What is truth?

[Terrapin Station]

Does that mean, truth is only a description.
OR
Does that mean the truth is really out there?

It means that Henry's view has problems.

That's a given. I was wondering what YOUR answer was.

I agree with the received view: truth is neither "out there" nor a description. It's a relational property with respect to propositions. What I don't agree with re the received view is that I believe the relational property only obtains via subjective judgment, hinging on subjective semantics, etc.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It means that Henry's view has problems.

That's a given. I was wondering what YOUR answer was.

I agree with the received view: truth is neither "out there" nor a description. It's a relational property with respect to propositions. What I don't agree with re the received view is that I believe the relational property only obtains via subjective judgment, hinging on subjective semantics, etc.

What do you take to mean 'objective' then?

[Terrapin Station]

That's a given. I was wondering what YOUR answer was.

I agree with the received view: truth is neither "out there" nor a description. It's a relational property with respect to propositions. What I don't agree with re the received view is that I believe the relational property only obtains via subjective judgment, hinging on subjective semantics, etc.

What do you take to mean 'objective' then?

Subjective = mental phenomena, with an emphasis on location (the location being brains functioning in mental ways)

Objective = everything else, the existential complement of brains functioning in mental ways.

[creativesoul]

Truth is in fact when one statement or account complies with your view of the world.

Conflating confirmation of belief with truth. A statement can comply with your view and be false. Truth cannot be false. Therefore...

It would only be false to you, not me. It would be true regardless of the material facts of the universe. And therein lies the problem of 'truth'.
Truth is almost always false, from a different POV.
Trump considers that immigrants are criminal rapists being parasitic on US society.
Others could say that immigrants have founded the US and have in all cases made the US what it is today.
Both statements are true.

There is no such thing as false for me and true for you... A statement is true(or not) regardless of whether or not it agrees with your(or my) belief. In your example both statements are true because some immigrants are rapists, and some are founders. There's no issue with both being true, for they do not conflict with one another. They are poorly constructed, but most common talk is.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I agree with the received view: truth is neither "out there" nor a description. It's a relational property with respect to propositions. What I don't agree with re the received view is that I believe the relational property only obtains via subjective judgment, hinging on subjective semantics, etc.

What do you take to mean 'objective' then?

Subjective = mental phenomena, with an emphasis on location (the location being brains functioning in mental ways)

Objective = everything else, the existential complement of brains functioning in mental ways.

How can you know objective stuff, since all you know is gained by mental phenomena?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Conflating confirmation of belief with truth. A statement can comply with your view and be false. Truth cannot be false. Therefore...

It would only be false to you, not me. It would be true regardless of the material facts of the universe. And therein lies the problem of 'truth'.
Truth is almost always false, from a different POV.
Trump considers that immigrants are criminal rapists being parasitic on US society.
Others could say that immigrants have founded the US and have in all cases made the US what it is today.
Both statements are true.

There is no such thing as false for me and true for you... A statement is true(or not) regardless of whether or not it agrees with your(or my) belief. In your example both statements are true because some immigrants are rapists, and some are founders. There's no issue with both being true, for they do not conflict with one another. They are poorly constructed, but most common talk is.

You are so obviously wrong, for all matters of value and judgement.

[Terrapin Station]

How can you know objective stuff, since all you know is gained by mental phenomena?

Say you're looking at a tree. Well, you know that objective thing by looking at it. There's absolutely no coherent reason to assume that you're not actually seeing the tree and that what you're seeing is mental phenomena instead. It wouldn't even be clear what the heck mental phenomena versus anything else would be if you assume something like that. And if that's not clear, then what would we even be claiming?

[Hobbes' Choice]

How can you know objective stuff, since all you know is gained by mental phenomena?

Say you're looking at a tree. Well, you know that objective thing by looking at it. There's absolutely no coherent reason to assume that you're not actually seeing the tree and that what you're seeing is mental phenomena instead. It wouldn't even be clear what the heck mental phenomena versus anything else would be if you assume something like that. And if that's not clear, then what would we even be claiming?

I am only ever perceiving. Perception is mental. I have no reason to think that my perception exhausts all that the tree could be. In fact I know that my perception of it is very partial, both literally and figuratively.
The fact, the objective fact of the tree is wholly derived from the fact that I it is the subject of my perceptual apparatus.
I have every reason to know that "seeing the tree" is mental.

Without other people I can never establish the objectivity of the tree, and I suggest that all things taken as objective rely on intercourse with other subjects with whom I can agree about the tree's characteristics, and properties. Though I can never see exactly the same tree having a different POV to another person, we can come to based our joint observations and offer an objective account.

so whilst there are objects 'out there', the truth is not.

[Terrapin Station]

I know that my perception of it is very partial, both literally and figuratively.
The fact, the objective fact of the tree is wholly derived from the fact that I it is the subject of my perceptual apparatus.
I have every reason to know that "seeing the tree" is mental.

So what are the reasons for any of this?

Without other people I can never establish the objectivity of the tree,

What's your justification for knowing other people?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I know that my perception of it is very partial, both literally and figuratively.
The fact, the objective fact of the tree is wholly derived from the fact that I it is the subject of my perceptual apparatus.
I have every reason to know that "seeing the tree" is mental.

So what are the reasons for any of this?

Without other people I can never establish the objectivity of the tree,

What's your justification for knowing other people?

What do you mean 'what are the reasons for any of this?" I'm not ducking- I just don't know what you are getting at.
If you mean how do I know what I have just said; it is an objective truth that we can only ever know what we like to call the outside world subjectively. Objectivity is not obvious, but gleaned through verification, with others. By examining others, and imagining that they are like us, can we rationally infer what we are born to take for granted. We are encouraged by others to take the objective world as a Johnsonian 'if i can kick it, it is real', but we have gained more by more fully understanding that all we know is via our subjection of the world via sensation and exists primarily as a mental event.


What is your justification for knowing anything is objective?

[Terrapin Station]

What do you mean 'what are the reasons for any of this?" . . . Objectivity is not obvious, but gleaned through verification, with others.

What I'm getting at is this: I say that objectivity is obvious, and that in includes that there are others in the first place.

You'd say this is wrong. Okay, well how would we establish that it's wrong? Why would I change my belief to "objectivity is not obvious" instead?

The justification for it being obvious is that I can look at, hear, smell, touch and taste things like rivers , other people, flowers, rocks, strawberries, etc.

[Terrapin Station]

Duplicate

[Terrapin Station]

Duplicate

[Terrapin Station]

Duplicate

[Terrapin Station]

Duplicate