The Philosophy Discussion Forum

puto wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2024 10:05 am Conceptions are present or absent, and are conscious in the mind. Properly called ideas are the representations. Science is a name for knowledge defined in a particular way. Philosophers are the ones left with the questions, and then answer them. Logic deals with the ideas conceived in the mind, called a method.

Well put. Makes a lot of sense to me anyway.

puto wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2024 10:05 am Conceptions are present or absent, and are conscious in the mind. Properly called ideas are the representations. Science is a name for knowledge defined in a particular way. Philosophers are the ones left with the questions, and then answer them. Logic deals with the ideas conceived in the mind, called a method.

Science never deals with Truth, nor with what is True.

Truth, I know how to find it now accordingly.

Using, logic I am going to live logically or at least change.

[quote=commonsense post_id=740105 time=1731609343 user_id=14610]
How is JTB a step too far?

Is some component unnecessary in discovering Truth?
[/quote]

Justified True Belief means justified belief that also adheres to the ultimate transcendent reality of a thing. That is an untouchable benchmark and therefore flatly irrelevant.

You can also know that knowledge is always and only justified belief from the other side, bc when your have sufficient information to accept a particular fact or take a particular action, there's no Reason for more. Justified belief is both necessary and sufficient and JTB is neither.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 11:56 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 7:35 pm How is JTB a step too far?

Is some component unnecessary in discovering Truth?

Justified True Belief means justified belief that also adheres to the ultimate transcendent reality of a thing. That is an untouchable benchmark and therefore flatly irrelevant.

You can also know that knowledge is always and only justified belief from the other side, bc when your have sufficient information to accept a particular fact or take a particular action, there's no Reason for more. Justified belief is both necessary and sufficient and JTB is neither.

Justified belief includes false belief. By omission.

All meaning and measures are of a subjective nature; there is no other way of coming to know the world. As reactionary creatures, we can never escape the subjectivity of our biological natures. Our apparent reality is not truly what is out there, but how what is out there changes/alters our subjective biological consciousness. The body is the first idea of the mind as it reads the alterations coming from the outside world. It is, in essence, a biological readout of the effects of the outside world. We read the state of our bodies for knowledge of what is out there, and it gives us a simulation a biological understanding. Apparent reality depends upon the nature of what is out there and the nature of the constitution of the biological organism. Subject and object stand or fall together; apparent reality is your biological reactions to the outer world. What is objective is what is out there, uninterpreted by biology, but we do not know it as such.

[quote="Martin Peter Clarke" post_id=774010 time=1748471651 user_id=26569]
Justified belief includes false belief. By omission.
[/quote]

If the most justified belief in the moment doesn't count as knowledge the idea of knowledge is arbitrary, again, based on an ineffable, hypothetical future validation. Knowledge can ONLY be justified belief. Anything more stringent is not available in the moment of choice, where the idea of knowledge is relevant.

For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 9:35 am For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective.

That statement is the only known truth.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 4:14 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 9:35 am For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective.

That statement is the only known truth.

But if there is a truth -- ANY truth, even one -- such as popeye's statement or your agreement with him, then subjectivism isn't true. There IS one objective truth, then...and it's that "For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective."

But then, the content of that statement, the meaning of it, cannot possibly be objectively true, since it denies there's any such thing as the objective truth. So it is not objectively true that "For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective."

Which is to say, it has to be false. There can be no other logical conclusion.

Epistemic subjectivism is thus self-defeating. If it were true, it would entail its own falsity. So it cannot be true.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 7:43 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 4:14 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 9:35 am For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective.

That statement is the only known truth.

But if there is a truth -- ANY truth, even one -- such as popeye's statement or your agreement with him, then subjectivism isn't true. There IS one objective truth, then...and it's that "For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective."

But then, the content of that statement, the meaning of it, cannot possibly be objectively true, since it denies there's any such thing as the objective truth. So it is not objectively true that "For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective."

Which is to say, it has to be false. There can be no other logical conclusion.

Epistemic subjectivism is thus self-defeating. If it were true, it would entail its own falsity. So it cannot be true.

You are quite right to pick up on the epistemological acquiring of knowledge of a claimed truth would entail its own falsity.
Because known truths are just opinions or reflections, or finite limited beliefs, which fall short of absolute truth.

A known truth is never the absolute ineffable unknowable unclaimed truth.

Claimed truths are known truths. Known truths are theories based on Knowledge.

The Absolute is not a theory.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 7:43 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 4:14 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 9:35 am For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective.

That statement is the only known truth.

But if there is a truth -- ANY truth, even one -- such as Popeye's statement or your agreement with him, then subjectivism isn't true. There IS one objective truth, then...and it's that "For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective."

But then, the content of that statement, the meaning of it, cannot possibly be objectively true, since it denies there's any such thing as the objective truth. So it is not objectively true that "For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective."

Which is to say, it has to be false. There can be no other logical conclusion.

Epistemic subjectivism is thus self-defeating. If it were true, it would entail its own falsity. So it cannot be true.

Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and the only source of meaning in the world. All meaning is subjective. In the absence of subjective consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2026 5:46 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 7:43 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 4:14 pm

That statement is the only known truth.

But if there is a truth -- ANY truth, even one -- such as popeye's statement or your agreement with him, then subjectivism isn't true. There IS one objective truth, then...and it's that "For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective."

But then, the content of that statement, the meaning of it, cannot possibly be objectively true, since it denies there's any such thing as the objective truth. So it is not objectively true that "For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective."

Which is to say, it has to be false. There can be no other logical conclusion.

Epistemic subjectivism is thus self-defeating. If it were true, it would entail its own falsity. So it cannot be true.

You are quite right to pick up on the epistemological acquiring of knowledge of a claimed truth would entail its own falsity.
Because known truths are just opinions or reflections, or finite limited beliefs, which fall short of absolute truth.

There...what you just said...the thing in the line above this...is it the truth? Or is it just your own "opinion, reflection, and finite limited belief"?