Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
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?

We're a great pair aren't we?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote: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?

God, you're an idiot!

creativesoul wrote:
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?

Hobbes wrote:
I have no rejoinder to a contradiction.

There's no contradiction in what I've said, so this makes no sense as an answer. Incoherency(contradiction) is a measure of validity/internal consistency. What I've written contradicts part of what you've claimed, not what I've claimed.

If truth is the correspondence between your interest and your perception...

Not what I've claimed. Also different from what you've already claimed.

Again, here's where we agree...

Truth is a relationship.

Here's where we disagree...

Truth is created by our assessment.
Truth is an idea.

How do you square our agreement with the second of our disagreement? Relationships are not equivalent to ideas.

Terrapin Station wrote: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.

Unjustified/unwarranted conclusions. Ad hominem. Red herring.



All while avoiding answering a simple question regarding how everyday events place the truth of one of your stances in doubt.

creativesoul wrote:

creativesoul wrote:
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?

Hobbes wrote:
I have no rejoinder to a contradiction.

There's no contradiction in what I've said, so this makes no sense as an answer. Incoherency(contradiction) is a measure of validity/internal consistency. What I've written contradicts part of what you've claimed, not what I've claimed.

If truth is the correspondence between your interest and your perception...

Not what I've claimed. Also different from what you've already claimed.

Again, here's where we agree...

Truth is a relationship.

Here's where we disagree...

Truth is created by our assessment.
Truth is an idea.

How do you square our agreement with the second of our disagreement? Relationships are not equivalent to ideas.

DUH.
You can't claim that truth is a relationship and also claim it is extrasomatic.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
DUH.
You can't claim that truth is a relationship and also claim it is extrasomatic.

Now you're arguing with an imaginary opponent. Bad form.

I have made no such claim, so the above is a prima facie example of a red herring. As mentioned before, when it comes to truth and meaning, I reject the internal/external dichotomy as well as the objective/subjective dichotomy. Neither are capable of properly taking an account of mental correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself. Truth and meaning consists entirely of such correlations. As such they consist of both subjective/internal and objective/external elements. Thus... they cannot be adequately taken account of by either side of either dichotomy.

Understand?




I asked you to square the two statements you made, and the above doesn't suffice. Here...

Truth is a relationship.
Truth is an idea.

How do you square those two statements with one another? How can correspondence be both?

Correspondence as a relationship needs no language, only thought/belief formation. Our becoming aware of that relationship does require language. "Truth" as correspondence is a conception(idea); it's the result of becoming aware of the role that correspondence plays in al thought/belief and the statements that follow. Correspondence(as the relationship) need not be taken account of. "Truth" as correspondence is our taking account of that relationship in much the same way that we take account of other relationships that also predate our ability to do so, such as causality, which also cannot be properly taken account of by the aforementioned dichotomies(thought/belief has efficacy). Just like A caused B can be the case prior to our awareness of that, so too can thought/belief correspond to fact/reality prior to our awareness of that.

creativesoul wrote:

Truth is a relationship.
Truth is an idea.

All relationships rest in the idea of the parts that combine them. Truth is a thing conceive by the fortuitous correspondence of the things related.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
All relationships rest in the idea of the parts that combine them.

Some... not all. Causality needs no idea of the cause or the effect.

Truth is a thing conceive by the fortuitous correspondence of the things related.

This aims in the right direction, but doesn't make much sense as it is written. Correspondence isn't capable of conceiving.

The conception of "truth"(as correspondence) is a recognition of the necessary presupposition of correspondence within thought/belief formation itself. All conceptions are linguistic constructs. That which is being conceived of is not necessarily. Correspondence does not need to be conceived of in order for it to be presupposed within thought/belief.

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
All relationships rest in the idea of the parts that combine them.

Some... not all.
Causality needs no idea of the cause or the effect.

Are you trying to imply that "causality" is a "relationship"?

Truth is a thing conceived by the fortuitous correspondence of the things related.

This aims in the right direction, but doesn't make much sense as it is written. Correspondence isn't capable of conceiving.

Not saying it is. I am saying truth is a thing conceived: read it again.
Only a mind can hold truth, so the correspondence can only reside in the mind. Think it over.

The conception of "truth"(as correspondence) is a recognition of the necessary presupposition of correspondence within thought/belief formation itself. All conceptions are linguistic constructs. That which is being conceived of is not necessarily. (not even a sentence). Correspondence does not need to be conceived of in order for it to be presupposed within thought/belief.

It obviously does as it is, as you say , a linguistic construct.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
All relationships rest in the idea of the parts that combine them.

Some... not all.
Causality needs no idea of the cause or the effect.

Are you trying to imply that "causality" is a "relationship"?

No. I'm rejecting the following statement...

"All relationships rest in the idea of the parts that combine them".

That statement is false. We need only consider causality in order to arrive at that.

Causal relationships are not all existentially contingent upon the idea of the parts that combine them. We know that they existed, certain events must have taken place, long before we spoke of them. Ideas require thought/belief. Some causal relationships do not. It only follows that some causal relationships do not require(are not existentially contingent upon) ideas. It cannot be the case that all relationships rest in the idea of the parts that combine them if some relationships do not. QED

Truth is a thing conceived by the fortuitous correspondence of the things related.

This aims in the right direction, but doesn't make much sense as it is written. Correspondence isn't capable of conceiving.

Not saying it is. I am saying truth is a thing conceived: read it again.

I'm saying that correspondence need not be conceived of. The term "correspondence" is not identical to the relationship being named.

only a mind can hold truth...

A textbook bewitchment of language...

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:
Some... not all.
Causality needs no idea of the cause or the effect.

Are you trying to imply that "causality" is a "relationship"?

No. I'm rejecting the following statement...

"All relationships rest in the idea of the parts that combine them".

That statement is false. We need only consider causality in order to arrive at that.

There is a problem with that, since causality is just another part of your narrative too.
So you are going round in circles

Causal relationships are not all existentially contingent upon the idea of the parts that combine them. We know that they existed, certain events must have taken place, long before we spoke of them. Ideas require thought/belief. Some causal relationships do not. It only follows that some causal relationships do not require(are not existentially contingent upon) ideas. It cannot be the case that all relationships rest in the idea of the parts that combine them if some relationships do not. QED

It is probably true that the things that constitute our thoughts, that give rise to our thought are external, hard, even indelible. However the narrative we make of them such are ALL 'relationships" are conceived in the mind and are applied with human interest and exist as thoughts. The sort of arrogance to think that what we think we see and conceive is the same as the things in the universe is exactly the reason that up to this point in history most of our sciences are wrong and we have had so much difficulty adapting and changing them.
The history of science is a long list of apparent success met with disillusion, and failure.

This aims in the right direction, but doesn't make much sense as it is written. Correspondence isn't capable of conceiving.

Not saying it is. I am saying truth is a thing conceived: read it again.

I'm saying that correspondence need not be conceived of. The term "correspondence" is not identical to the relationship being named.

Bollocks. To sentence One You are goal post changing here in sentence two. The things are not the correspondences

only a mind can hold truth...

A textbook bewitchment of language...

You know damn well I am right here. You are squirming.
The correspondence happens in the mind, you know that. And you know that what I am saying corresponds to your experience of it.

We agree on much more than we disagree, it seems.

Truth is correspondence.
Correspondence is a relationship.
Correspondence requires thought/belief.

How do you get from there to correspondence requires being conceived of?

creativesoul wrote:We agree on much more than we disagree, it seems.

Truth is correspondence.
Correspondence is a relationship.
Correspondence requires thought/belief.

How do you get from there to correspondence requires being conceived of?

I can't even believe you are asking the question it is so obvious.

It doesn't follow, so there's at least one missing premise and/or conclusion/inference implied. I suspect, as I mentioned several pages back, that you're conflating what being true takes with what our awareness of that takes. You're mistakenly working from the idea that thought/belief requires being conceived of... I could be wrong but I strongly suspect that you've followed convention's mistake of not drawing and maintaing the crucial distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. That is... the conventional notion of thought/belief has an inherent inability to distinguish between cognition and metacognition. That's my well considered suspicion... I could be wrong.

Set out what you say is obvious.

creativesoul wrote:It doesn't follow, so there's at least one missing premise and/or conclusion/inference implied. I suspect, as I mentioned several pages back, that you're conflating what being true takes with what our awareness of that takes. You're mistakenly working from the idea that thought/belief requires being conceived of... I could be wrong but I strongly suspect that you've followed convention's mistake of not drawing and maintaing the crucial distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. That is... the conventional notion of thought/belief has an inherent inability to distinguish between cognition and metacognition. That's my well considered suspicion... I could be wrong.

Set out what you say is obvious.

It does not have to follow. All the statements are so equivalently close to each other you cannot put a fag paper between them