What I don't understand is that if he already has it all figure out so passionately, then why did he start a thread entitled "Is Truth Subjective?"

If all he intended to do is argue and belittle everyone's views who suggest that truth might be subjective, then this was a bait thread

He should have just started a thread claiming that he has the absolute correct description of truth and that he will viciously attack any opposing views.



Because that sure as hell appears to be precisely what he's been doing ever since the thread began.

Yes you did. And I corrected that ovesite.

But you did say that a verified claim is truth.

By the way, you should have laid all that out in the OP.

I have no interest in limiting my thoughts on truth to ideas that Kant had on what constitutes classical philosophy.

Wow. You expect to actually find "formal" on Mingle? Good luck with that quest.

Have you thought of doing this on a real philosophy forum somewhere?

If you have please share the link. I might be interested in reading some of it.

NO, I DID NOT.


ONE MORE TIME...


I was quoting Abra, and setting out the logical error that necessarily follows from the claim that HE made.

Do you understand?

I said a verified claim is called "true".

Okay gottcha!

Another belief based upon false presupposition that shows a lack of understanding. No one in modern philosophy goes back to anywhere but Kant. You ought learn your history as well as you've learned your rhetoric.

Just for the record...

When I said "get it right". I meant get my position on truth right before CONTINUING TO CRITICIZE an illusory creation of your own mind WHILE TREATING AND CALLING IT someone else's...


namely mine!

It follows from his argument that children cannot employ/engage truth prior to language because it wrongfully holds that truth is a product of language.

We know better.

Children possess innate and learned knowledge prior to language. Children develop and act uppn belief prior to language acquisition. It leads to clearly absurd conclusions.

As I've said before, if you view philosophical arguments as a bad thing. If you believe that logical and reasonable refutation is a bad thing. If you are prone to taking things personally, then may I suggest that my philosophy thread about truth is not for you? That is how critical philosophy is done. If you are here to talk about me personally, about what you think about me personally, then TAKE A HIKE, because I'm not interested. Philosophy is all about putting reason and logic to good use. You expect me to not do philosophy in a philosophy forum, and instead just chit-chat?

That is being very unreasonable.

Don'tcha think?

I chit-chat in the other forums. In the philosophy forum, I do philosophy. If the criticism is too much, then just leave. No one is strapping you down and propping your eyes open with toothpicks and forcing you to engage in this dialogue.

That's how critical philosophy is done. It is the same sort of criticism that I apply to my own - as best I can.

The point I'm making is that there are not many philosophers in the formal sense on Mingle2.

If you ask everyone who is not into formal philosophers to take a hike from your forum, you might find yourself alone.

OMG Creative ... If I want good quality sushi, I do not travel 1000 miles away from the ocean


What ever happened to people just being able to have a conversation on a 'social networking' site? I need an aspirin!

What?

Who criticized your position?

All I did was ask you to give a working example of how it can actually be used in a specific situation to determine a specific truth.

When you failed to be able to produce a specific working example I asked why I should believe that you even have a working definition then.

You're the one who continually criticizes my position as being fatally logically flawed, and a false belief, blah, blah, blah.

As far as I'm concerned you haven't even offered a working example to even criticize if I wanted to.

In fact, I've already shown how your definition is necessarily incomplete as you have stated it, and that you actually demand that there is more to it when you actually reference back to it.

Did you read the following post: (I copy and paste it here for ease of reference:


~~~~~



~~~~~

So even though you refuse to acknowledge the all-important description within your basic definition of truth. You still need to acknowledge that it is indeed paramount for your definition to even work.

You have no choice but to recognize the paramount importance of the analytical descriptions that are required before this definition can be workable and meaningful.

From my perspective you're doing nothing more than exhibiting a profound stubbornness to own up to the fact that I am right about the paramount importance of these analytical descriptions as being required before this concept of truth can even be workable or meaningful.

You're clearly acknowledging their importance outside of your definition, but you're refusing to acknowledge that they are indeed central to the definition itself, that and without them your definition is utterly meaningless and useless.

You have to specific what is is that you are corresponding fact/reality to, if you want truth to be defined as that correspondence.

Otherwise any correspondence will do, and you'd have no choice but to recognize that even my example of Zen Truth would qualify as truth by your definition because I can used any correspondence I choose, since you did not specify what the is being corresponded with fact/reality.

So your definition as it stands, is WIDE OPEN.

You failed to restrict your domain of correspondence.

You are guilty of precisely the thing that so many people fail to pay close attention to; the domain of applicability!

You're definition, as it stands, leaves the nature of the actual correspondence WIDE OPEN!

As you say, you confess yourself, you could be corresponding fact/reality with thought, believe, a claim, a description, or even just an experience that is being corresponded with the state of affairs.

You leave the nature of the correspondence basically UNDEFINED.

So any correspondence will do evidently.

Creative has made it clear.

This is not a social network.

This is a professionally registered philosophy symposium restricted only to professional philosophers. You must show your Ph.D. at the door before you may enter.



Hi Artsy,

For whatever it's worth, I'm refuting falsehoods and using the opportunity to better set things out. This is, afterall, a thread about truth.



Two problems here worth mentioning...

1. I have not argued for truth as an objective entity or "correspondence in it's own right". That allegation does not necessarily follow from my claims, nor do my claims necessarily presuppose it. Therefore, we can only conclude that the above directly reflects a false belief stemming from false presuppositions within the mind of the speaker. Logic does not bear it out.

I would guess that that is exactly what projecting false belief out into the world works looks like.




--


Moving on...

2. Correspondence doesn't have 'rights', so I have no idea what "correspondence in it's own right" is even supposed to mean. It is most certainly NOT what I mean, and since the focus has once again shifted to what constitite being my claims...

We ought at least get it right.




--


Truth cannot be completely independent of a thinking/believing subject - nor need it be. <-----that's the important part. It can be both, contingent upon thought/belief for it's engagement/enactment, and not contingent upon thought/belief or language for what it is. Those are not mutually exclusive propositions. Nor does a necessary connection to humans make truth necessarily subject to language.<-----that's another important part. Our understanding of truth is contingent upon our language. Therefore, let's put our language to good use in setting truth out.

It can be and it is the case that children engage in the necessary presupposition of truth/reality correspondence during very early childhood. Behavior bears witness within the facts -as they occur- that children hold certain belief about the way things are. This is the only observational evidence necessary to prove that children presuppose truth/reality correspondence in thought/belief and begin putting it to use long before language acquisition. Thus proving that truth is not contingent upon language for it's existence nor is language necessary for our engagement in truth.


--

Which brings us to the obvious application of this knowledge...

--


If we posit that truth has no meaning and therefore no existence until after language acquisition, then it only follows that children cannot hold belief prior to language acquisition. We have clearly arrived at a contradiction. Children quite clearly engage in behaviors which show that trust and truth are being engaged within their minds long before they have begun to acquire natural language.

Thus given the relevant facts. Given the wealth of knowledge based upon those facts, to reject that children put truth to use prior to language would be a very foolish argument.

This shows us quite clearly that truth cannot be equal to a description, because we see the nonsense that necessarily follows from holding that particular false presupposition in thought/belief. Setting out truth as though it is equal to "truth value" or equal to a true description cannot take current knowledge into account. It cannot explain the thought, belief, and knowledge that we already know children possess. If children can know things, believe things, and act upon those beliefs - then we know that truth is not contingent upon language for it's existence. It only follows that truth cannot be rightfully equated to a lingustic description which necessitates dependency upon language for it's existence. We know that the existence of truth is not dependent upon language.



--



That is exactly what is adequately explained by the necessary presupposition of truth/reality correspondence within thought/belief formation. That necessary presupposition adequately explains why and how children hold false belief, true belief, and possess knowledge prior to language acquisition. It adequately explains the history of human knowledge. It adequately exhausts all of the prior (mis)conceptions of truth. It adequately explains the effectiveness of the doctrines of verifiability and falsifiability.















STOP!!!

















Think about that for a bit, then get back with me. I'm done for the day.



Make the next one count.

Just for the record...

That does not tell everyone to take hike. Only those who are engaged in what is indicated.

Why would I bother?

I already have two perfectly good models of truth. On based on the analytical approach, the other based on direct experience, both of them being totally sound and meaningful within their domains of applicability.

You have nothing to add to that.

Apparently you are stuck in the eternal time warp of philosophical paralysis.

"We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?" - Richard P Feynman :

Evidently that's where you're at. You're stuck in the eternal philosophical paralysis of searching for the "Holy Grail" of "Perfect Analytical Truth".

As far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist. It's a philosophical unicorn.

You clearly don't have it in your hands, because if you did you could give a working example of how to apply it to a specific situation. But you obviously can't do that. So you don't yet have it, you are still on the hunt.

I, on the other hand, have already found it.

The "Holy Grail" of pure philosophical truth is the Zen Truth or spiritual truth, or simply the true of pure existence.

I already have that "Holy Grail" my friend. And clearly Jeanniebean does too. She carries it with her everywhere she goes offering it up to anyone who is brave enough to drink from it.

That is the "Holy Grail" of pure philosophical truth.

At the other end of the spectrum, when it comes to analytical truth, I don't pretend that there exists some analytical unicorn of truth. I simply recognize that analytical truth is a man-made analysis.

And I'm totally content with that.

So why would I bother wasting any more of my time reading your circular semantic arguments that will never end?

You'll still be here searching for the "Holy Grail" of analytical truth and life will be OVER.

I have no desire to wallow with you in that kind of fruitless philosophical semantic paralysis.

It's a total waste of time.

To me it is simply numerous posts about someone's opinions.

Whether their opinions are correct or not cannot be determined. The passionate arguments made about an opinion make it suspect because emotion is involved.

Why do you say that correct/incorrect opinions cannot be determined?