What is truth?

[Terrapin Station]

What do these inner truths consist in/of if not language? Language is social. Social is outside our skin. Right?

Meaning is an important part of language and not at all outside of our skin.

That's what you claim. You also claim that there is no such a thing as shared meaning. Here's a riddle for you...

A book can be read on several different occasions by thousands of different people, and those people will answer many many questions about the book in the same way. How can that be the case if what you say is true?

Let me ask you this question first, and I want you to give me an honest, straightforward answer:

How do you figure it is, exactly, that I'd arrive at the position I have on what meaning is/how it works, yet not only not be able to account for something like how tons of different people could give the "same" (quotation marks for us nominalists) or similar answers to questions about a book, but where it would be the case that I've never even considered such a question, or similar questions?

In other words, just what are you assuming about my background, my intelligence, how much time I've put into thinking about my stances, the extent of my previous social interaction in a philosophical context, etc.?

[creativesoul]

...I want you to give me an honest, straightforward answer:

How do you figure it is, exactly, that I'd arrive at the position I have on what meaning is/how it works, yet not only not be able to account for something like how tons of different people could give the "same" (quotation marks for us nominalists) or similar answers to questions about a book, but where it would be the case that I've never even considered such a question, or similar questions?

I don't 'figure' such things. I ask.

In other words, just what are you assuming about my background, my intelligence, how much time I've put into thinking about my stances, the extent of my previous social interaction in a philosophical context, etc.?

Your background, intelligence, and time invested into your position/stances is of no interest to me. I've given that no consideration at all, thus I've assumed nothing about those things. You've made claims, and I've asked questions based upon and about those claims.

[creativesoul]

Meaning is an important part of language and not at all outside of our skin.

That's what you claim. You also claim that there is no such a thing as shared meaning. Here's a riddle for you...

A book can be read on several different occasions by thousands of different people, and those people will answer many many questions about the book in the same way. How can that be the case if what you say is true?

That does not mean that truth is extra-somatic.

It also does not mean it is not. My personal view rejects the internal/external dichotomy when it comes to both, truth and meaning.

It simply means people can agree about the content of a book. I think it is not unreasonable to call that shared meaning, as long as you do not assert that the meaning is somehow contained in the pages, for without the reader the book is meaningless; without the 'shared' language the book is gibberish; and without people, people that define what a book, is the book is not even a book, but a collection of atoms.

Well, the shared meaning part is what Terrapin argues against.

The other thing you might like to consider in this scenario, is why is it that you can so easily devise questions where people shall vehemently disagree about the same book, and that those sorts of questions go to the heart of the the most important issues. It is also true to say that the questions upon which everyone can agree upon are more likely to be the least important.
Where did Alyosha visit? What is the name of the person he visited? No one is going to disagree.
However questions like did he resolve his problem with Dimitri; or why was Dimitri so evasive are more likely to engender diverse and searching questions about the nature of the story and the intentions of the characters and the author.

Interesting that you brought this up. Without having shared meaning, there would be neither agreement nor disagreement regarding any of it.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't 'figure' such things. I ask.

Your background, intelligence, and time invested into your position/stances is of no interest to me.

So that's all a big part of the problem then. You need to think a little bit more before you talk. It seems strange to have to emphasize this in a venue where people are supposedly interested in philosophy, but nevertheless . . .

What would have to be the case for someone to have a position like mine on meaning, yet for that person to not be able to account for (on their view), or perhaps to never even have considered an issue such as "How could it be the case that thousands of people could read the same book and give many answers that are more or less the same when questioned about that book"?

[Hobbes' Choice]

That's what you claim. You also claim that there is no such a thing as shared meaning. Here's a riddle for you...

A book can be read on several different occasions by thousands of different people, and those people will answer many many questions about the book in the same way. How can that be the case if what you say is true?

That does not mean that truth is extra-somatic.

It also does not mean it is not. My personal view rejects the internal/external dichotomy when it comes to both, truth and meaning.

No common sense, rationality, reason and simple knowledge DOES mean that. The truth is NOT "out there".
Truth is a relationship between reality and your perception of it requiring assessment and internal coherence and correspondence. no people; no truth

It simply means people can agree about the content of a book. I think it is not unreasonable to call that shared meaning, as long as you do not assert that the meaning is somehow contained in the pages, for without the reader the book is meaningless; without the 'shared' language the book is gibberish; and without people, people that define what a book, is the book is not even a book, but a collection of atoms.

Well, the shared meaning part is what Terrapin argues against.

The other thing you might like to consider in this scenario, is why is it that you can so easily devise questions where people shall vehemently disagree about the same book, and that those sorts of questions go to the heart of the the most important issues. It is also true to say that the questions upon which everyone can agree upon are more likely to be the least important.
Where did Alyosha visit? What is the name of the person he visited? No one is going to disagree.
However questions like did he resolve his problem with Dimitri; or why was Dimitri so evasive are more likely to engender diverse and searching questions about the nature of the story and the intentions of the characters and the author.

Interesting that you brought this up. Without having shared meaning, there would be neither agreement nor disagreement regarding any of it.

I'm arguing that truth is a relationship, not an absolute. "agreement" is not truth as such. In normal parlance when we agree we 'share meaning' - they are almost synonymous. However they are not perfect, not exact. People are different in many ways.

[creativesoul]

So...

Terrapin, you asked me about what assumptions I've made regarding your background, intelligence, and how much time you've personally invested in thinking about your stances - physicalist conceptual framework(position). Here it is again...

Terrapin asked:

How do you figure it is, exactly, that I'd arrive at the position I have...

Then I answered...

creativesoul:

I don't 'figure' such things. I ask.

Your background, intelligence, and time invested into your position/stances is of no interest to me.

You see, I'm well aware of the fact that I do not know enough about you to know what sorts of everyday events you have seriously considered your argument in light of. There are more possibilities than I'm aware of. There is no more evidence to suggest than any one is the case more than any other.

Then you replied as follows..

So that's all a big part of the problem then. You need to think a little bit more before you talk.

All I can do is shake my head. It's a sure sign that you have no argumentative substance. Time may tell. In addition to what's above, think about this...

It does not follow from the fact that I don't draw unwarranted conclusions about your background, intelligence, and/or how much time you've invested into your worldview that I need to think a little bit more before I talk. I've thought enough to know that any such 'figuring' would amount to drawing unjustified and/or unwarranted conclusions. Yet, it is a problem for you because I have not???

Dude, get a grip.

Logical possibility alone is inadequate warrant. That is all any of those kinds of thoughts would amount to. I know that.

If you insist upon taking it personally in some way, then by all means, take it as a personal compliment. I don't spend my time and thought/belief examining another's worldview unless it's interesting enough to do so. So, I asked because I am interested in criticizing your conceptual framework as carefully as I criticize my own. That's doing philosophy as best as one can, amongst other things. When we enter into a philosophy forum and make positive assertions, we've voluntarily entered into the critical eyes of others by virtue of voluntarily entering into an obligation to justify our claims.

What would have to be the case for someone to have a position like mine on meaning, yet for that person to not be able to account for (on their view), or perhaps to never even have considered an issue such as "How could it be the case that thousands of people could read the same book and give many answers that are more or less the same when questioned about that book"?

I don't know, and dont much care for wasting time upon logical possibility alone, which would have been precisely what I would have been doing had I done that. It would not be difficult to arrive at a few of the stances you've argued for. As is the case with all stances, there are any number of different ways to obtain, acquire, adopt, arrive at, and/or otherwise form them.

My initial thoughts were that your reply was a bit too pretentious for my taste, but that it warranted some of my attention.

[creativesoul]

That does not mean that truth is extra-somatic.

It also does not mean it is not. My personal view rejects the internal/external dichotomy when it comes to both, truth and meaning.


No common sense, rationality, reason and simple knowledge DOES mean that. The truth is NOT "out there".
Truth is a relationship between reality and your perception of it requiring assessment and internal coherence and correspondence. no people; no truth.

Common sense, rationality, reason, and simple knowledge does not mean that truth is extra-somatic. This presupposes that true thought/belief requires being assessed before it's true. It doesn't. You're conflating what being true takes with what our assessment of that takes.

No people. No truth.

We're also not the only creatures capable of forming and/or holding thought/belief. Thought/belief can be true prior to the thinking agent's ability to consider and/or assess his/her own worldview. That is, thought/belief is prior to considering thought/belief. All thought/belief presupposes it's own correspondence to/with fact/reality because all thought/belief consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself. All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content(real, imagined, or otherwise). <<<<-------That is the presupposition of correspondence(truth) at work in all thought/belief and the language which follows.

I'm arguing that truth is a relationship...

We agree on that.

..."agreement" is not truth...

We agree on that.

In normal parlance when we agree we 'share meaning' - they are almost synonymous. However they are not perfect, not exact. People are different in many ways.

Sometimes agreement is accompanied by shared meaning. Sometimes one does not know what the other means, but agrees because they think/believe otherwise. In normal parlance when we disagree, we're not normally disagreeing about the meaning of what's being said. Quite often it is the case that we're disagreeing upon whether or not what's being said is true.

[Hobbes' Choice]

This presupposes that true thought/belief requires being assessed before it's true. It doesn't. You're conflating what being true takes with what our assessment of that takes..You're conflating what being true takes with what our assessment of that takes.

There is no conflation here. But if you agree that truth is a relationship then you also have to agree that it is created by that assessment.
When you understand what I am talking about you will soon see how and why truth varies from person to person; culture to culture; religion to religion.
Once you accept that there is no god out there holding on the the truth, and that all we have to do is open our eyes to find it, you shall understand how the world really works and how people will kill each other for different versions of the truth, never reconciled or answerable.

The state of the universe is what it is, we observe it and judge is. Truth only happens when there is a coherence or correspondence between what we find reasonable and our perception of reality.

Truth is always interested, because it only comes to the attention of conscious beings.
Truth is a thing conceived, it is pointless to pretend that is pre-exists human thought.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It's important to distinguish between inner ('subjective') and outer ('objective') truths and not to confuse these. 'Subjective truths' exist only inside our skins so they cannot be proven to others. These private and personal truths can be experienced with an extremely high degree of inner certainty, however, precisely because they are known only to ourselves—intimately, uniquely and directly. They may explain certain realities or capture critical personal realizations and deeply moving experiences more powerfully than any outer explanations possibly can. They may remain as vividly experienced 'inner knowings' that animate us or ignite our vision and imagination, remaining free of the need for outward expression or any impassioned drive to prove them to anyone else.

Others may resonate to our internal truths as strikingly similar to their internal experiential knowing and agree that what we claim to be true rings true for them as well. Or, of course, they may disagree with profound certainty in conformance with the different 'truths' existing inside their own skins. This may not decrease the conviction we have in our own inner truth one whit, as the other person's uniquely personal views do not account for our own differing experiences and personal convictions.

'Objective truths' pointing to some 'reality' or territory outside our skins, possibly can be verified, proven, demonstrated or least clearly presented to others.

'Objective truths' are couched in words (and perhaps other symbols) as a necessity of expression, in order to share them with others 'outside our skin'. These spoken or written formulations are never the reality, facts or territory itself. The words point to the territory, serving as verbal maps. The degree to which they accurately correspond to the structure of the actual terrain indicates how true they are. Our word-maps are never the terrain itself; our statements can never be identical to what we're using our words to point to or describe. And since the dynamic territory (which is not words) remains in a process of continual change, our 'finished' statements of truth tend to become less accurate or less true over time.

Whatever we 'say' the truth is, 'the truth itself' is not the words we use to describe it. That same 'truth' can be 'accurately' described in many different ways and in many different languages. So anything we claim as true, in words, can only be true to some degree of probability. At best what we say can be considered as very highly probable. It remains what we say about reality rather than reality itself. We make maps of reality, including verbal maps, in order to construct our individual worldviews. Our uniquely individual worldviews become their own truth, which again emphasizes the extreme importance of consistently distinguishing between inside and outside our skins.

While most of us can quickly and easily agree on simple objective facts like 'the bathroom door is now closed' or 'Jack is wearing black shoes this morning', certain other types of 'objective reality' may require some training and experience to even perceive 'accurately'.

Scientific 'truth' is also fleeting yet there does seem to be a 'spirit of truth' that either resonates deeply and soundly within us more or less, or feels 'off'. Many 'truths' have nothing to do with 'logic'. So 'truth' has a general direction we can pursue step by step, yet there are definitely contradictory truths that can be 'true at the same time' even though they contradict each other.

The existence of lies, deceptions, frauds, half-truths, misinformation, disinformation and distorting propaganda remain far easier to recognize and reach broad agreement about, once they have been exposed, explained and documented. Is this last statement actually true? No, not really. It sounds true, yet some people have almost no ability to see past their own biases to recognize anything outside their own skins. They cling to their existing views at any cost. They are trapped in their fixed and unchanging 'habits of thought'.

Do you have a point to make?

He made many, that can and do fall on deaf ears, case in point.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...truth = true = fact = that which 'is', independent of what you (or I) think (or feel) about it.

Another definition is pickin' at nits.

Yeah - for the simple minded.
It would appear your an expert when it comes to simple mindedness.

The trouble starts before you even utter your first word.
It can, depending upon the individual.

No statement is the same as what is the case.
Not necessarily true.

"There are ten apples on the table."
Tear it apart!

No word used in any statement is unambiguous,
Wrong, "ten!"

and contains connotations to add to your denotations.
In fact, "ten" is pretty solid.

connotation [kon-uh-tey-shuh n]
noun
3. Logic. the set of attributes constituting the meaning of a term and thus determining the range of objects to which that term may be applied; comprehension; intension.

denotation [dee-noh-tey-shuh n]
noun
5. Logic.
a) the class of particulars to which a term is applicable.
b) that which is represented by a sign.

See what I mean?

Any any statements is by its nature selective.
Here let me show you a selective statement, "HC is a dumb ass!"

I imagine that most of this is going over your head.
Just like I'm sure you have shit for brains.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Truth is a thing conceived, it is pointless to pretend that is pre-exists human thought.

Incorrect, by whatever language, or no language whatsoever, either asteroid A struck asteroid B; which ever was in fact/true of, the case, preexists human thought, as I'm speaking of two asteroids that predated life on planet earth. The "truth" of that case might be "out there" for us to one day "know," or maybe not!

[Hobbes' Choice]

Truth is a thing conceived, it is pointless to pretend that is pre-exists human thought.

Incorrect, by whatever language, or no language whatsoever, either asteroid A struck asteroid B; which ever was in fact/true of, the case, preexists human thought, as I'm speaking of two asteroids that predated life on planet earth. The "truth" of that case might be "out there" for us to one day "know," or maybe not!

Moron

[SpheresOfBalance]

Truth is a thing conceived, it is pointless to pretend that is pre-exists human thought.

Incorrect, by whatever language, or no language whatsoever, either asteroid A struck asteroid B; which ever was in fact/true of, the case, preexists human thought, as I'm speaking of two asteroids that predated life on planet earth. The "truth" of that case might be "out there" for us to one day "know," or maybe not!

Moron

Pea Brain!

[henry quirk]

"All that guessing and dissecting must be very wearing on the spirit, it would make someone grumpy at times."

Yep, explains a lot...as i say, better him than me.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Incorrect, by whatever language, or no language whatsoever, either asteroid A struck asteroid B; which ever was in fact/true of, the case, preexists human thought, as I'm speaking of two asteroids that predated life on planet earth. The "truth" of that case might be "out there" for us to one day "know," or maybe not!

Moron

Pea Brain!

You are in reality truthfully a moron.
The contents and magnitude of my brain are unknowable to you.
And that is one more reason that you are a moron, because my experience of your matches and corresponds to my definitions of moron.