Philosophy Now Forum

does the same thing to any naked hand thrust into it, no matter the 'mental language' of the hand-owner. There's seven billion plus opinions about reality but there's only one reality.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:37 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:53 pmI really don't think it's contentious. It's what people do. They hear a proposition and they either accept it, or they don't.

Well, it just begs another question: what does it mean to "accept" or "deny" a proposition?

Really?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:37 pmWhat do people who accept the proposition "Truth is Absolute" do?

They accept it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:37 pmWhat do people who deny the proposition "Truth is Absolute" do?

They deny it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:37 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:53 pmGo for it.

I'll let the Philosophers know.

Again: go for it.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:16 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:37 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:53 pmI really don't think it's contentious. It's what people do. They hear a proposition and they either accept it, or they don't.

Well, it just begs another question: what does it mean to "accept" or "deny" a proposition?

Really?

Yeah. Really.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:16 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:37 pmWhat do people who accept the proposition "Truth is Absolute" do?

They accept it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:37 pmWhat do people who deny the proposition "Truth is Absolute" do?

They deny it.

Isn't that a tad circular?

What do you think it means to accept or deny a proposition?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:11 pm There's seven billion plus opinions about reality but there's only one reality.

OK. Describe this "one reality" in a language/vocabulary that all 7+ billion people will agree with.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:11 pm does the same thing to any naked hand thrust into it

Tell us what does to a hand in a way that a physicist, chemist and a doctor would all agree.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:20 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:16 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:37 pm Well, it just begs another question: what does it mean to "accept" or "deny" a proposition?

Really?

Yeah. Really.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:16 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:37 pmWhat do people who accept the proposition "Truth is Absolute" do?

They accept it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:37 pmWhat do people who deny the proposition "Truth is Absolute" do?

They deny it.

Isn't that a tad circular?

What do you think it means to accept or deny a proposition?

Oh fuck, you're editing again. Tell ya what, let us know when you are happy with your response, and I'll deal with that one.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:27 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:20 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:16 pm Really?

Yeah. Really.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:16 pm They accept it.
They deny it.

Isn't that a tad circular?

What do you think it means to accept or deny a proposition?

Oh fuck, you're editing again. Tell ya what, let us know when you are happy with your response, and I'll deal with that one.

The one you responded to works.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:28 pmThe one you responded to works.

Great! So what's the problem?

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:31 pm Great! So what's the problem?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:20 pm What do you think it means to accept or deny a proposition?

Describe this "one reality" in a language/vocabulary that all 7+ billion people will agree with.

Tell us what does to a hand in a way that a physicist, chemist and a doctor would all agree.

don't have to: a burn is a burn, no matter who is burned, no matter the opinion on the burn

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:33 pm don't have to: a burn is a burn, no matter who is burned, no matter the opinion on the burn

The doctor agrees with your description.
The physicist and the chemist disagree.

Your language fails to capture the thermodynamic and endothermic nuances of the situation.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:33 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:31 pm Great! So what's the problem?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:20 pm What do you think it means to accept or deny a proposition?

Well, the contentious word here is deny. Belief or acceptance of a proposition really isn't hard, in my books. Deny, on the other hand, is often taken to imply asserting the contrary. It needn't; it just means not believing.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:44 pm Well, the contentious word here is deny.

Not for me. I am contending the meaning of "believing".

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:44 pm it just means not believing.

You are going around in circles.

What do you mean by "believing" and "not believing"?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 5:00 pmWhat do you mean by "believing" and "not believing"?

I'll keep it brief. By "believing" and "not believing", I mean believing and not believing.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:35 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:33 pm don't have to: a burn is a burn, no matter who is burned, no matter the opinion on the burn

The doctor agrees with your description.
The physicist and the chemist disagree.

Your language fails to capture the thermodynamic and endothermic nuances of the situation.

anyone can disagree as they like: a burned hand speaks for itself

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:40 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:00 pm It only undermines false claims of absolute truth.
What it happily does is limit absolute truth, restricting it to reasonable boundaries, by indicating contexts.

Quine concludes that there are "possibly infinite" ontologies. Therefore there are "possibly infinite" truths.

That's not a limit.

If that is an accurate description of what Quine says (which I doubt) then Quine is a fool.