analysis of how the term functions in normal usage, relative to coherence requirements, relative to what actually exists, etc. And that is the context in which truth refers to a property of propositions. — Terrapin Station

Well but it's not. If someone tells you "tell me the truth" in a specific context, say you lied about where the car keys are, then you're not going to answer with any proposition which has the modality true. They're not asking for a proposition. They're asking for a fact! So in what sense is the philosophical analysis largely an analysis of how the term functions in normal usage? If it was that, then you'd see that part of the meaning of truth includes facts.

Instead of answering with words, you could point somewhere for example. Are you then still using a proposition? And if you're not, according to your notion, how are you giving them the truth? This is just so incoherent.

Neither. — Agustino

And it's neither simply because the way you use the word truth, it doesn't have the same MEANING it has in common language. That's my problem. That's why it's not a category error. If jealousy means pink, then to speak of jealous trainers isn't a category error, because the meaning of the word is different. Why is it so hard to understand this @Terrapin Station?

Which implies, "Category errors can not occur in normal language usage." Do you really want to claim that? And would you be claiming it as a definition of "category error," or are you just saying that there's some relation between the two that prevents category errors from ever occurring in normal language usage? — Terrapin Station

Neither.

At any rate, philosophy isn't journalism about how people colloquially think about language re what their beliefs are with respect to the terms they use. It's not simple philology, lexicography or anthropology. — Terrapin Station

Sure, but meaning is given to words by the context in which they are used and the manner in which they are used.

and I believe also our home country if living elsewhere — Michael

That would depend on what laws you're thinking about, but mostly it's not the case. You're under the laws of the country you're activating in. For example, if a Nigerian earns his dough from within the borders of the UK, even if he's selling to Nigeria, he'll pay income tax in the UK. He can't pay in Nigeria, because we have a few international standards to avoid double taxation. And in either case, the Nigerian government wouldn't be able to check him. There may be taxes on exporting to there that he has to pay to the Nigerian government though.

The website itself is owned by PlushForums. jamalrob just pays to use it. So unless the website itself is running on a Spanish server, I don't think there's anything they can do (aside from blocking it from being viewed in Spain). — Michael

Ah I see, yes in that kind of deal that's the case. I thought he owns the forum/website "thephilosophyforum" and hosts with them - because that would be different. He would pay for the hosting and other features available to build the forums, but the domain would be his, and so he would be responsible over the content.

In fact, Terms of Service says:

"13. Miscellaneous. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between The Philosophy Forum and you concerning the subject matter hereof, and they may only be modified by a written amendment signed by an authorized executive of The Philosophy Forum, or by the posting by The Philosophy Forum of a revised version. Except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise, this Agreement, any access to or use of the Website will be governed by the laws of the state of England and Wales. "

So there we go, case closed.

Yes I know, but Jamalrob isn't located in UK. If I run a website, then I don't necessarily have to follow the law of my hosting company's country, but rather the law of the country I activate in. For example, if I run a gambling website in a country where gambling is illegal, even if I host it in a place where it is legal, I will get in trouble if I target specifically the audience of that country in which it is illegal, and run my website - take my earnings - into that country. And people who come to my website, would generally also have to follow my country's laws, and that would be part of the Terms of Service.

I think more easily we're under the jurisdiction of the owner of the forums, which means Spain. In our dealings with the website - for example subscriptions/donations/etc. we must be under Spanish law. Unless in hosting with Plush jamalrob has agreed to be under a different law jurisdiction.

I think it makes a lot of sense, as I explained in that post. I rather don't think it makes much sense to say that truth and falsehood would be a completely different type of thing, rather than different modalities of the same thing. That would suggest that something is going wrong with one's analysis. It would be like saying that blue is a particular frequency range of electromagnetic radiation, but orange is a type of tennis shoe, or that a major scale (ionian mode) is a particular sequence of whole and half steps, but that a minor scale (aeolian mode) is an emotion. — Terrapin Station

But it's not at all a category error for the very simple reason that it's not the way truth is commonly used in our language. If your philosophy student comes to you and says my dog ate the homework, you're going to say "No, tell me what the truth is!" What the truth is! The truth can't be the modality of a certain proposition, at least not in that context. When you're asking for the truth you're asking for some states of affairs. And truth is simply used in this manner in everyday language. It's part and parcel of what we understand by truth. So fine, you can arbitrarily decide that for philosophical use truth will represent a property of propositions, and fact will represent states of affairs. But if you do that, you merely take the meaning people commonly attribute to the word truth, and split it in two different words. You're still going to have the same issues you had before with truth, only that you'll shift them in two different words. And I think that's problematic precisely because it is mere semantics, it doesn't change the fundamental issues.

Ok, for example, because of that distinction, you'll tell me the truth of everything depends on who is assessing it. And I will say, oh I don't mean truth in your language, I mean facts. Do facts depend on who is assessing it? No. Well that's what I mean when I say that not everything depends on who is assessing it. You're merely shifting the problem in a conceptual labyrinth, nothing else.

That's not the case on the standard view re analytic philosophy that I'm referring to and operating in the context of. — Terrapin Station

Okay, but shouldn't we dispute the standard view of analytic philosophy then?

On analysis, folks are uncomfortable with the idea that falsehoods would be a different kind of thing than truths. — Terrapin Station

Why is that?

Truths and falsehoods should be two different modalities of the same kind of thing. — Terrapin Station

Again, what's the motivation for saying they should be that?

So there are no false facts, and there are no true facts. There are simply facts. — Terrapin Station

Yes but why can't there be true or false facts? There can't be false facts, because if something is false, then it can't be factual. And there can't be true facts, because the notion of true is already incorporated within the notion of fact. When you think of a fact, you always think of something that is already true. When I tell you "that's a fact", then I mean that it is the case - ie it is true.

I think the question is, what can possibly rationalise or provide the motivation for that? — Wayfarer

Yes this is it. This is exactly what you're not understanding. Let me quote Spinoza:

"Blessedness is not the reward of virtue - but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them"

Blessedness is virtue itself - it is the highest, there is no higher. As it is the highest there can't be any talk of it being done for the purpose of some other higher thing - rather it is the end for which all other things are done. We're not virtuous for any other reason than virtue itself. There is no talk of a "motivation" for that, as if virtue itself wasn't motivational enough. That's why Spinoza laughs at the great multitude - and you appear to be one of them here - who seem to think that freedom corresponds to giving in to their lusts, and therefore they need a divine providence to motivate them not to do that. So what am I to understand from your answer? That if there is no transcendence to motivate you, you will go back to living without virtue, in hatred, sexual misconduct and all the other vices? So then that's your natural disposition! You should go right back to it, because transcendence or not, that's who you fundamentally are. Without something other than virtue to motivate you to be virtuous, you won't be virtuous! Without the transcendent, you will start pouring poisons (vices) down your throat, because that's the sensible thing to do if there is no transcendent right?

That's why I go back to Spinoza, that nothing is more absurd than what you're saying. And as for why it is pushing buttons... it doesn't help anyone! Sending them to meditate does little to help them become more virtuous! Reading Plotinus does 0 towards helping them become more virtuous. Instead of talking of what really matters - virtue - you talk of something higher, as if that something higher could serve another purpose except be MERELY INSTRUMENTAL to virtue - the highest good. Why do you go by such a round-about way to teach virtue? Why not teach it directly? What's the use of the whole "spiritual philosophy"? What more will it teach them than merely to live virtuously? >:O

Instead of focusing on the practical philosophy - the virtuous life - you focus on the spiritual. But the spiritual is nothing because its final end is living virtuously as well. It's empty of content. I mean, instead of preaching your spiritual philosophy, you're honestly better off grabbing the whip and the carrot to teach them - that, fear or hope, are a much better way to get them to fake virtue than whatever "spiritual philosophy" can do. And I might add that the great multitude faking virtue is the best scenario achievable. Very few can actually reach up to virtue, probably because virtue requires intelligence which is cultivated along the right lines.

And in your very posing the question, you understand this. It's not the spiritual philosophy that matters at all - at best, that's merely a motivating factor for what TRULY matters - for the real highest - the virtuous life in this world. That's why Spinoza is beyond good and evil - because good and evil are traditionally understood to be merely instrumental towards the achievement or loss of something higher. He is beyond instrumentality - you're not good because there's some higher end to being good. Being good is the highest end, and you do all things to be good. It's like in Buddhism - you're not practicing morality (sila) in order to cultivate some higher insight, and deepen your meditation practice to achieve samadhi or whatever other nonsense. Practicing morality IS nirvana there is no higher. Buddha is just laughing at you and using the carrot of something higher to get you to practice morality (as if morality wasn't end in itself). A good and effective con, but nothing more. You should be ready to drop that crutch now.

I'm not biased, I'm presenting a philosophical argument — Wayfarer

I don't see the argument. Where's the argument? All I see is that my questions go unanswered and yet you claim to be right.

So what is the meaning of 'metanoia', why was that regarded as important in Platonist philosophy? — Wayfarer

Metanoia is an insight, a change of heart, a movement away from the material and towards God, repentance. It's important for Plato because he considers the relationship with the transcendent to be necessary for the well-ordering of the human soul. Does me reciting stuff like a school child change anything?

So - is there a 'higher'? Is the belief that there is 'a higher truth' simply 'a bias'? You tell me. — Wayfarer

If by higher you mean living with love, compassion, courage, loyalty, devotion, and the other virtues and avoiding hatred, improper sexual conduct, etc, then yes there is something higher. But there is nothing higher than that.

I've edited the previous reply.

I don't see the point of the question. The answer would depend on a lot of factors. There are plenty of people who have apparently fantastic lives but are deeply unhappy. I read a newspaper article yesterday about the wife of a US politician who was so misereable she had to get shock therapy and now has become an advocate for Electro-Convulsive Therapy! That's one way to achieve a meta-cognitive change, but I'm sure you agree meditation would be preferable. — Wayfarer

Well again - her life wasn't great. Her life was only apparently great to those on the outside. Maybe her husband didn't love her. Maybe she was upset he lost the bid for president. Maybe she had everything but was bored out of her mind, didn't know what to do with her life - as she says, she didn't feel alive. But again - we're not all like that. We're not all in need of a meta-cognitive change. That's why I referred to Spinoza. It's absurd to think that that's the natural disposition of everyone.

I'm not like that for example. Virtue is sufficient. I don't understand for example, why someone who has everything would resort to drugs - that makes no sense to me. It is, as Spinoza said, no less absurd than to think, that without whatever meta-cognitive change, we would resort to pouring poisons down our throats...

So, what's the problem? — Wayfarer

My problem is that it seems to me - I'm not saying it is the case - but it seems to me that you're not willing to rationally analyse the matter from beginning to end - logically. It seems to me that you're biased in other words. That's why it's pushing buttons. It seems to me utterly absurd why someone would think we're all in need of some meta-cognitive change... Or that this could actually be helpful. Because again - it is absurd to me, that someone, in the absence of this meta-cognitive change, would proceed to pour poisons down their throat. I don't know. Is that something you'd do if you didn't have a meta-cognitive change? Because it's not something I would do.

And indeed I've seen threads where you referred people who had mental trouble to go to the psychiatrist/psychologist - you didn't tell them to go meditate. Why is that? If a sudden, meta-cognitive change can fix them up, what's that got to do with the psychologist, who will merely change their cognition, not their meta-cognition? You should've saved them the time, and sent them to a meditation retreat!

That's one way to achieve a meta-cognitive change, but I'm sure you agree meditation would be preferable. — Wayfarer

Yeah, of course I agree meditation has benefits. This worldly benefits :P (and I sometimes do practice it)

And overall I don't see the use of meta-cognitive change. The problems we face in life are practical. I don't get along with my wife. I don't make sufficient money to be able to care for my family. I don't have time to spend with my kids. Stuff like that. Simple stuff. No meta-cognitive change can affect that. it's practical actions that can change that. Intelligence, virtue, etc. Meditation, although it can help in some regards has limited use in solving the kinds of situations I have mentioned above, and therefore has limited use for most people in life. That;s why I prefer Aristotle over Plato. Plato was stuck in his heavens. Aristotle was down in the dirt getting the job done!

Yeah, but without competition, you have no progress. Not everyone can have a product that initially doesn't have any sort of competition. I mean, it's hard to do that nowadays, at all. — Question

Progress doesn't come from competition. Innovation is never the result of competition. Think of your own innovations. It's always finding a niche, doing something differently, being creative, thinking outside the box.

You should really read Thiel's book - he argues monopoly is the most efficient operation of markets (and I tend to agree to a large extent, in the sense that the absence of competition is to be desired). If I have a small restaurant, and my grandmother works in the kitchen, my mother serves the food, I cook it etc. all so that we can pay the bills - what chance do we have to be innovative? Anything we do will be copied + We're too stuck in the rat race, bothered by survival. You can't be innovative when you don't have the resources you need to be innovative with. And competition destroys profits - it makes us work harder for, ultimately, nothing. But if I'm in some niche, where I have almost no competition, then I make good profits, in an easy way. Because I make money easily, I have a lot of spare time and resources to be innovative - to truly do important things. Musk is innovative because he can afford it!

I will tell you a story...

A big fish does not bother to come live in a small pond. Why? It's too small for him, he can't waste his time. However, in the bigger pond in which he makes his home, lots of small fish come - because the pond is large and appealing! And the big fish rejoices and swallows them all - he is King of the Pond. But the intelligent small fish on the other hand, sees that he's too small for the big lake and the dangers are too great. Thus he chooses the biggest pond in which he's the biggest fish. Then he grows, conquers his pond, eats the other fish and becomes bigger. Then he moves to the next biggest pond, where again he is the biggest fish. He proceeds in the same manner. One day, he looks at the big pond, where the first big fish is, and he realises that he is now bigger than that fish. Therefore he moves to that pond, and eats the King of the Pond, who complacently sat on a lake waiting for small fish, instead of looking for fish closer to his size! >:O ;)

Did you like the story?! :D

Only people who, for example, become bored, or who always want more, etc. only such people would be interested in your meta-cognitive change at that point. But I'm not that kind of person - as Spinoza said, if that's your natural disposition, tough for you, it's not mine. Why would I poison my reality with those attitudes? Why would anyone do it? And because I don't, I'm not in need of any sort of meta-cognitive change.

Strangely, I thought we were in a philosophy forum. I don't know where you think you are. — Wayfarer

No but tell me Wayfarer. What is lacking in the scenario I described above, in the good one? Do those people need a meta-cognitive change? Would they be helped by one in any way? It's an honest question. You seem to be shying away from answers all the time, so of course I have to be straight up and ask you for them.

Let me give you another example. Suppose I have everything a rational person could materially desire for (and no this isn't fast cars, yachts, and women). Suppose I have great health, I'm in good physical shape, I have a wife whom I love and who loves me, we're devoted to each other, we're important members of our community, we take part in Church rituals, we have beautiful children and a large harmonious family. Our entire family is virtuous and based on virtue. Do you imagine that such a person could have anything to do with your meta-cognitive change? Just imagine for a moment. You go to such a person and peddle your meta-cognitive change, etc. etc. what do you think they'll do? Throw you out! Take your meta-cognitive change with you too! (and I'm only saying this to illustrate, I don't mean to be rude to you so don't take it the wrong way).

But instead if you go to someone who doesn't have enough to feed his children, if you go to someone who is fighting with his wife, if you go to someone whose kids are on drugs, etc. That person will accept your meta-cognitive change, because he perceives that something material could be changed for the better because of it. And especially all of a sudden, ain't that great now? Someone who lacks virtue will do the same, because he will believe the fantasy that all of a sudden he will become virtuous... This seems very absurd to me, and no mystical writers have ever clarified this. That's why I think the Spinoza quote applies to mystics. The mystics think of the common person as some beast of the field who requires a meta-cognitive change to be different. No - he just requires damn virtue, and the fact he can't follow virtue merely shows his weakness of character and nothing else. No meta-cognitive change will fix that.

I think he would have dismissed the second part ('nothing good lies outside him'), which sounds worthy of the most devoted pessimists on this forum. But the first part may be interpreted as suggesting that a necessary condition for eudaimonia is to gain better control of one's own mind - one's reaction to events and one's desires - and that seems to me to be quite Epicurean, as well as Stoic and Buddhist. — andrewk

To be entirely honest, I think Wayfarer is committing a great moral error. Virtue gives your best chance for happiness as Aristotle understood, but it doesn't guarantee it. Wayfarer still talks of ways of being etc. which guarantee happiness, which is just nonsense. There are no guarantees around. The best you can do (virtue) is the best you can do, and if at the end of the day you're still not happy, well you couldn't have done any better!

Well, I really have to differ with you on that. It's not a matter of 'having an experience' - I'm referring to the meta-cognitive change that is called 'metanoia' in Platonistic philosophy. I thought, as you had referred from time to time to Orthodox philosophy that you might understand these things, but apparently not, sorry for the bother. — Wayfarer

And what does a meta-cognitive change have to do with anything? Really now... I still have to provide for my kids and so forth. What has changed? Have I become better able to provide for them? Has my relationship with my wife improved? Am I more loving, not in an abstract kind of way, but in a practical kind of way?

That's why I see this all as useless. The essence is virtue, not some meta-cognitive change. Virtue alone is sufficient. All you're doing Wayfarer, is that you're imagining yourself as you are today, then you're imaging yourself as you will be after the beatific vision. But that's exactly a delusion! To think that any experience will produce a sudden change in your character - really? Why would you think that?

Efficiency. Ie. a process that can be made more efficient (via technology). Then, via competition the technology gets implemented in day to day living, thus leading to greater productivity. — Question

No that's not at all the case. At least not necessarily so. As game theory illustrates, competition often results in the worst outcome for all parties involved - for example see Prisoner's Dillema. Consider a scenario from the natural world as well - the trees that grow taller steal the light of smaller trees and therefore survive more. Thus they beat out the smaller trees. And yet, they are the least efficient trees, because they have small trunks, and have to carry the water all through their very tall body against gravity. The small bushes are more efficient at doing the job, and yet they get wiped out! Instead it's the tallest, and objectively weakest trees that will win the race.

Say also we're competing to win over a girl. It's not the one who is most fit for survival between us two who will win. It's the one who fits with whatever preferences she has. Her preferences dictate the rules of the game, and her preferences don't have to be in line with the optimal outcome. Competition may just as easily be a race to the bottom as it is a race to the top.

Think of John D. Rockefeller. He hated competition. He was the richest businessman ever. Think of Peter Thiel - read his book from Zero To One (it's quite philosophical). He hates competition too! Competition is a race to the bottom - it's a way to destroy yourself. Don't compete. Never compete. Run away from competing.

Which is why I employed the analogy of 'breaking out of the game'. The 'beatific vision', which you referred to, is not 'a temporary state', but a transition to an entirely new way of being - 'new heaven, new earth', as it is said somewhere. So Plotinus was one of the well-springs of that kind of visionary state. — Wayfarer

But thinking that some "beatific vision" is what will change your life, or how you will find meaning in life is nothing short of deluded. No experience, no matter how great, can provide a meaning to life in this world that has nothing to do with this world. Think about it - when you experience a great piece of music, or when in love you stare in your beloved's eyes and the whole world stands still - the experience ends. Human beings are fallen to the point there is no escaping this world. We can get glimpses - beatific visions - of another state, but they all end, and then we're thrown back into this world. We are creatures of the earth, born to live and die as creatures of the earth.

In relation to Epicurus, and other materialists, they also, obviously, dismiss such ideas, but the question I have is, have they even begun to understand them? — Wayfarer

No I don't think they dismiss them, only that they realise the limited significance such events have to living.

But from the viewpoint of a Plotinus, whatever good Epicurus makes of it, is temporary, transient, subject to decay, unsatisfactory. — Wayfarer

But whatever good Plotinus found is especially subject to decay. Are you enlightened 100% of the time? Of course not. Why not? Because reality is fallen - regardless of what you do, you will never be in that state 100% of the time or anywhere near it.

It is noteworthy that Epicurus employs the traditional terminology of philosophy - ataraxia, eudomonia, etc - but that they have a different referent, i.e. maximising well-being in the context of worldly existence. — Wayfarer

But all well-being is in the context of worldly existence. Even the beatific vision. And Epicurus isn't the best comparison, Aristotle is. The mystical isn't other-worldly, but decidedly this worldly.

Epicurus is far more likely to be acceptable to the modern secular intelligentsia, for that very reason. But I'm not amongst them. — Wayfarer

The only thing they like in Epicurus is his denial of gods, not his ethics.

you give the impression of not being interested in either the question, or the proposed solution, so I responded accordingly. — Wayfarer

Because the proposed solution doesn't make sense. Now I may be appreciative of the mystical tradition, but I don't agree with it fundamentally. Fundamentally I'm an Aristotelian, not a Platonist. I appreciate the mystical tradition more than I appreciate New Atheism, but that doesn't mean I'm in full agreement with it or the whole way of thinking and relating to the world that it advocates. For me happiness is always found in the material world, not in some other realm. Virtue is the path to happiness in this world, not (primarily) to happiness in some other world.

It's becoming quite obvious that you don't wish to discuss this matter with me honestly and openly though, and prefer instead to be pushing an agenda. Fine.

No, I want to discuss it with you, not with the book. That's why I'm here, otherwise I'd be with the book. I've made a point, so I expect you to reply to my point, not say "that book". That's not philosophy, that's plagiarism and being unable to think for yourself.

Philosophical ideas cannot be empirically confirmed or disconfirmed, and thus no intersubjective consensus is possible. — John

That presumes that empirical confirmation is required for intersubjective consensus. Do you have empirical confirmation for the meaning of the look a girl gives you?! :-* And yet there seems to be intersubjective consensus between you two... Let me be a good Kantian as you like, and ask a great question! How is intersubjective consensus at all possible?

There will be a new equilibrium and the Production Possibilities Curve will shift to the right, I guess. Heh. — Question

>:O I see you've learned your economics well!

No but what I meant is how do you know that the invisible hand of the markets selects the best outcome? What if, instead of a race to the top, it is a race to the bottom?

So you have no response to the criticism of the implications of the beatific vision for life?

I recommend a reading of Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, where these issues are discussed in detail. — Wayfarer

I've read it. What's your point?

'Breaking out of the game' is an analogue for theosis, 'the beatific vision', where the 'worldly realm' or the 'domain of the senses' is analogous to being 'part of the game', but the 'awakening' or 'new birth' is seeing 'beyond the game'. — Wayfarer

"The beatific vision" is temporary in nature. There is no "breaking out of the game" because of its temporary nature. After you have the "beatific vision" you still live in this world, not another world.

Let the invisible hand operate freely. — Question

>:O But what if the operation of this invisible hand doesn't land us in the Pareto Optimality point?

If the liberals will feel safe on Mars, then so be it. — Question

And by the way I'm a conservative, not a liberal :P