Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:It doesn't follow, so there's at least one missing premise and/or conclusion/inference implied....

Set out what you say is obvious.

It does not have to follow.

Set out what you say is obvious.

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

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

You asked how does "correspondence requires being conceived of".
It is the same thing as "correspondence requires thought" - I.E. being conceived of.

Why are you asking this ridiculous question?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:Truth is correspondence.
Correspondence is a relationship.
Correspondence requires thought/belief.

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

You asked how does "correspondence requires being conceived of".
It is the same thing as "correspondence requires thought" - I.E. being conceived of.

Why are you asking this ridiculous question?

Well, amongst other things Hobbes, it is prudent to seek an answer that sheds light upon that which has went heretofore unspoken(presupposition). As you've just stated, and I suspected and first mentioned several pages back and then again just a few posts ago(a careful re-read will confirm this), you're neglecting to draw and maintain the crucial distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. As a consequence from that neglect, you've semantically/ontologically equated "requires being conceived of" with "requires thought/belief". They are not equivalent.

To understand what I'm saying requires first arriving at what ought be obvious to us all. Do you acknowledge that thought/belief is not the same thing as thinking about thought/belief? It's not that difficult to understand, on my view. It's more like simple common sense. Thinking about thought/belief is existentially contingent upon thought/belief... necessarily so. There are no exceptions. Put a bit differently, each and every case of thinking about thought/belief requires pre-existing thought/belief. So, thought/belief is prior to thinking about thought/belief.

Are you with me so far?

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:Truth is correspondence.
Correspondence is a relationship.
Correspondence requires thought/belief.

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

You asked how does "correspondence requires being conceived of".
It is the same thing as "correspondence requires thought" - I.E. being conceived of.

Why are you asking this ridiculous question?

Well, amongst other things Hobbes, it is prudent to seek an answer that sheds light upon that which has went heretofore unspoken(presupposition). As you've just stated, and I suspected and first mentioned several pages back and then again just a few posts ago(a careful re-read will confirm this), you're neglecting to draw and maintain the crucial distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. As a consequence from that neglect, you've semantically/ontologically equated "requires being conceived of" with "requires thought/belief". They are not equivalent.

To understand what I'm saying requires first arriving at what ought be obvious to us all. Do you acknowledge that thought/belief is not the same thing as thinking about thought/belief? It's not that difficult to understand, on my view. It's more like simple common sense. Thinking about thought/belief is existentially contingent upon thought/belief... necessarily so. There are no exceptions. Put a bit differently, each and every case of thinking about thought/belief requires pre-existing thought/belief. So, thought/belief is prior to thinking about thought/belief.

Are you with me so far?

Yes, you are doing a great job of obfuscating. When you come to the point about how this is relevant to the discussion we can talk again.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You asked how does "correspondence requires being conceived of".
It is the same thing as "correspondence requires thought" - I.E. being conceived of.

Why are you asking this ridiculous question?

Well, amongst other things Hobbes, it is prudent to seek an answer that sheds light upon that which has went heretofore unspoken(presupposition). As you've just stated, and I suspected and first mentioned several pages back and then again just a few posts ago(a careful re-read will confirm this), you're neglecting to draw and maintain the crucial distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. As a consequence from that neglect, you've semantically/ontologically equated "requires being conceived of" with "requires thought/belief". They are not equivalent.

To understand what I'm saying requires first arriving at what ought be obvious to us all. Do you acknowledge that thought/belief is not the same thing as thinking about thought/belief? It's not that difficult to understand, on my view. It's more like simple common sense. Thinking about thought/belief is existentially contingent upon thought/belief... necessarily so. There are no exceptions. Put a bit differently, each and every case of thinking about thought/belief requires pre-existing thought/belief. So, thought/belief is prior to thinking about thought/belief.

Are you with me so far?

Yes, you are doing a great job of obfuscating. When you come to the point about how this is relevant to the discussion we can talk again.

Conceptions of "truth" require thinking about thought/belief. Correspondence does not.

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:
Well, amongst other things Hobbes, it is prudent to seek an answer that sheds light upon that which has went heretofore unspoken(presupposition). As you've just stated, and I suspected and first mentioned several pages back and then again just a few posts ago(a careful re-read will confirm this), you're neglecting to draw and maintain the crucial distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. As a consequence from that neglect, you've semantically/ontologically equated "requires being conceived of" with "requires thought/belief". They are not equivalent.

To understand what I'm saying requires first arriving at what ought be obvious to us all. Do you acknowledge that thought/belief is not the same thing as thinking about thought/belief? It's not that difficult to understand, on my view. It's more like simple common sense. Thinking about thought/belief is existentially contingent upon thought/belief... necessarily so. There are no exceptions. Put a bit differently, each and every case of thinking about thought/belief requires pre-existing thought/belief. So, thought/belief is prior to thinking about thought/belief.

Are you with me so far?

Yes, you are doing a great job of obfuscating. When you come to the point about how this is relevant to the discussion we can talk again.

Conceptions of "truth" require thinking about thought/belief. Correspondence does not.

Duh. You cannot even say correspondence, let alone recognise it without thought.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

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.

No such word dipshit!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

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.

No, but as usual you kick your argument in it's ass. That anything you say corresponds to any truth or any real consequence whatsoever, is surely fortuitous. You're arguments are so utterly illogical the majority of the time. Doesn't your dumb ass understand, that if what you said above is true, then there is no truth in what you said? You sound like a drunk most of the time.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You asked how does "correspondence requires being conceived of".
It is the same thing as "correspondence requires thought" - I.E. being conceived of.

Why are you asking this ridiculous question?

Well, amongst other things Hobbes, it is prudent to seek an answer that sheds light upon that which has went heretofore unspoken(presupposition). As you've just stated, and I suspected and first mentioned several pages back and then again just a few posts ago(a careful re-read will confirm this), you're neglecting to draw and maintain the crucial distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. As a consequence from that neglect, you've semantically/ontologically equated "requires being conceived of" with "requires thought/belief". They are not equivalent.

To understand what I'm saying requires first arriving at what ought be obvious to us all. Do you acknowledge that thought/belief is not the same thing as thinking about thought/belief? It's not that difficult to understand, on my view. It's more like simple common sense. Thinking about thought/belief is existentially contingent upon thought/belief... necessarily so. There are no exceptions. Put a bit differently, each and every case of thinking about thought/belief requires pre-existing thought/belief. So, thought/belief is prior to thinking about thought/belief.

Are you with me so far?

Yes, you are doing a great job of obfuscating. When you come to the point about how this is relevant to the discussion we can talk again.

Then you actually have the balls to try and punish someone by threatening to not have interest it what they say, unless they say it your way. Can your dumb ass say blackmail, or embezzlement? You're the biggest coward on this site.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
When you come to the point about how this is relevant to the discussion we can talk again.

Conceptions of "truth" require thinking about thought/belief. Correspondence does not.

Duh. You cannot even say correspondence, let alone recognise it without thought.

Keep up with the discussion you're involved in for Pete's sake. You're making yourself look bad.

You're failing - once again - to draw and maintain the meaningful distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. Talking requires language. Recognizing correspondence requires a conception of "truth"(as correspondence). Conceptions of "truth" require thinking about thought/belief. Correspondence does not.

What it takes to utter the term "correspondence" is utterly irrelevant. We're talking about necessary and sufficient conditions for correspondence(the relationship not the conception thereof). What's at issue is what it takes for correspondence to exist(what it takes for thought/belief to be true), not what it takes for us to be aware of that or what it takes in order for us to talk about.

Again... I suspected and asserted a few pages back that you were confusing what being true takes with what our awareness of that takes, failing to draw and maintain the distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief.

That is still the case, and the emaciated understanding you've shown proves that much.



There are other ways to approach this. They've been skirted around, but it seems that elucidation is needed here...

Thought/belief is true(or not) prior to and regardless of whether or not we check. From that it is obvious that our checking does not make thought/belief and statements true. We cannot check for correspondence without a conception of "truth". So, verification/falsification methods require conceptions of truth. However, thought/belief and statements thereof are true(or not) regardless of whether or not we check. So, it is clear that a statement can be true without the utterer of the statement having ever conceived of "truth". That is, a thought/belief and/or statement thereof can correspond to fact/reality even if it is the case that the thinking/believing agent has no conception of "truth"(as correspondence)...

Edit mistake

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:
Conceptions of "truth" require thinking about thought/belief. Correspondence does not.

Duh. You cannot even say correspondence, let alone recognise it without thought.

Keep up with the discussion you're involved in for Pete's sake. You're making yourself look bad.

I'll leave, looking bad to you, you do it so well.

You are suffering from a category error. What you take to be a distinction in kind is a difference in hierarchy.
Dogs are not cats. Dogs are animals, you are saying, therefore cats are not animals, because dogs are not cats.
But dogs and cats are subsets of animals.
Think it over. You are being ridiculous.

I'm not arguing about dogs and cats. Set out the category error you think/believe I'm making.

truth is what is morally right and has a standard of being just and faithful to the principles of heart and relation that make life worthy joy. What is faithful to all living things and is loyal to commitments of the heart is true if just for all. Otherwise you are referring to a purely logical condition that is fact.