You believe Trump is for peace?

:vomit:

SEP on Truth is a good starting point...

computers can be sentient too, no? — Shawn

Not if I have it right...

Put your hands in the air, and step away from the bong!

:wink:

Hi Shawn.

...wouldn’t you agree that hammers have purposes? — Pinprick

Nah. Hammers do not have purposes. They are used for our purposes. Having a purpose could be rendered as aiming to do something or other in particualr. Hammers do not aim to do anything.

It does not follow from the fact that we've been wrong about some things that we've been wrong about everything. It does not follow from the fact that we cannot know some things that we cannot know anything. It does not follow from the fact that we cannot directly perceive everything that we cannot directly perceive anything.

That's how I handle the all too well known limitations of our physiological sensory perception.

Others can posit that's it's all illusory, if they like.

:wink:

Kamala Harris' speech at the DNC offers a glimpse of hope that some of the unraveling will be mended soon...

That was a brilliantly crafted speech. She exuded sincerity, genuine goodwill, and exhibited fierce determination against unjust unlawful discrimination. She also knows quite a bit about what is required to realize the necessary changes(equal treatment under the law). That is(will be) the first female president of the United States of America!

Awwww.... there is a nice side to Street.

:wink:

Are you sure you want to accuse me of a fallacy? Those definitions I have given are pretty standard, truth and truths are different words. — Judaka

Yes. I definitely concur. They are different words. They're not the only such set though. Bird and birds. The difference is quantity. The latter is a plurality of the former. That's how it works, and my knowing that much is what grounded my earlier question to you; one which you initially readily agreed with, only to change your mind later after facing the consequences of that common sense use.

Those definitions I have given are pretty standard — Judaka

Clearly not.

You're attempting to claim that "truths" is not a plural form of "truth". If a truth is a true claim, as you also agreed, then truths are more than one true claim. On pains of coherency alone...

What it means for something to be true is separate from the actual truth itself. — Judaka

The "truth" here is referring to the literal state of things being true — Judaka

Those definitions I have given are pretty standard — Judaka

See the indication of another plurality above? Indeed, you've given different definitions of the same term. Multiple standards are problematic when they conflict with one another.


To the first question at the top of the page...

No. I do not, nor did I ever want to accuse you of a fallacy. I'm just telling you what some of the rules are. I'm not making them up. During the same argument one cannot just freely move between distinct and incompatible senses of the same term at their own whim and not get called out on it. It's unacceptable, incoherent, self-contradictory, nonsensical language use.

The substitution method I've employed is the most reliable tried and true(hehehe) method for checking to see if an author is using more than one sense of the same term. Turns out that you were/are. The fallacy was there, and it remains, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge and/or admit of it. Acknowledging it would make you a better philosopher.

I want to stress that what I'm saying is not negative a report of you. It's not about you, the author. It doesn't have to reflect poorly upon you as a person. It's about the writings that you're presenting openly on a public philosophy forum. Public forums are chock full of uncomfortable potential for everyone and/or anyone who so chooses to boldly go where they've never gone before... voluntarily opening themselves(their own belief) up to criticism.

They all think they are moral ubermensch capable of lifting themselves up by their bootstrap regardless of whatever circumstances they find themselves in. At the same time foreigners are to blame because "dey touk our jabs!", liberals are to blame for every social ill and meanwhile they're totally blind to the fact its society and its welfare components that create the choices and freedom to choose among them instead of having to spend all our time just surviving. — Benkei

Someone recently mentioned the inconvenient facts regarding the actual public policies being implemented during those times so long ago still yearned for to this day. These horribly inconvenient actions that resulted in the very time periods championed by those who either have no fucking clue what it took to get there... hence what it takes to get there again, or they are deliberately perpetuating fraud against the American people.

Many, perhaps most, of those who want to make America great again want us all to return to times like they were between WWII and Nixon. Those were the times that socialist policies provided.

Great for your average white folk.

I agree that the conclusion of arranging truths, interpreting them and arguing their meaning can be contested by a true statement. I made an error in my last comment because I didn't read yours correctly. The "truth" here is referring to the literal state of things being true, if you think my language is confusing then I welcome suggestions on what you would have done differently. — Judaka

For a start, I would not use the term "truth" in so many different ways. It's called an equivocation fallacy. It causes confusion at best, and is a sure sign of self-contradiction at worst.

What's the aim here with the idea of the arrangement of truth?

Ok. Substitution then results in the following...


It is not a flaw, it is an unavoidable consequence of intelligence, that you are able to arrange truths, interpret them and argue the meaning of what you've brought forward is an amazing thing. And it cannot be contested by a true statement alone...




The above replaces "truth" with "a true statement", which if a truth is a true statement, as you've claimed, that substitution ought be perfectly acceptable. The meaning ought not change at all. But...

...the problem is obvious, is it not?

Our ability to arrange true statements, interpet them, and argue the meaning can most certainly be contested by a true statement alone.

Right?

Well I think background context matters quite a bit here. How does one know what exactly. Different bits of knowledge can be known in different ways, acquired by different means, so...

I agree that a broad-brush answer would have to be too vague for much at all.

Unless all knowledge results from the exact some process... which I would not dismiss offhandedly, so...

I'm unsure.

Can someone quote something from Asif that had any sort of philosophical thinking going on?

I think, but could be wrong, that that's part of what counts as "low quality". Street is at least capable.

Ok.

It is not a flaw, it is an unavoidable consequence of intelligence, that you are able to arrange truths, interpret them and argue the meaning of what you've brought forward is an amazing thing. And it cannot be contested by truth alone. — Judaka

And what does the term "truth" mean here? The same as before but singular? A true statement?

So, I'm guessing that by "truths" you're talking about true claims, assertions, statements, or some such...

Is that about right?

The truth can be arranged... — Judaka

No it cannot.

Intellectuals question their own mostly adopted worldview. That's where it begins...

Intellectuals are not all alike. At least be mad at the right ones. Oopsie. I see you're not peeved!

True belief is prior to language. True belief corresponds to reality. That correspondence is truth. Correspondence is prior to language.

We do not gather and arrange truth - as if it were something that exists in and of itself - that can be placed into different arrangements, like many things can... flowers. Correspondence is not like that.

Looks like that line of thinking is built upon conflating several different notions of "truth" all into one.

Irony, you know. I think we make lousy politicians, being trained to represent usually one client at a time, rather than groups with diverse interests. — Ciceronianus the White

That's such a good point.

I wonder if George Floyd could have just moved some things around to improve his own life...

...a knee perhaps?

This talk as if anyone can achieve the American dream is such myopic nonsense on it's face. Common sense tells us all better. All we need to do is think about... for just a minute or two...

The resident Trump supporter suggested that because we can move a box, we ought be able to have whatever life we want, and by implication if we do not have a good life, it's our own fault(perpetuating the machismo individualism rubbish that is so rampant).

One can make some changes, therefore one can make all the necessary changes that need made in order to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, regardless of the socio-economic circumstances one may be born into. Hard work and keeping one's nose clean is all you need to become a poster child of the American wet dream... self made!

What a crock of horse shit.

Some... sure. Just because there are plenty of examples, it does not follow that anyone can do it. We create the socio-economic landscape, and it ought include opportunities for everyone, not just those fortunate and capable enough of making their own way in the current landscape, so to speak. We as a society owe it to ourselves to create as many different ways as we can for any and all individuals to be able to make it.

I’m sure that if a drunk driving victim had the opportunity to wear a mask that protected them from getting hit by a car, they would do so. — Manbabyzeus

That misses the point entirely. Trump, and each and every individual who refuses to wear a mask in public is taking a risk with another's life.

Drunk drivers do the same. The difference is that those in power acknowledged and honored the need to legally prohibit such things as drunk driving. However, had those in power not, but instead behaved in precisely such ways, then they would be guilty of taking serious risks with another person's life by driving while intoxicated.

Trump is the drunk driver who gets to write the rules governing his own behaviour. He clearly does not care or he does not know that he's placing other lives at serious risk. Neither is acceptable.

Everyone is not Einstein. Not everyone can successfully start from nothing and acquire a comfortable peaceful free lifestyle, not that he did, it's just another bullshit line of thought from those who believe that Einstein failed elementary school or some such shit supporting their own false belief that they are somehow 'self-made'. A fantastic self absorbed mental orgasm repeated all too often in today's popular narratives(rugged individualism).

In fact, no one can. We are by our very inevitable nature... necessarily... interdependent social creatures.

I believe you can choose your own morality. One can be convinced of the value of certain moral principles, the danger of others, and can alter his beliefs thereby. People convert all the time, for instance, at least when given the freedom to do so. — NOS4A2

And if one's morality is such that they cannot do both, be free and help the society(by helping others in as many ways as they reasonably can) they have no business whatsoever having any power that affects/effects the lives and/or livelihoods of those others who they refuse to help.

Including employment. Employees are people, not a means to an end.

I don’t believe some legislator knows how to run my business better than I do. Likewise, I don’t need nor want the state to step in where my own employment is concerned. But no I do not believe everyone takes the responsible action. I just believe that they are capable of doing so. — NOS4A2

Oh look... the very privileged point of view.

We've established that all sorts of different utterances 'following' that form can be stated.

None of them can be believed by the speaker at the time - aside from misuse of verb tense when reporting upon what's already happened, such as Isaac's example. Even then, it's a misuse. That's not how we're supposed to use those words.

The form is utterly inadequate for taking proper account of all of the particular meaningful language uses that count as being of that form.

Isn't that a huge problem for the accounting practice itself?

Privilege talk sheds light on underprivileged people. That's a good thing, if we're aiming at an equitable, free, and fair society.

Some use it as a weapon, but that does not mean that it's not good to talk about it. Some folk run stop signs too.

My immediate thought is that it does not follow from anything you wrote that truth is an inconsistent concept. In fact, I would - and have quite successfully - argued that truth is not a concept at all. What does follow from what you've shared is that that particular accounting practice cannot take proper account of correspondence.

An individual right not to be made sick by others? Of course intentionally infecting others with disease is a serious crime, and one has every right to hide in a padded cell to avoid community infection. But there is no right to not be infected by others, just like there is no right not to get wet from rain. Life is a risk. One must take the precautions he deems necessary in order to be safe. — NOS4A2

There is no right to not be killed by drunk drivers either. Laws against it are to protect people from those who do not care enough about other people's lives, so they take that risk... with their own life and others'.

The exact same 'argument' holds good for wearing masks at this time.

For fuck's sake, get your head out of Trump's drunk driving ass for just one fucking minute.

My pessimism has me thinking a move to the right is the more likely outcome. Along with it, a further rejection of scientific advice and rational discourse. — Banno

The Democratic convention is talking about a platform that moves to the left of where we are today, which isn't saying much. But, it's also left of where we were with Obama, which is a good start.

If we can get the monetary corruption under control, it would go a very long way to moving towards more community oriented thinking...

On another note(more relevant as a result of Harris)... "Defund the police" pretty much means "Fund the social/community programs"...

That's the thin version. There's a bit more to it than that. It's more about the meaning of propositions than about the reality of the objects around us.

A realist might say that "Here is a cat" will be true exactly if there is a cat, here. The cat is independent of the utterance, and will be there whether the utterance is made or not, and indeed independently of the meaning of the utterance.

An antirealist might rather say that the truth of "Here is a cat" depends at least to some extent on the circumstances in which the utterance takes place, especially the way the utterance is used to 'carve up' the world; so to some extent for the antirealist there is only a cat if we all decide that's how we will talk... — Banno

Nice addition Banno. So, I'm firmly in the realist camp, in that regard. However, I do not hold that predictions about what will happen can be true/false at the time of utterance, and someone somewhere, once told me that that 'makes' me an antirealist.

Not that I really care about those names. By my lights, far too much time is spent regurgitating such things rather than just making whatever argument needs to be made. Phorrest, for example has his thinking steeped in such. While those names may be useful identifying some conventional position, they are rather useless for understanding someone who has a view stitched together from various different people from various different schools of thought...

"How do you know?" is a fine question to ask.

Do you find that there is a single universal answer(outline or some such) to everything that we know?

According to Moore, in the first case there's a mistake. In the second case, there is no mistake. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, Moore is dead wrong. He offers an example of one being mistaken and another pointing that out, while it's happening, and then goes on to ask why one cannot say the same things about themselves, which is to ask why someone cannot point out their own mistake while it's happening.

That is exactly what "It's raining, but I do not believe it's raining" is doing(would be doing anyway) when one is pointing out their own mistakes from afar, like another.

Aside from this, I think that you and I are largely on the same page. The statements about the weather and my belief are true(if it's raining but I do not believe it) when spoken by another, but they are self-contradictory whenever they are spoken by me(the mistaken one).

Self contradictory statements are not true, cannot be true. They are meaningful. They must be. Contradictory statements cannot both be believed at the same time. They can be reported upon, shown as such, but they cannot both be believed at the same time. In order to report upon our own lack of true belief about the weather like another does, we must point out the mismatch between what's going on, and the fact that we are oblivious to what's going on; those facts/events/happenings/ongoings/etc.

If we are oblivious, and we certainly are during such times, then we cannot report upon that because there's no difference, in our own minds, between what's going on and what we believe about that. That's why they cannot both be believed.




When viewing a visual recording of ourselves being unexpectedly surprised by rainfall, we'll watch what others did at the time it actually happened. We'll watch ourselves walk right past the coat closet. Yep. We did not believe that it was raining outside. That's where we keep our umbrella.

Hanging on a hook securely attached to the outside of the sidewall. We walked right past. From our vantage point, we can know with utmost certainty that we did not believe it was raining outside.

The difference between the two accounts of our own mistakes, one being reported by another, and the self-reporting, is that another could inform us of the weather outside ensuring that we grabbed our umbrella thereby successfully avoiding unexpected rainfall.

But we cannot convince ourselves to grab the umbrella out of the coat closet on the way out the front door. That is true regarding both timeframes, now and then! It's also true at each and every individual point in time in between...

I was thinking more along the lines of what one would say if they knowingly believed a falsehood, which of course cannot happen.

There's a common denominator between Moore's paradox and the liar. Do you see it too?

I was thinking more long term. For Trump the narcissist, , power is unimportant; what counts is being the centre of attention. Power was a means to that end, found by cunning rather than strategy.

But there will be those watching who aim for power, and can form strategy. — Banno

Well, Trump has certainly shown some gaping holes and fundamental flaws in the American system.

My pessimism has me thinking a move to the right is the more likely outcome. Along with it, a further rejection of scientific advice and rational discourse. — Banno

Short term? Current administration? Sure. Certainly there will be no admission of wrong doing and/or being mistaken by those people.

Armed militia would worry me. — apokrisis

Those have been around for a long time as well. What worries me about them is that the president has recently been using federal officers that do not have clearly marked uniforms. One reason for law enforcement officers to have them is so they can be easily identified.

However, if the public gets used to federal agents that do not have clearly marked uniforms, and those camo patterns are readily available for public consumption, then what's stopping some armed militia group from impersonating federal agents, or from being mistaken as such?

How would anyone know the difference?