What is truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Moron

Pea Brain!

You are in reality truthfully a moron.
Nope it's you that are truly an ignoramus.

The contents and magnitude of my brain are unknowable to you.
Nope, they are indeed evident every time you open that pie hole you call a mouth. Or rather every time you type some tripe, that comes from that pea you call a brain.

And that is one more reason that you are a moron, because my experience of your matches and corresponds to my definitions of moron.
Same here! Your need to try and impress everyone with your BMW, thus small penis, is echoed with your, "I'm smarter than you, I need a special forum so I can hide from those that might challenge me," shtick.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Pea Brain!

You are in reality truthfully a moron.
Nope it's you that are truly an ignoramus.

The contents and magnitude of my brain are unknowable to you.
Nope, they are indeed evident every time you open that pie hole you call a mouth. Or rather every time you type some tripe, that comes from that pea you call a brain.

And that is one more reason that you are a moron, because my experience of your matches and corresponds to my definitions of moron.
Same here! Your need to try and impress everyone with your BMW, thus small penis, is echoed with your, "I'm smarter than you, I need a special forum so I can hide from those that might challenge me," shtick.

Do you really think I even bother to read your shite any more?

[creativesoul]

...if you agree that truth is a relationship then you also have to agree that it is created by that assessment.

No I do not, and no it is not. Correspondence is presupposed within all thought/belief and statements thereof. I've already set that out. If truth is 'created' by assessment, then thought/belief would not be - could not be - true unless and/or until it is assessed. Thought/belief and statements are true or not regardless of whether or not we check. We're checking to see which it is. Our checking doesn't make them true. Our checking doesn't create correspondence. Rather, our checking verifies and/or falsifies the claim in question by virtue of checking for correspondence.

[Hobbes' Choice]

...if you agree that truth is a relationship then you also have to agree that it is created by that assessment.

No I do not, and no it is not.

Then we have nothing left to talk about.

[creativesoul]

Gratuitous assertions won't do Hobbes. I've justified my part. Where's yours?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Gratuitous assertions won't do Hobbes. I've justified my part. Where's yours?

correct gratuitous assertions won't do.
Here's yours;"No I do not, and no it is not."

Please attend to my previous posts for my accurate descriptions of truth.

Before you do, ask yourself what sort of a thing is truth!
Is it like a rock? is it like sunlight?
No? Neither?
Then it is neither material nor is it energy!
The world is comprised of matter and energy.
So where is "truth". Where is it hiding?

[Terrapin Station]

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 . . .

Hence why I said that you should think about it. You don't know. Well, THINK for a moment about what would have to be the case for the above. Doing philosophy entails thinking about things that you haven't thought of before, pushing yourself to try to get a handle on what you believe to be the case about logical prerequisites, logical upshots, etc.

The idea that any views are not personal is nonsense. Everyone has whatever views they have because of their unique situatedness in the world, because of their unique background and abilities and experiences and interactions and activities and so on. When you ask a question such as you asked me, you're making or at least implying assumptions about my background and abilities and experiences and interactions and activities, etc. It's not a virtue if you don't think about this.

People will give you contextual clues to help answer those sorts of questions about them. But it's also a matter of common courtesy and the minimum of respect necessary to have any sort of productive conversation to not assume what you'd (have to) be assuming in this case.

[creativesoul]

Gratuitous assertions won't do Hobbes. I've justified my part. Where's yours?

correct gratuitous assertions won't do.
Here's yours;"No I do not, and no it is not."

Please attend to my previous posts for my accurate descriptions of truth.

Before you do, ask yourself what sort of a thing is truth!
Is it like a rock? is it like sunlight?
No? Neither?
Then it is neither material nor is it energy!
The world is comprised of matter and energy.
So where is "truth". Where is it hiding?

Cherry-picking an answer to you saying that since I agree it's a relationship then I must also agree that it's created by our assessment... I've argued/justified how/why it's not 'created' by assessment. That stands as a negation of your claim that it is. Do you have a rejoinder?

[creativesoul]

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 . . .

Hence why I said that you should think about it. You don't know. Well, THINK for a moment about what would have to be the case for the above. Doing philosophy entails thinking about things that you haven't thought of before, pushing yourself to try to get a handle on what you believe to be the case about logical prerequisites, logical upshots, etc.

The idea that any views are not personal is nonsense. Everyone has whatever views they have because of their unique situatedness in the world, because of their unique background and abilities and experiences and interactions and activities and so on. When you ask a question such as you asked me, you're making or at least implying assumptions about my background and abilities and experiences and interactions and activities, etc. It's not a virtue if you don't think about this.

People will give you contextual clues to help answer those sorts of questions about them. But it's also a matter of common courtesy and the minimum of respect necessary to have any sort of productive conversation to not assume what you'd (have to) be assuming in this case.

So, I take it that you will not answer the question?

[Terrapin Station]

I don't know . . .

Hence why I said that you should think about it. You don't know. Well, THINK for a moment about what would have to be the case for the above. Doing philosophy entails thinking about things that you haven't thought of before, pushing yourself to try to get a handle on what you believe to be the case about logical prerequisites, logical upshots, etc.

The idea that any views are not personal is nonsense. Everyone has whatever views they have because of their unique situatedness in the world, because of their unique background and abilities and experiences and interactions and activities and so on. When you ask a question such as you asked me, you're making or at least implying assumptions about my background and abilities and experiences and interactions and activities, etc. It's not a virtue if you don't think about this.

People will give you contextual clues to help answer those sorts of questions about them. But it's also a matter of common courtesy and the minimum of respect necessary to have any sort of productive conversation to not assume what you'd (have to) be assuming in this case.

So, I take it that you will not answer the question?

I'm far more interested in you answering what I'm asking you first. One of my primary aims in participating in a forum like this is to try to get people to think a bit more than they're currently thinking, and from some angles they're not currently considering.

But okay, if you want me to answer your question, I'll do it in a step-by-step manner where I can also encourage you to think a bit more (and where we can see just how much attention you've been paying):

First, would I say that any observable expression--so a spoken or written answer to a question about a book, say, is identical to meaning in some sense?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Gratuitous assertions won't do Hobbes. I've justified my part. Where's yours?

correct gratuitous assertions won't do.
Here's yours;"No I do not, and no it is not."

Please attend to my previous posts for my accurate descriptions of truth.

Before you do, ask yourself what sort of a thing is truth!
Is it like a rock? is it like sunlight?
No? Neither?
Then it is neither material nor is it energy!
The world is comprised of matter and energy.
So where is "truth". Where is it hiding?

Cherry-picking an answer to you saying that since I agree it's a relationship then I must also agree that it's created by our assessment... I've argued/justified how/why it's not 'created' by assessment. That stands as a negation of your claim that it is. Do you have a rejoinder?

DO you have an answer - obviously NOT.
Where and what is truth. You've avoided the question because the only reasonable answer means that you are wrong. The truth is NOT "out there", as I have said.
Now run along.

[creativesoul]

correct gratuitous assertions won't do.
Here's yours;"No I do not, and no it is not."

Please attend to my previous posts for my accurate descriptions of truth.

Before you do, ask yourself what sort of a thing is truth!
Is it like a rock? is it like sunlight?
No? Neither?
Then it is neither material nor is it energy!
The world is comprised of matter and energy.
So where is "truth". Where is it hiding?

Cherry-picking an answer to you saying that since I agree it's a relationship then I must also agree that it's created by our assessment... I've argued/justified how/why it's not 'created' by assessment. That stands as a negation of your claim that it is. Do you have a rejoinder?

DO you have an answer - obviously NOT.
Where and what is truth. You've avoided the question because the only reasonable answer means that you are wrong. The truth is NOT "out there", as I have said.
Now run along.

Here's where we agree...

Truth is a relationship(on my view, this notion is quite nuanced).

Here's where we disagree...

Truth is created by our assessment.

Now, I've argued for my own position regarding this, and in doing so also argued against yours.

Do you have a rejoinder?

[creativesoul]

So, I take it that you will not answer the question?

...One of my primary aims in participating in a forum like this is to try to get people to think a bit more than they're currently thinking, and from some angles they're not currently considering.

This dubiously presupposes that you know what others are currently thinking. That's an unjustifiable assumption coming from one who claims that there is no such thing as shared meaning.

First, would I say that any observable expression--so a spoken or written answer to a question about a book, say, is identical to meaning in some sense?

You're insisting that I make the same unwarranted assumptions about your position that you make about others'.

Just answer the question.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Cherry-picking an answer to you saying that since I agree it's a relationship then I must also agree that it's created by our assessment... I've argued/justified how/why it's not 'created' by assessment. That stands as a negation of your claim that it is. Do you have a rejoinder?

DO you have an answer - obviously NOT.
Where and what is truth. You've avoided the question because the only reasonable answer means that you are wrong. The truth is NOT "out there", as I have said.
Now run along.

Here's where we agree...

Truth is a relationship(on my view, this notion is quite nuanced).

Here's where we disagree...

Truth is created by our assessment.

Now, I've argued for my own position regarding this, and in doing so also argued against yours.

Do you have a rejoinder?

I have no rejoinder to a contradiction.
If truth is the correspondence between your interest and your perception, 'truth', is an idea, and ideas are not extra-somatic.
Truth is not matter or energy, but and idea, ideas are things of the mind not of the external world.
Like I suggested before, run along.
I do not know how more simply I can explain it to you.

[Terrapin Station]

creativesoul, based on your responses so far, in my opinion, you (a) have no real interest in thinking, and (b) couldn't really care less about my views as my views--because if you did, you'd be able to answer that last question I asked.

The combo of (a) and (b) makes it so that I have no interest in any back and forth with you.