Justifying one's belief provides the ground for that belief.

Do we agree?

the act of justification does not cause the belief statement being argued for to be well-grounded; rather it is the act of providing those grounds. — creativesoul

That seems to be the sticking point...

My position is that all epistemological constructs are necessarily dependent on language. — Sam26

My position is that all epistemological constructs are linguistic. Not all things being taken account of are linguistic. Some of our constructs take account of that which exists prior to language.

Creative seems to believe that justification, truth, and knowledge are prelinguistic. — Sam26

This reflects misunderstanding. No fault here, just reporting the facts. There has been a misunderstanding. What I've been arguing is quite unusual, as far as I know. That said, what follows is an attempt to add a bit of clarity where it's needed.





Regarding the idea of prelinguistic justification...



Creative knows that justification is existentially dependent upon metacognition.

Creative knows that metacognition is existentially dependent upon language.

Creative knows that justification is existentially dependent upon language.

Creative knows that that which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to it.

Creative knows that justification cannot exist prior to language.

Creative knows that that which is pre-linguistic must exist prior to language.

Creative knows that justification cannot be prelinguistic.






Regarding the idea of prelinguistic truth...



Creative knows that true belief can exist prior to language.

Creative knows that that which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it.

Creative knows that true belief that exists prior to language cannot be existentially dependent upon language.

Creative knows that true belief is existentially dependent upon truth.

Creative knows that truth cannot be existentially dependent upon language.

Creative knows that truth exists prior to language.






Regarding the idea of prelinguistic knowledge(justified true belief)...



Creative knows that belief exists prior to language.

Creative knows that being justified is being well-grounded.

Creative knows that the act of justification does not cause the belief statement being argued for to be well-grounded; rather it is the act of providing those grounds.

Creative knows that well-grounded belief is not existentially dependent upon justification.

Creative knows that the attribution/recognition of causality can be well grounded.

Creative knows that a prelinguistic creature can believe that touching fire caused discomfort/pain.

Creative knows that that well grounded belief can happen prior to language.

Creative knows that touching fire causes discomfort.

Creative knows that that particular well-grounded true belief is prior to language.






So, in summary...

Creative knows that justification cannot be pre-linguistic, but well-grounded true belief most certainly can be.

Let's revisit the liar...

A statement's ability to be true/false is existentially dependent upon drawing meaningful correlations between different things. The liar is utterly inadequate.

If we're looking to acquire knowledge of that which exists prior to language, we must use language for it's the only means available. It quite simply does not follow from the fact that we must use language in order to acquire knowledge of that which is prior to it, that we cannot get beneath language.

Initial(rudimentary) thought and belief is prior to language acquisition.

If truth is presupposed somewhere along the line within every example of thought and belief, then we've adequate ground to hold that all thought and belief presupposes truth... pre-linguistic thought and belief notwithstanding.

That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it.

Initial(rudimentary) thought and belief cannot be existentially dependent upon language acquisition. Our knowledge of it most certainly is. Initial thought and belief is not existentially dependent upon our knowledge of it.

We can acquire knowledge of that which exists prior to language. If that doesn't count as getting beneath language, then nothing can, and it is an utterly empty concept - this - "getting beneath language".

This thread is relevant...

Is there such a thing as apriori knowledge, and if so how can we acquire it, and/or know about it?

Witt spent much time researching answers to this sort of questioning.

Remind me of apokrisis... Or rather, a friendlier version thereof.

Don't they teach you these sorts of basic common sense principles in school anymore?

:wink:

Didn't you assert yourself as in your early twenties in another thread here recently?

But wouldn't something's existence be the whole of all the things about it? — Blue Lux

Our knowledge is about it. Our knowledge of it is not equivalent to it.

But wouldn't something's existence be the whole of all the things about it? — Blue Lux

No. See the five rules of existential dependency..

And if one aspect is dependent on something that it is not, wouldn't it make it existentially dependent on it?

No.

It would make it logically impossible - to be nice.

Something cannot require that which it does not require. That is incoherent and/or self-contradictory. It is also existentially impossible.

what is your take on sythentic a priori judgments? Or propositions based upon them? — Blue Lux

I'm with Quine here.

what does that mean? What is the difference between saying an infant is dependent on the mother and an infant is existentially dependent on the mother? What is the difference between being dependent and existentially dependent? It just seems superfluous. — Blue Lux

A thing can be dependent upon something else for all sorts of things aside from it's own existence.

What of the proposition "This proposition is not a true proposition"? — Blue Lux

What of it?

Would you like to discuss how convention has taken it to task? There's been several takes on it. Some say it's meaningless. Some say it's not truth-apt. Some say both. Others build a logic upon it. Etc...

I say it is not truth-apt, because it doesn't say anything meaningful. Typically when a competent English speaker says "This proposition is false", it is accompanied by a example of a false proposition. The exemplary proposition ought be a false one, but may not. Where there is no example for the statement itself to describe as being false, there is no meaning.

It is when we are looking at one sentence that speaks of itself that we are looking at something that does not have all the parts to do what we're asking it to do.

One finger cannot point at itself.

What is the difference between dependent and existentially dependent? — Blue Lux

The existentially part...

Some true belief exists prior to language.

Coherency is not necessary for the presupposition of truth inherently within all thought and belief formation. It is necessary, but insufficient for propositional truth. — creativesoul

and this propositional truth you speak of is purely analytic? — Blue Lux

Propositional truth is existentially dependent upon propositions. Propositions are existentially dependent upon language. Propositional truth is existentially dependent upon language.

That which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to it.

Propositional truth cannot exist prior to language.

Isn't it pretty coherent? — Blue Lux

Coherency is not necessary for the presupposition of truth inherently within all thought and belief formation. It is necessary, but insufficient for propositional truth.

Yes. Both are consistent in some of their terminological use. I enjoyed reading both.

I disagree with both; with each upon different but equally compelling ground.

Funny that...

A guy thinks, believes, asserts, and/or otherwise expresses the following proposition...

"Being is unintelligible"

... and yet he still proceeds to base an entire worldview upon it's existence.

Hmmmm. P3

p3 That which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to it
— creativesoul

What about being and the world?

Being-in-the-world (Dasein (the human being / consciousness)) is existentially dependent upon the world but does it exist prior to it? — Blue Lux

No. It cannot.

So, does being-in-the-world come into being or stand out prior to the world? — Blue Lux

No. It cannot.



Existence is not existentially dependent upon language. Heiddy's notions of "Dasein" and "Being-in-the-world" are. Heiddy's notion are a discovery of that which existed in it's entirety prior to it's discovery(via metacognition), but not prior to language. According to Heiddy, language is the house of Being. Heiddy put forth an unnecessarily overcomplicated notion of the effects/affects that adopting an initial worldview via language acquisition has upon people, and he did so by method of rendering otherwise perfectly intelligible notions - such as "existence" - virtually meaningless.

I'm no fan of Heiddy, although there's much good to be said about the dialogue at the beginning of On The Way To Language... That's another topic.

I took Rebecca to be pointing out the incoherency and other issues in the prevalent narrative, not as an attack, per se, on transgender people, but rather for 1.)to avoid the incoherent narrative negatively affecting the basis of gay rights(we're born this way), and 2.)to at least begin a discussion about a better defense for transgenders...

I think beliefs and thoughts are part of self-expression which is inherent in all creatures... — BrianW

When a creature has a self-conception, statements of thought and belief are a part of their self-expression. Self-conception is existentially dependent upon metacognition... Some thought and belief are not.

ll this recent talk about hinge propositions, absolute presuppositions, and what not. This seems relevant to them all...
— creativesoul

How so? — Posty McPostface

Witt was looking for hinge propositions as the baseline of thought/belief systems. Propositions are existentially dependent upon language. Some thought and belief are not...

All this recent talk about hinge propositions, absolute presuppositions, and what not. This seems relevant to them all...
— creativesoul

How so? — Posty McPostface

Collingwood was setting out what must be presupposed in order to begin inquiry.

Inquiry is existentially dependent upon language. Language upon non-linguistic thought and belief. Inquiry upon the same.

...is there a creature which lacks self-expression? — BrianW

If all expression of thought and belief counts as self-expression, then it would follow that no there is not - at least amongst thinking/believing creatures...

However, I do not think that neglecting the distinction between self-expression and other kinds of expression is very helpful. So, I would say yes there are such creatures.

I wouldn't be willing to say that my drake expresses himself, and much as he expresses his own thought and belief. I take the notion of "self" to be a social construct informed by complex language.

I've just negated the idea that only propositions are true.

I see the point with existentially idependant things, but care to elaborate? — Posty McPostface

Upon what? I mean, what part would you like to see better explained, or in more detail? What would an elaboration need to include in order for it to be satisfactory?

All this recent talk about hinge propositions, absolute presuppositions, and what not. This seems relevant to them all...
— creativesoul

How so? — Posty McPostface

They hold that truth and meaning are existentially dependent upon language.

How's that?

:halo:

That creature's thought, belief, and/or inference consists of correlations drawn between it's own behaviour(touching fire) and the discomfort that followed. None of this is existentially dependent upon language aside from this report itself.

Some well-grounded true belief exists prior to language. All well-grounded true belief is justified true belief(knowledge). Some justified true belief exists prior to language. All justification is existentially dependent upon language. Some well-grounded true belief is not existentially dependent upon justification.

A language-less creature can touch fire. Touching fire causes discomfort. Some language-less creatures can touch fire, feel discomfort, and attribute causality by virtue of inferring that touching fire caused the discomfort. All attribution of causality is thought and belief. That creature thinks, believes, and otherwise infers that touching fire caused the discomfort. That creature's belief is true. That creature's belief is well-grounded. That creature's belief cannot consist of language. That creature's belief cannot consist of propositions. That creature's belief cannot be existentially dependent upon language. That creature's belief cannot be existentially dependent upon justification. Not all well-grounded true belief is existentially dependent upon language. Not all well-grounded true belief is existentially dependent upon justification.

p1 That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it
p2 That which exists prior to something else cannot consist of it
p3 That which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to it
p4 That which consists of something else cannot exist prior to it
C1 That which is existentially dependent upon and consists of something else must exist after it(from p1, p2, p3, p4)



All attribution of causality is thought and belief. Some attribution of causality is prior to language acquisition. Some thought and belief is prior to language. Not all attribution of causality consists of language. Not all thought and belief consists of language. All propositions consist of language. Not all thought and belief consists of propositions.

Alright, let's see what we can do with it...

p1 That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it
p2 That which exists prior to something else cannot consist of it
p3 That which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to it
p4 That which consists of something else cannot exist prior to it
C1 That which is existentially dependent upon and consists of something else must exist after it(from p1, p2, p3, p4)


Starting with the notion of justification...

All justification is existentially dependent upon metacognition. All metacognition consists of pre-existing thought and belief. All justification is existentially dependent upon some thought and belief. All thought and belief is meaningful. All justification is existentially dependent upon some meaning. Some meaning exists prior to all justification. All metacognition is existentially dependent upon pre-existing thought and belief. Some thought and belief exists prior to all justification. Some thought and belief are not existentially dependent upon justification. All justification exists after some thought and belief.

Hmmm...

All this recent talk about hinge propositions, absolute presuppositions, and what not. This seems relevant to them all...

Her and Sanders...

Everything ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written...

What good is a philosophical position if it isn't applicable in everyday life?

:razz:

I'm inclined to disagree with Witt about metaphysical language schemes/constructs. He draws a conclusion that's afflicted in the very same way that "All swans are white" is.

Absolute presuppositions are understood to be things we necessarily suppose in order to investigate anything at all... — Janus

This reminds me of what Kant called a priori. That which is necessarily presupposed by experience itself.