Clutch

Whatever one's views about whether Wednesdays are rightside-up or upside-down, it would wrong to deny the sensibility of "it's true that the moon exists".

If you read my post, you'll notice that I didn't say anything about that.

I said that the moon is not true. (Nor, for that matter, is it false.)

The sentence "The moon exists" is true. Sentences, propositions, assertoric speech-acts (pick one or more) -- these things can be true or false. The moon, pickles, fish, and galaxies, however, are neither true nor false.

That's the point of saying that reality /= truth. The former is metaphysical, the latter semantical. It is a category mistake to confuse the two. Let's not be Sammi if we can help it.

Hugo Holbling

Primal declared:

... and then blustered:

Magnificent!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Keith Russell

Simon:

Technically, 'no'.

'Sounds' are the result when our audio-sensory organs translate vibrations in the air into a comprehensible form.

When a tree falls, the air always vibrates.

But, if there is no one to hear it, there is no 'sound'.

Keith.

Primal

Clutch: Thanx for the clarification. I agree, truth does demand some conext I think. Though I'd say there was more to it then mere semantics.

Hugo: Why don't you come up with some actual arguments and evidence for the subjectivist position instead of making personal attacks and defending the course? I think its rather disingenuine for you to call my statements a blunder as they were hardly meant to be seen as a serious criticism of subjectivism and were only being made to show how Kant's militancy did more to harm his case then help it. Thanx.

Hugo Holbling

Primal asked:

Why on earth would i do that? I'm not a subjectivist! However, for the purpose of this discussion, i could be persuaded to try my hand...

WTF?! If i "attacked" anything, it was your argument (if i dare call it such) - not you.

What course am i defending, again? I must have forgotten somewhere along the way...

If the shoe fits... Anyways, now who's calling names?

As i understand it, that is precisely what Kant was asking for. Surely the "best" way to shut him up would be to provide such? How about - for the amusement and edification of all - you show us your critique of subjectivism and i (or Kant) try to defend it, or at least to critique your critique?

Well, the person making any argument may be an utter jackass without affecting the validity or otherwise of their position, as i'm sure you realize. In the interests of general civility, let's all wind the clock back to where you said:

Now i, for one, am very interested in seeing you justify both claims. How about it, Primal?

No problem!

Clutch

Perhaps you mean "semantics" in the colloquial pejorative sense. I am speaking literally. Truth is a semantic notion; it has to do with meaning.

Keith Russell

Clutch said:
"Truth is a semantic notion; it has to do with meaning."

I don't agree.

Semantics is the structure of language, though.

Truth is about whether whether a particular concept (apart from langauge, linguistics, or semantics) corresponds to reality--whether (or not) a concept can be said to be 'valid', 'accurate', and/or 'true'.

Keith.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Kent Stevens

Truth is a partly buggered concept. A lot of people claim to have the truth but all they have is perceptions of reality. We only perceive shadows that correspond to pieces of reality. We do not fully comprehend things as they actually are.

This is not to say that any old idea should be believed. There are good and bad perceptions. There are perceptions that correspond closer to reality and then there are perceptions that only exist in dreams.

A way to see that truth as a partly buggered concept, is to see how this concept is used by religious and ideological extremists. A Christian might say that their way is the truth. A Muslim then comes along and says their way is the truth and that things should be done their way. But the Hindu secretly knows that their way is the truth. An atheist then says he knows the truth and there is no god, but then the atheists scientific viewpoint of reality changes as science changes.

Various dictatorial regimes can impose their oppressive programs because they say their way is the truth. Communism is said to be the truth so this allows the seizure of all property by the state. This truth fixation goes back to Plato when he said that society should be ruled by philosopher kings who can see the true nature of things.

The way around everyone saying I have the truth, is to think instead that everyone has perceptions or representations of reality. These perceptions and representations then fight out against each other to see which will be declared real.

Of course when I say that "perception is everything" I am also making a claim about the nature of reality. I might seem to be saying that the truth is that perception is everything. But I am instead saying that the model where perception is everything is better than any other hypothesis at this stage.

Bluenose

Anthromoporphism strikes again.

If the falling tree hits an ant hill, they may not 'hear' it BUT they sure do FEEL it.

When you see <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

do you hear it?

Keith Russell

Blue Nose:

I said 'sensory apparatus'; I was consciously trying to avoid anthropomorphism. (What may have thrown you was the 'our'. The 'our', though, simply refers to the group of 'us' who possess sensory apparati--not only those of 'us' whose particular apparati happen to be of the human variety.)

If no one possessing sensory apparatus (including animals, who usually possess the sense of touch, and may also possess the ability to 'hear') is present, a'sound' is not made.

This is not based on any anthropomorphic assumption, but is 'true'.

Keith.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>