Philosophy Now Forum

...just asking: why 'The cup is on the table' is a true statement IFF the cup is on the table?

Because that is how thought/belief and language works. It is that simple. If the cup is not on the table, then the statement 'The cup is on the table' is false. The cup cannot be both, on the table, and not on the table simultaneously. 'The cup is on the table' sets out the way things are, if the way things are is such that the cup is not on the table, then it does not hold good.

Regarding that which is imperceptible with the naked eye, and therefore possibly unknown... One need not know anything at all about QM in order for that statement(the cup is on the table) to obtain. Nor does knowledge of QM change the states of affairs such that it negates the claim. The strange 'world' of QM is the same world as the one we observe with our eyes. No matter which electron is excited enough to emit a photon, the cup is still red. The issues that have arisen due to our knowing more about the subatomic 'world' simply do not affect/effect the macro world in such a way as to deny our knowledge of it.

On the matter of 'subjective' perception/interpretation... The cup is red, not because we perceive it to be, but rather the cup is red because the properties which belong to the cup reflect that particular bandwidth of the visible spectrum, while absorbing others, and we take an account of it. It would be reflecting that bandwidth(or not) even if we were not looking. The fact that it is also reflecting other, imperceptible bandwidths, does not negate the fact that it is reflecting the one which we can perceive. The fact that we are perceiving that bandwidth is what makes the claim 'The cup is red' true. Just like the case with 'The cup is on the table', the statement 'The cup is red', or any other statement for that matter, is true by virtue of it's obtaining universal states of affairs. Our knowledge of those affairs need not be complete in order for us to make true statements about them. A fact is a state of affairs that obtains in reality. A true statement is one that corresponds to reality/fact. Therefore, a fact would be the underlying metaphysical property of the universe and/or its contents in virtue of which a proposition has its truth value.

The opposing argument/skeptic will sometimes attempt to use the fact that we cannot perceive all that makes the cup what it is as ground for saying that our knowledge is incomplete. That is a true statement, our knowledge is incomplete. I grant the whole argument. Knowledge is accumulated. Therefore, it must be incomplete. Omniscience is not required for knowledge. If it were, we could never know anything. I know that I am typing a response to what constitutes, on my view, to be a rather confused set of counterarguments.

Regarding the 'aspect' of fluidity... As the cup physically changes, so too does it's appearance. As that change reaches perceptible proportions we take an account of it. As is demonstrated when the sun's rays hasten the deterioration of the cup in such a way that the molecules begin to reflect and absorb different bandwidths(the redness fades). As that occurs the redness of the cup, gradually, becomes less and less intense. It does not follow from the fact that we cannot perceive all that constitutes being the cup, or what the cup is becoming, that that which we can perceive does not obtain. While it is true that the cup always changes, it does not follow that we cannot make true claims about it. For if that were so, our knowledge of the cup changing could not be had.

My point in all of this is to make it very clear that an objection to truth/knowledge based upon the notion that our knowledge is incomplete is no objection worthy of much consideration. Nor does a claim to knowledge require immutibility or omniscience as the opposition would like to have us believe.

Satyr wrote: My, dear, man. I have already given you the solution.

like "followed by the same prescribed answers, the same old Jewish crap, delivered to them on a christian platter, they become disillusioned."? and what about your own model? is there a pattern of preaching to the deaf? dont be sad, theres always some sceptics in every bigger picture of people, i ques.

I've been telling shit to arousing_princess for years, nothing has seeped through.

maybe she dont like that kind of tales? would you be happy if otherwise? i personally like all kind of fart stories. i get funny taste to my mouth about all poop stories. butt thats just me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-z05l12WX4

Awesome... farts and poop.

Brilliant philosophical discussion.

creativesoul wrote:Awesome... farts and poop.

Brilliant philosophical discussion.

philosophy to the people! like latin bible. little bit of taste of life to philosophy is ok? not?

Naw, bruddah...

I'm good. Just made me laugh.

I think if one is a truthful person like Kant insisted one should be one would have no problem seeing the truth. It is also those who aren't truthful with themselves who have trouble seeing the truth.

If you fool yourself the world fools you.

Satyr:

If philosophy, as the search for wisdom, is not interested in reality free from personal tastes and social/cultural conventions, then what is it good for?

Wisdom, by my lights, is a product of habit. Specifically of habitually putting knowledge to good use, or at least knowing how to do such a thing. It does not - cannot - exist independently of thought/belief. It need not be necessarily presupposed for thought/belief or experience.

I think a better question to ask is...

What does reality "free from personal tastes and social/cultural conventions" even look like? We cannot say because our capability to communicate is a matter of social convention. Language is social. However, that is not to say that we cannot establish that which corresponds to subjective tastes/preferences and that which obtains regardless of those. Rather, it is only to say that we must carefully parse out the differences.

creativesoul wrote: Because that is how thought/belief and language works. It is that simple. If the cup is not on the table, then the statement 'The cup is on the table' is false. The cup cannot be both, on the table, and not on the table simultaneously.

works, in your model? fits like a copy or image in the mirror? sounds like that your model uses quite an old basic logic, that is also maybe getting better some day, to tell how language and thought/belief works? like one of my wife says that you should listen to your wives? sounds a bit corresponding reality of underlying metaphysical property of the womens universe-model and its truth value to all men? self-proofing itself?

A fact is a state of affairs that obtains in reality. A true statement is one that corresponds to reality/fact. Therefore, a fact would be the underlying metaphysical property of the universe and/or its contents in virtue of which a proposition has its truth value.

Knowledge is accumulated.

like a landslide or chain reaction? what if, those shrinks are like scientists telling us that we are getting better and better? that the direction is right from where they see it, better and better ? what if some nuts tell the same to you? - yes, keep going to that direction where no man has ever gone and keep accelerating! have a nice day, i urge you romans!

Satyr wrote: I've been telling shit to arousing_princess for years, nothing has seeped through.
She still thinks masculinity is about her penis and her guns.

That'll be you canucks as it happens mate, I'll bet my last pound you own one.

The trouble with you birdbrain is that you think you're the only one who has realised the implications of Nietzsche's thought upon Darwin, the only one who's accepted Darwin, the only one who's faced nihilism, the only one who understands there is no absolute 'truth', that objectivity is intra and inter-subjectivity. So much so that it blinds you to who you are talking to and you parrot your responses whilst imagining your ideal opponent.

I pretty much think that myself and I guess cs agree with much of what you say but its that you're still railing that gets my goat. That and that you are what Wittgenstein calls the pessimist rather than the optimist in your thought and remember that he said that we occupy very different worlds. For example, you ignore Darwins words upon co-operation with respect to us and 'nature' whilst concentrating upon competition. I think because you need it to justify your place at the top of this imaginary genetic 'nature' tree that you witter on about so much.

You witter on about there being no 'truth' whilst claiming truth with everything you say and the only reason why this sounds wrong is because language is an 'abstraction' upon a reality that cannot be truthfully abstracted about. But if so what matter!!

Personally I think we could agree upon much but the difference is that you want the path we make to be one that suits your own cultural experience and suits your own emotions and experiences upon things, never mind all this guff you talk about being the one who has stepped outside of his box, who in their right mind believes this can ever be possible numbnuts.

You make much of the failings of academic philosphy but I doubt you've ever studied it, rather, like many bright things, you rail at an institution that you have no experience of. But I agree with your idea that once you've studied it seriously one has to find its purpose for oneself, and for me it is phenomenology and for you it appears to be metaphysics.

Personally, you obviously have an agenda and so far I'm opposed to it.

Could be wrong tho' but its a waste of time asking you as you just lose it every time and start talking to yourself.

The horizon IS level to the earth...and to our sight...therefore the earth IS flat.

No, wait...the cup IS on the table, and since nothing appears to be moving, it is a Truth.

You got it wrong here Satyr. It does not follow from "since nothing appears to be moving" that the cup is on the table is true. Nor need it - which is the point being made. Strawman.

The cup is on the the table, despite the fact that it is 'moving'. The two are not mutually exclusive propositions. The cup is on the table even though both are moving in the same and in different ways none-the-less. The cup is still on the table. The molecular deterioration of the cup is in relation to itself, thus as the cup deteriorates, it is still on the table(assuming the table's molecular structure remains intact enough to support the mass of the cup). Both hold the same x, y, and z Cartesian coordinates on the surface of the earth(or at least close enough for this example to work). The earth and everything on it is moving in relation to the rest of the solar system. The solar system and everything in it is moving in relation to the rest of the universe.

And given all of this... the cup is still on the table.

It is there, all there...but what is there?...never-mind...it is so.
What the fuck are you people doing in a philosophy forum?

Making sense out of nonsense. And you?

Metal looks like it is immutable therefore it must be. It is immortal, a static.
Look at it, damn you!!! Is it moving; does it look like it is changing to you?!!!

Look...the sun IS rotating around the earth, therefore it IS just so. The stars look to be doing the same...therefore the earth IS the center of the universe.
Can't you see it? It's, fuckin', obvious, man?!!!

Putting forth these kinds of 'arguments' in support for your own position is laughable, and borders on intellectual dishonesty. Address what has been written rather than making up all kinds of nonsense which was not claimed, nor does it follow from what has been claimed. You're not very good at justifying your position, are you?

creative wrote:

Because that is how thought/belief and language works. It is that simple. If the cup is not on the table, then the statement 'The cup is on the table' is false. The cup cannot be both, on the table, and not on the table simultaneously.

Mark:

works, in your model? fits like a copy or image in the mirror? sounds like that your model uses quite an old basic logic, that is also maybe getting better some day, to tell how language and thought/belief works? like one of my wife says that you should listen to your wives? sounds a bit corresponding reality of underlying metaphysical property of the womens universe-model and its truth value to all men? self-proofing itself?

I'm not sure that I understand what it is that you're saying. I would like to note here, that it is not my model, merely the one I am currently using. It is influenced by Kant, Witt, and Davidson, among others. Are you saying that the cup can be both, on the table and not on the table simultaneously? If so, what would that look like, or rather - how could that be?

creative:

A fact is a state of affairs that obtains in reality. A true statement is one that corresponds to reality/fact. Therefore, a fact would be the underlying metaphysical property of the universe and/or its contents in virtue of which a proposition has its truth value.

Knowledge is accumulated.

Mark:

like a landslide or chain reaction?

More like a structural ongoing revisitation.

what if, those shrinks are like scientists telling us that we are getting better and better? that the direction is right from where they see it, better and better ? what if some nuts tell the same to you? - yes, keep going to that direction where no man has ever gone and keep accelerating! have a nice day, i urge you romans!

Hell, I dunno... What if?

Mark Question wrote:like "followed by the same prescribed answers, the same old Jewish crap, delivered to them on a christian platter, they become disillusioned."?

When living in Rome you either wear the robes and frequent the squares or you exit the city.
But there is no exit in this world, as no more frontiers exist, nor are any accessible.

Mark Question wrote:and what about your own model? is there a pattern of preaching to the deaf? dont be sad, theres always some sceptics in every bigger picture of people, i ques.

These specimens are but a means to an end. Three functions they serve:

1- Venting.
Living in a world of civility and the bullshit and hypocrisy it entails one requires a release.

2- Displaying.
They become examples of what I am describing. Living breathing, interactive proof.
I use them, expecting exactly what they offer, so as to show them up to whomever has eyes for it.

3- Testing.
Sometimes, but rarely, one comes up with an angle that I had not come across, forcing me to question my model and to adjust it or reevaluate it.
This used to happen more often back in the day when I was still exploring my model's implications and all its crevices.

"The cup is on the table" and it is so because of Cartesian coordinates, is nothing of any significance.
A map setting, which this retarded mind considers a universal "truth", along with the human standards it uses to justify it,...is it THE Truth or just Truth?
Perhaps he was speaking on God's behalf.

Mark Question wrote:maybe she dont like that kind of tales? would you be happy if otherwise? i personally like all kind of fart stories. i get funny taste to my mouth about all poop stories. butt thats just me.

Listen to her latest mind-fart...and imagine what a 6'2" woman's frame can produce:

Princess wrote:The trouble with you birdbrain is that you think you're the only one who has realised the implications of Nietzsche's thought upon Darwin, the only one who's accepted Darwin, the only one who's faced nihilism, the only one who understands there is no absolute 'truth', that objectivity is intra and inter-subjectivity.

Now, the girl is telling me she agrees with me, but her only disagreement is that I've claimed to be the "only one".

Princess wrote:I pretty much think that myself and I guess cs agree with much of what you say but its that you're still railing that gets my goat.

Then she proceeds to explain how my penis made her, and the boy, cum.

See, she does not even realize what the implications are, as the abstraction is where she stops.

Then she offers a simplistic encapsulation, followed by a casual emotional dismissal:

Princess wrote:You witter on about there being no 'truth' whilst claiming truth with everything you say and the only reason why this sounds wrong is because language is an 'abstraction' upon a reality that cannot be truthfully abstracted about. But if so what matter!!

"What matter", indeed.
This is mostly mind-candy, as these retards only come here to pass the time, with mind-farts, and none of it has any personal implications.

The status quo is retained...and this is a way of...reaffirming their common bonds.

See what I mean twat.

All your 'venting', 'displaying', 'personal implications', et al can be summed up as your version of self-psychotheraputic analysis.

Don't be afraid now, if others agree with you, you'll still have your self-worth or is that loathing?
p.s.
If I was a 'deconstructuralist' I'd be having tres fun with what you ignore, the unsaid isn't it?

.


Don't know if this will help but I went ahead, got the cup, and put it back on the table.






...........................






.

The Goaturder wrote:...
But there is no exit in this world, as no more frontiers exist, nor are any accessible.

Aww! Boo...Boo's... You could always become a scientist.