Anti-realism about truth and facts

[Curious George]

Sure. We can make word puzzles with the language, sitting down together and formally agreeing that X is to mean 'these eight words' and then applying our logic to X. Academic philosophers love to do that. But I see that as mostly just a technique for grasping at certainty. We want to believe that we can know stuff. It's why young men go into philosophy, most of them... because they want to find the truth.

.

more than just believing we can know stuff, we rely on such a phenomenon. And it works! While I think a level of skepticism is healthy, one cannot survive in any meaningful way without such reliance despite their purported skepticism.

 

[raw_thought]

Meaning is language dependent. An actual rock,for example is meaningless, it refers to nothing.
Language is a human construct. To say that reality is not real because it is meaningless is to confuse epistemology with ontology, a common error. It is also confusing meaning with purpose. The "problem" the OP outlines is a problem generated by confusing the map with the territory. The problem evaporates when one realizes ( Wittgenstein ) that the question itself is absurd. For example the question," is the number 5 married" is grammatically correct and seems at first sight to seem legitimate. However, when one ponders the implications of the question, one realizes that the question itself is absurd. The number 5 is married? That is clearly absurd. The number 5 is a bachelor?. That is also absurd.
One should not put too much faith in the correspondence theory of truth. (From now on referred to as CTT). Is the CTT true? Then it must refer to another CTT for corroboration, and that...infinite regression.
Reality is a brute fact! By that definition it is ineffable and incapable of participating in the infinite regress of language. What is a tooth pic? Wood! What is wood? Cellulose fibers! What are cellulose fibers....infinite regress.

 

[Curious George]

I'm sorry but I have no idea what that means to you. How could an objective definition exist? Can you say more about that? I can't conceive of such a thing.

.

Sure I will try.

assuming things exist, something can be defined in two ways, what it is and what it is not. The former of these two ways can be broken down into what something is alone and what something is in relation to other things. (I suppose what something is in relation to other things also encompasses what something is not, but I'll leave it that way).

An absolute definition would encompass all of these definitions, while an objective definition would include any number of these.

Now a subjective definition includes only a relational definition but without identifying the relation.

Take your moon example let us say that George believes the moon is square, Judy believes the moon is spherical, and Elroy believes the moon is an illusion. All of these are actually objective definitions because they define the moon in terms of a relationship. Yet if anyone of them assert their definition without identifying that relationship, then such an opinion is a subjective definition.

Of course Judy or Elroy might very well challenge George even when he says I believe that the moon is square, because in reality all of our relational definitions also exist in relation to time. Therefore such relations are subject to change. thus attempting to change one objective definition they try to convince George that the moon is not square, so he shouldn't believe that the moon is square. now usually objective definitions about peoples beliefs matter little, when trying to interact with just the moon, so often these relational definitions are not included in the set of definitions which we use to describe something objectively. But in theory they could be.

 

[raw_thought]

This reminds me of Dennett's paper, "Quineing qualia" that I refuted at university.
Dennett rejects subjectivity (qualia) and embraces it! He requires a foundation for what he says,but objectivity is all about referring to something else.
Dennett only believes in signifiers (the physical manifestation ), and that puts him in an impossible situation. He requires a foundation to support his propositions but his philosophy rejects foundations!
For example, consider the difference between signifiers and signifieds. A signifier is the physical manifestation . For example, the ink pattern of the word "dog" or the sound wave pattern of pronouncing the word "dog". The signified "dog" is the meaning the signifier "dog" refers to. Dennett does not believe in signifieds! Therefore all his words are meaningless! For example, an "on" light switch does not refer to an on light. Similarly, the ink pattern "1+1=" does not refer to 2!

 

[raw_thought]

If Dennett is correct than if one understands the biological nature (this is also problematic for Dennett since understanding requires subjectivity. 1+1=2 is only an ink pattern, signifier, unless understood by consciousness ) of Einstein's brain, one understands relatively, which is obviously absurd.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

well I am assuming things exist beyond subjective interpretation, but I don't know how to prove it.

But if something exists beyond subjective interpretation then it is possible to define that something without subjective interpretation.

Thanks for trying again, but I'm afraid I still don't understand what you're saying. 'Subjective interpretation' means to me that an individual intelligent creature is interpreting something, rather than God interpreting something. And since I don't believe in a conscious God, I don't believe in objective interpretation.

Words mean what people think they mean -- what each individual thinks they mean. There are no objective definitions of words in my conception. For me, that would require a Final Authority, an objective viewer Who could inform us of the objective nature of things.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You may be able to maintain a straight face, but without equivocating, you cannot do this without contradicting yourself.

I'm sorry, but I can only see you as a bit trapped in the illusion of language.

But maybe I'm mistaken. Can you tell me, clearly and in small words, how you would go about unequivocating the concept of "The son of God (SOG)?"

We have no mind meld yet. So all you can do is produce another batch of words to substitute for 'SOG', yes?

And if I begin to show that your new, expanded definition can point to both a true thing and a false thing, you'll accuse me again of 'equivocating', won't you? You'll only be satisfied if we can turn Jesus into those three little squiggles on paper... 'SOG'.

It's why I say that you seem to me to suffer a passion for certainty. You want to turn life into math so that you can strip away its ambiguity. I resist and oppose that quite-natural impulse. I think it's important for us to embrace the ambiguity. I want you to be strong.

But saying that Christ was and was not the son of God, in the selfsame sense of "son of God", is self-contradictory, and is simply incoherent.

What can I say except what I've counseled in the past. Try to think of language as your tool, not your master. If you see another person write a bit of seemingly contradictory prose, don't assert that it is contradictory. Instead, probe the mind of that person to see whether he can defend his prose. The (non)contradiction is in his mind, not in his words.

Just my advice. Take it or not.

how would two random symbols, considered as mere symbols, contradict one another? What are they contradicting, if the symbols don't mean anything?

Good question. Would you agree that the following sentence is contradictory?

Meekbots exist, but meekbots do not exist.

I think most people would see it as an example of contradiction, even with no idea of the nature of meekbots.

Even if we were absolutely unable to learn anything reliable about the "objective", external world we live in- if we could never completely trust our observations of the shape of the moon- it would not follow that there are not determinate states of affairs in the world nevertheless; in other words, that the moon has some shape, which is not open to interpretation or opinion- regardless of whether anyone knows that shape beyond all doubt or not.

That's a comforting belief, I know. Some nights I stare up at the (apparent) moon and think, "What if it's all illusion?" and a chill starts to creep over me. Soon my mind is flying in all sorts of directions, every kind of imagining. I visit wild places, frightening places.

And when it finally gets too scary, I say to myself, "Stop, AG. Stop your worry. Just pretend that it's all real. Settle. You're a brilliant logician. Settle for that. Focus on those little hard, real squiggles that we have learned to put on paper. Embrace the 1s and the 0s. Manipulate 'the moon' as others do -- the ones who don't even wonder about its reality anymore."

Then I am fine again and can go to sleep.

Because there isn't really a viable alternative model, and that of a shared, external, objective world works pretty darn well.

You've misunderstood my verb 'champion.' Of course we can play around with apparent objective reality. But why champion it? Why insist that it is really, really, really out there?

What drives that, I wonder.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ahh, I think I understand a little better. You are saying the "word games" are the exercises that involve x or some other variable, while I tend to think of the word games as jaylo examples.

Yes. When grown men sit down in their studies and concoct sentences to play with, I consider those sentences to be word games. I live in the real world, where Jaylo's nature is not nearly so easy to put under the microscope.

The reason I think this way is that the variables reduce ambiguity while the apparent contradiction such as jaylo tend to capitalize on some semantic discrepancy.

Sure. And reducing ambiguity obviously goes counter to my nature. I find it boring for myself and 'mentality-reducing' for those who persue it unconsciously, as most seem to do.

The laws of thought are assumed truths. If you were suggesting there were no truths then I assumed you would be saying they are not valid either.

I can't really follow that. Can you give me a formal definition of 'truth' as you are using it here? By the way, I don't consider 'valid' to be a synonym for 'truthful.' Not usually.

if we take away these we destroy our whole system of validation, but if we leave these we are still assuming their truth.

Really, I don't know how we could possibly 'take away the laws of thought.' I just don't understand what that means to you. Are you thinking that we can consciously make ourselves deny our own brain's operating system??

I suppose that we can assume truths and have them not be true, but it seems ironic to assume truths and say they are not true.

So you think that if a statement is labelled as 'true', then it is a 'truth'?

Your assumption is that 'truth' always means 'a proposition to which I assent'?

But what if you were like me and never gave full assent to any proposition but only assigned percentages of assent to propositions?

Would you still believe in 'truth' if you thought as I do about propositions?

 

[Willamena]

more than just believing we can know stuff, we rely on such a phenomenon. And it works! While I think a level of skepticism is healthy, one cannot survive in any meaningful way without such reliance despite their purported skepticism.

Not only that, but "to know" has no significant meaning apart from what it is we rely on. So effectively, we do know.

 

[Willamena]

You may be able to maintain a straight face, but without equivocating, you cannot do this without contradicting yourself.

Sure he can. All he has to do with cast one or both non-literal.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

All of this, human nature, does little diminish the possibility of objective truth.

By 'objective truth' do you mean 'atoms, in a particular configuration'?

Or do you mean something more?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

more than just believing we can know stuff, we rely on such a phenomenon. And it works!

Obviously. But I can't figure out why you keep saying that. Do you imagine that I deny the pragmatic use of logic?

While I think a level of skepticism is healthy, one cannot survive in any meaningful way without such reliance despite their purported skepticism.

Yes. Clearly.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

assuming things exist, something can be defined in two ways, what it is and what it is not. The former of these two ways can be broken down into what something is alone and what something is in relation to other things. (I suppose what something is in relation to other things also encompasses what something is not, but I'll leave it that way).

An absolute definition would encompass all of these definitions, while an objective definition would include any number of these.

Now a subjective definition includes only a relational definition but without identifying the relation.

Take your moon example let us say that George believes the moon is square, Judy believes the moon is spherical, and Elroy believes the moon is an illusion. All of these are actually objective definitions because they define the moon in terms of a relationship. Yet if anyone of them assert their definition without identifying that relationship, then such an opinion is a subjective definition.

I'm sorry. I've read that several times and still can't extract any useful meaning from it. People in the same apparent language group don't always speak the same language, you know.

How could one of them 'assert their definition without identifying that relationship'? Can you give an example/ How would George assert his belief in a square moon 'without identifying that relationship'?

Of course Judy or Elroy might very well challenge George even when he says I believe that the moon is square, because in reality all of our relational definitions also exist in relation to time. Therefore such relations are subject to change. thus attempting to change one objective definition they try to convince George that the moon is not square, so he shouldn't believe that the moon is square. now usually objective definitions about peoples beliefs matter little, when trying to interact with just the moon, so often these relational definitions are not included in the set of definitions which we use to describe something objectively. But in theory they could be.

Sorry, man. I just can't follow any of that. But thanks for offering it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Not only that, but "to know" has no significant meaning apart from what it is we rely on. So effectively, we do know.

Yeah, it's easy to know anything at all. I don't even have to say abracadabra when I want to know something. I just know it.

 

[Willamena]

Yeah, it's easy to know anything at all. I don't even have to say abracadabra when I want to know something. I just know it.

Why do you imply magic?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why do you imply magic?

Because we humans can make knowledge appear out of thin air?

 

[Willamena]

Because we humans can make knowledge appear out of thin air?

Shouldn't we?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Shouldn't we [make knowledge appear out of thin air]?

How else could we acquire knowledge except by creating it ourselves.

In my view, of course, even prophet-believers do that. They aren't really receiving Truth from God via the airwaves. Instead, they are concocting the stuff and then convincing themselves that it came from an Objective Source.

Truth is more true if it comes from God, you know.

(By the way, tell me if the bracketing convention I've used in the backquote isn't proper.)

 

[Willamena]

How else could we acquire knowledge except by creating it ourselves.

In my view, of course, even prophet-believers do that. They aren't really receiving Truth from God via the airwaves. Instead, they are concocting the stuff and then convincing themselves that it came from an Objective Source.

Truth is more true if it comes from God, you know.

(By the way, tell me if the bracketing convention I've used in the backquote isn't proper.)

What does it mean to do magic if not to create a world that actually works out of thin air?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What does it mean to do magic if not to create a world that actually works out of thin air?

Not sure what you're asking. Sorry. A world that works?

Are you talking about personal theologies, perhaps?