Atheism does not exist

[Willamena]

What are you talking about?


The lack of a sighted person in the analogy doesn't mean that the blind man has a complete impression of the elephant by touching its ear; it means that the blind man can never be perfectly sure whether his impression is complete.

Then you missed the analogy.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

A better example is found in the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

I would hope so, because the art example misses the mark. I say "Coca-Cola is good", and you say "Coca-Cola is bad"- which is true? Neither, because there is no fact of the matter here, we are simply expressing value judgments, i.e. how we feel about the way things are, rather than describing how things are.

Each blind man reported accurately and truthfully, to the best of his ability, what an elephant "was like." Sighted people do no differently (as can be evidenced by the differences of understands in this thread).

How does this establish any sense to the proposition that, as you're advocating, the law of excluded middle doesn't still apply? "P" cannot be both true and false, i.e. true "for" person 1 but false "for" person 2; if "P" is meaningful, then person 1 or person 2 must be mistaken. (even if neither one of them is in the position to be the "final arbiter", or some such nonsense, of which of them is mistaken... but this hardly implies that one of them is not nevertheless mistaken)

So, rather than "believing truth," awareness of the true proposition is believing.

So... What about my belief that "Micheal Jordan is the King of France"... This appears to be a belief, but not "awareness of the true proposition" since the proposition I'm aware of here ("Micheal Jordna is the King of France") is not true- France has no monarch, and Micheal Jordan is a retired basketball player.

Both are available for understanding, because neither is actually the world--they are pictures of the world. Wordworld.

Right, and we can form pictures of the world that do not match up with the world- just like if I tried to paint a picture of you, it would not look like, or "match up with" the real you at all (because I have no skill at painting)- and beliefs that "do not match up" with the world are false, whereas ones that do "match up" are true.

Truth isn't the proposition, as much as we address it that way to talk about it.

What does this mean, in plain English? Truth is a property of linguistic items- assertions, sentences, beliefs, propositions, etc.- namely those that "match up" with the way things are.

Truth, that unconscious switch, informs every proposition.

What? How does truth inform a false belief? (like my belief about Micheal Jordan being the King of France?) In the sense that "the truth", i.e. the fact of the matter (Micheal Jordan not being King of France) is what makes this belief false?

It's the universal property that nothing can be without.

Except false beliefs/propositions/claims/etc...

It's "the innermost decision that we cannot but obey."

Whatever that means.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Then you missed the analogy.

Doesn't look like it, rather, it looks like he's put his finger on the problem with your analogy. If you're missing a bunch of pieces to the puzzle, it doesn't follow that your limited picture you make with the handful of pieces you have becomes "the true picture", albeit "for you", or some such- it just means you're missing a bunch of the pieces... Doh!

 

[Willamena]

Ah, but it wasn't "knowledge" that we were talking about there, but truth.

Falvlun, maybe you can help me with something here.

Which of the following statements is more pleasing for its accuracy and usefulness, and why?

1) A proposition is a piece of the world that may be true or false.
2) A proposition is a statement about the world that may be true or false.

1) A proposition that is true expresses truth about the world.
2) A proposition that is true is a true statement about the world.

1) A proposition's negation is falseness about the world.
2) A proposition's negation is a false statement about the world.

The first set equate the proposition with the world by seeing the world directly through the word, and the second set keep a distance between the word and the world.

 

[Willamena]

Doesn't look like it, rather, it looks like he's put his finger on the problem with your analogy. If you're missing a bunch of pieces to the puzzle, it doesn't follow that your limited picture you make with the handful of pieces you have becomes "the true picture", albeit "for you", or some such- it just means you're missing a bunch of the pieces... Doh!

"I have some missing pieces," or "I must have some missing pieces," are two pieces of the puzzle that you hold in your hand.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The first set equate the proposition with the world by seeing the world directly through the word, and the second set keep a distance between the word and the world.

You've set up a false dichotomy. Propositions are a piece of the world, which describe or model other pieces of the world. It isn't an "either, or" proposition. And I wonder if you want to go back and address some of the pertinent questions posed to you here? (i.e. #982)

 

[idav]

They only had "one piece of a puzzle" from the perspective of the sighted person, who professed for them a puzzle with more pieces than them, by relation to each of them. Each man, blind and sighted, is actually on equal footing: he has the picture that is the sum of his senses and interpretation. It is accurate in the sense that there is nothing else to be "more accurate." There is no real "complete picture" for any of us beyond what we each put together. Even the interpretation "the complete picture beyond what I've put together" is a piece of that individual's picture.

It is possible that one added clue could change the whole interpretation of what something is.

 

[Willamena]

You've set up a false dichotomy. Propositions are a piece of the world, which describe or model other pieces of the world.

It's not a dichotomy at all. I'm not claiming these as the only two options, I'm just asking Falvlun which one is prettier.

 

[Willamena]

It is possible that one added clue could change the whole interpretation of what something is.

Indeed, it is. But, if I may ask, what point are you making?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then you missed the analogy.

No, I just realized an implication of it that you didn't: partial truth can be just as misleading as falsehood.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It's not a dichotomy at all. I'm not claiming these as the only two options, I'm just asking Falvlun which one is prettier.

You're saying they are different "options"- that's a dichotomy. If it's not a dichotomy, one needn't pick "which one is prettier", because one can have both.

And are you avoiding the rather pressing questions your doctrine of double truth begs, i.e.

And I wonder if you want to go back and address some of the pertinent questions posed to you here? (i.e. #982)

 

[Willamena]

You're saying they are different "options"- that's a dichotomy. If it's not a dichotomy, one needn't pick "which one is prettier", because one can have both.

Regardless of any difference they might or might not have, I am only asking about a difference of wording.

If you have problem with that, tough. I wasn't asking you, anyway.

 

[Willamena]

partial truth can be just as misleading as falsehood.

"Partial truth" has no greater implication than "missing pieces." I addressed this: in the context of the analogy, "I have missing pieces" is a piece.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And are you avoiding the rather pressing questions your doctrine of double truth begs

???

If you are unable to answer such questions, shouldn't that at least raise a red flag for you that you should perhaps rethink your position here?

 

[Willamena]

???

If you are unable to answer such questions, shouldn't that at least raise a red flag for you that you should perhaps rethink your position here?

Nope.

I just haven't answered them, yet. If you can't figure that out, not my problem.

Edit: I apologize for snapping. I'll answer them when I have time and when I'm no longer annoyed at you for violating polite forum etiquette.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Partial" has no greater implication than "missing pieces." I addressed: in the context of the analogy, "I have missing pieces" is a piece.

If you believe that an elephant is interchangeable with a tree, a wall, a rope, a snake, or a palm leaf, then you will quickly find that it isn't when you put your belief into practice. In that regard, the belief that an elephant is like a tree, a wall, a rope, a snake, or a palm leaf, while correct for aspects of the elephant, is wrong for the elephant as a whole.

 

[Willamena]

If you believe that an elephant is interchangeable with a tree, a wall, a rope, a snake, or a palm leaf, then you will quickly find that it isn't when you put your belief into practice. In that regard, the belief that an elephant is like a tree, a wall, a rope, a snake, or a palm leaf, while correct for aspects of the elephant, is wrong for the elephant as a whole.

As I said, you missed the analogy.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I just haven't answered them, yet. If you can't figure that out, not my problem.

They aren't for me to "figure out" because I'm not the one advocating relativistic truth or double truth. I suppose I could speculate as to what your answers would be, but that would be inappropriate- I don't want to put words in your mouth.

If you can't/won't answer them, for whatever reason, then just say so. (although it would awfully curious for you to be on a discussion forum advocating a view which you then refuse to discuss, i.e. answer questions about)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'll answer... when I'm no longer annoyed at you for violating polite forum etiquette.

Give me a break... Violating polite forum etiquette? I have not posted any ad-hominems, nor any flaming posts, and my tone is far less obnoxious and condescending than our recently fled "Big Bad Questioner", about whom you had zero complaints.

Please.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I said, you missed the analogy.

No, I get the intended meaning of the analogy fine. As I said, I just realize an implication of it that you don't.