I don't expect big answers from philosophy. (I — ZzzoneiroCosm

i don't expect answers, but I do expect big questions.

It takes a lot of philosophical discourse to dissolve philosophical discourse. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yeah, I don't know. An interesting question that comes to mind is to ask whether it's true that philosophy is bunk, and how we would know that to be case.

Maybe i'm just biased toward wanting to think philosophical problems are legitimate.

. He was paranoid about food and starved himself to death; but, not "crazy". — Wallows

Uhhhhh .... sure.

I get the deflation thing. It's almost a kind of anti-philosophy. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Banno stated in this thread he's convinced philosophy is bunk, so the goal would be to deflate/dissolve philosophical discourse.

Davidson claims to have "reestablished unmediated touch with objects." I don't see any basis for this claim. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That sure would make deflation easier.

Not because I know any better but because perfectly intelligent people possessed of all the same facts nonetheless disagree. — Isaac

Right. Take "The snow is white", for example. So we can all agree it's true in one sense when looking at a patch of white snow. But then turn it into a debate between a color realist and a scientific one, and there's no longer agreement. The statement is no longer trivially true, because we move beyond an agreement on how snow appears to human eyes to one over what properties snow actually has.

If we took the statement "The sun is setting" from some ancient cosmology made at the right time of day, would it still be true when translated to modern cosmology? Or is that statement only an ordinary language one that people from any culture or time period would agree on?

And here it seems that the intent of the speaker matters. Maybe an ancient Hebrew making the statement simply means the time of day when they look up at the sky, which we could all agree on for that date. But maybe they mean to say something about reality, which was also done, since they did have their own cosmology and beliefs about the heavens, and what it meant for the sun to set.

In which case the statement being true when translated to our modern cosmology would depend on what the speaker meant.

Their truth would be dependent on what was said no less than in any other scheme. The point is simply that it would be relative to what the terms refer to in the scheme, truth being a property of propositions and propositions always being in some language or other. — Isaac

Okay, but what if the terms of that schema are wrong (flawed, misleading, contradictory, etc)? Are they still referring to a translatable true statement in our schema?

They didn't have 115 either. They were missing some concepts. — frank

So if we were to translate 115 into their language, would we have to teach them the missing numeric concept first?

The distinction between appearance and reality is important to the notion of truth. So while it's true that the sun appears to set in the sky, and it's true that we can all agree on that, it's not true that the sun actually moves across the sky of a stationary Earth, which is what it appears to do, and it's what people in the past believed based on that appearance, which is where the term originated.

So while this is annoyingly pedantic to point out, it matters (or so I suspect) when it comes to deflating truth to ordinary statements. What does it mean for a statement to be true? Well, it can't simply mean what appears to be the case, since appearances can be misleading. And if we're talking about what the statement refers to, then we need to know whether it'a referring to an appearance of a moving sun, or the astronomical fact of the rotating Earth.

The being true part is kind of important when distinguishing between different theories of truth.

I guess I don't understand what role truth is playing in Davidson's argument. We can be pragmatic and agree that snow is white and the sun sets. But truth can also mean what really is the case, particularly in a philosophical discussion when correspondence, coherence and deflationary theories are brought out.

In real terms at the end of the day, the sun sets. — unenlightened

it doesn't though, it only appears to. Just like the Earth appears to be stationary, and to some deluded or ignorant folk, flat.

ou are confusing truth with a theory of everything which in our case we do not have. Does this mean that no one speaks the truth? — unenlightened

We don't need a theory of everything to understand the truth that the Earth rotates, creating the appearance of a rising and setting sun. That's a fact.

Truth is a property of propositions, not conceptual schemes, and in propositions, the translatability then becomes relevant again. — Isaac

Okay, so Norse conceptual schema: The stars are heaven's light peaking through the head of giant's skull.

So if a Norseman made some statement about the North Star, with that being translatable to a correct modern statement about the North Star, would both of them be true, since the North's belief about stars being radically different than ours?

The very idea! — unenlightened

Well, the truth of propositions got brought up in this discussion. So, if we're talking about truth, then pragmatic everyday talk isn't good enough.

But it is almost as dull to suggest that the sun does not set because the Earth rotates. — unenlightened

However, that was the astronomical view at one time, and there other things in ordinary language that people do believe which are scientifically incorrect.

Sure, but which one? You may favour one and I may favour another for our different purposes. — unenlightened

The one that's true.

if there is no reference to snow, then what does it mean to say snow is white?

Some. Not all. — creativesoul

Which world(s) do the others live in? Is that a support for conceptual schemas?

Do you understand this? — creativesoul

Yeah, he's arguing against incommensurability and that people can have these fundamentally different conceptual schemas that can't be translated. Which basically amounts to abolishing he notion of conceptual schemas. We all live in the same world. I more or less agree with that.

So what was the statements being true and rising suns of the last couple pages all about?

Why shouldn't it just be that we use words to talk to each other, and that's it? — Banno

Because although it works in everyday life, it doesn't survive philosophical scrutiny. In this case, what does it mean for a statement to be true?

So he means coherence among existing beliefs? A web of belief kind of view of truth? The sun's setting is coherent if it adheres with other beliefs about the world?

Being true is Davidson's focus. — creativesoul

And what does it mean for a statement to be true? Is it enough to say, yep looks like the sun is setting!

Of course. It's just an example sentence. Let's stay on track. — ZzzoneiroCosm

But I think it illustrates why the truth of a statement is not quite so simple.

Hu? So when you say that the sun is setting, you are never talking about the actual sun? — Banno

It's a fact that the sun does not set. The reason we have that as part of our language is because of an outdated astronomy where the word usage originated.

But then we have an object (the sun) allowing us to put the sentence to use. Davidson says "nothing, no thing..." — ZzzoneiroCosm

We have an appearance of a setting sun. The actual fact of the matter is the Earth's rotation.

Why is being pedantic about this important? Because we're talking about truth.

Consider saying, "The stick is bent when in water". That would be false. Same thing here.

SO the sun is not the thing that makes "the sun is setting" true... — Banno

Particularly since it's not true that the sun does set when speaking of the actual sun.

Why do we need them? Folk seem to just get on with using language without the help of epistemologists. Why shouldn't it just be that we use words to talk to each other, and that's it? — Banno

Because maybe as Socrates demonstrated, people don't really know what they're talking about.

Yeah, we do. We know "the sun is setting" is true if the sun is setting. SO if the sun is setting, then "the sun is setting" is true. — Banno

Unless the sun doesn't set, but rather only appears to do so. Then it's not true on a literal reading of the statement, which people used to believe.

There are many such statements in ordinary language which aren't strictly true. And people may or may not believe them. "My heart longs for you my darling!" But no, it doesn't really. It just pumps blood.

Because you end up being a Randian if you advocate such a view on the matter. Being rich then becomes a matter of 'fact' or 'natural right'. — Wallows

It's not the being rich part, it's the allowing people to attempt to become rich. Some of it is luck and who you know. Some of it is starting out with money. But some of it is innovation. And we want people to be free to start their own businesses and try out new ideas. Also, if you do start out with wealth, it's better for the economy if you invest it and fund business adventures than it is to just sit in a bank account.

Nothing about being rich is Darwinian in nature. Is that what you have in mind? — Wallows

I'm not making blanket statements. But also, what's wrong with the Darwinian part when it comes to being rich?

Now note I'm not saying that's good for being poor or huge wealth imbalances, I'm just asking about financial success. We can use progressive taxation to address that.

So, I'm sensing some conservative undertones here. — Wallows

Is there something wrong with that?

What is god for the individual is good for the economy as a whole, is that correct? — Wallows

It can be.

Circular, but, I get the point. So, then if not being lucky, then maybe talent or knowledge? — Wallows

So let's restrict the domain to sports. If you want to become a rich athlete (starting off as a youth), it's certainly possible. But it takes a tremendous amount of work. You don't just luck into it by occasionally playing a sport as you're growing up.

Now luck certainly enters it with injuries, timing and where you go to play college or what club or what not. And some people are more marketable than others, and get offered nice endorsement deals.

But none of that happens without trying.

OK, but that sounds like luck to me. — Wallows

To an extent. You also don't get to be lucky if you don't try. But I'm not against increasing taxes on the wealthy. I'm against the idea of equal outcome. We're not all equal in ability.

So, being or becoming rich is a sort of inside thing? I — Wallows

Sometimes, but also it's being able to pursue an idea at the right time, and being willing to risk failing. And then succeeding enough to garner recognition. Silicon Valley has a motto of failing fast and often, and real artists ship their product. It means get your stuff out there and be ready to pivot.

Not everyone is willing to do that, and they're okay with just a normal job. And then there are people who wreck their lives or don't care to bother.

So while we can certainly criticize the various issues around wealth imbalance, we also don't want to disincentive people from being skilled and creative and increasing the economic pie.

I have no interest in living in a society in which we're all equally poor.

Makes me wanna puke, if anyone actually believes that. — Wallows

Some would end up poor or rich like they were before, because they have/don't have the habits, skills and connections to do so. It's not all luck or birthright.

If you took all of Musk or Beezos' money, do you think they just end up homeless? Or do they go and pitch some ideas to venture capitalists and start a new business?

Lottery winners and plenty of athletes often blow their money in a few years, because they don't understand how to maintain their wealth and invest wisely.

Which domain sets out what all thought and belief consists of? — creativesoul

I don't really know what "consists of" means here. Do you mean the nature of thought and belief? Because I would say mental since it hasn't been successfully reduced to something else. Do you mean what thought and belief point to? Because then a lot of the time it will be the world. Do you mean the social aspect of it? Are you asking whether they are public? Some of the time, yes. But not always.

So... the mental is the domain which clearly sets out what all human thought and belief consist of? — creativesoul

Are you talking about what thought and belief refer to? Or are you talking about the nature of thought and belief?

Where else would they be? On paper? In the cloud?

Which domain clearly sets out what all human thought and belief consists of? — creativesoul

The mental?

I wonder, what does the realist say about abstracts/mathematics; is it something human's created, or did it always exist and we just uncovered/discovered its truth... ? — 3017amen

A realist about mathematics is a Platonist. You can be a nominalist or a quietest about such matters and still be a realist about the world. Realism about one domain doesn't entail you to be a realist about another.

Regarding the world, you can have color realists, ordinary object realists, scientific realists and what have you. It just depends on one's ontology.

With that being said, the realist’s position is undermined by groundbreaking discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics which subsequently serve as evidence that go against the realist’s assertion that “knowing makes no difference to what is known.” — PessimisticIdealism

Yeah, but that doesn't apply to the macroscale.