What is truth?

[Terrapin Station]

I don't believe there's any reason to take noumena to be different than phenomena in cases where we don't have evidence supporting that some particular phenomenon was illusory..

Duuuuuuuuuh!

This is unforgivably naive. Exactly why I gave up on Terror Pin.

If only the opposite view could be justified (rather than just restated/fleshed out more).

[Hobbes' Choice]

I don't believe there's any reason to take noumena to be different than phenomena in cases where we don't have evidence supporting that some particular phenomenon was illusory..

Duuuuuuuuuh!

This is unforgivably naive. Exactly why I gave up on Terror Pin.

If only the opposite view could be justified (rather than just restated/fleshed out more).

State what you think is the 'opposite', and we shall see. The problem with what you said includes words that are rendered meaningless by your consideration.
It not about illusion, but partiality.

[Terrapin Station]

Duuuuuuuuuh!

This is unforgivably naive. Exactly why I gave up on Terror Pin.

If only the opposite view could be justified (rather than just restated/fleshed out more).

State what you think is the 'opposite', and we shall see . . .

Simply negate what I said: "There are reasons to take noumena to be different than phenomena in cases where we don't have evidence supporting that some particular phenomenon was illusory."

[creativesoul]

But the subjective/objective distinction does have some pertinence for meaning and truth; namely, both meaning and truth are subjective.

Truth is a relationship. Meaning consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself.

What, as precisely as possible, do you mean when you say "truth is subjective"? Define the term subjective for me, because I'm unsure how to make sense of much of the last reply.

I defined the terms at least one other time in this thread, but I know it's way too much stuff to read through. So quoting myself from another post of mine a few pages back:

Subjective = mental phenomena, that is, brains functioning in mental ways.

Objective = the complement of mental phenomena, or in other words--"everything else," everything that isn't a brain functioning in a mental way.

Truth value is a judgment about the relation between a proposition and something else, such as states of affairs if we use correspondence theory. In my view it's necessarily a judgment, because there's no objective relation (such as correspondence) between sets of marks on a screen, say, and other states of affairs. And part of the reason for that is that meaning and intentionality are things that only occur mentally.

So, truth is brains functioning in mental ways?

[Hobbes' Choice]

If only the opposite view could be justified (rather than just restated/fleshed out more).

State what you think is the 'opposite', and we shall see . . .

Simply negate what I said: "There are reasons to take noumena to be different than phenomena in cases where we don't have evidence supporting that some particular phenomenon was illusory."

You do not understand the terms you are using.

[Terrapin Station]

Truth is a relationship. Meaning consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself.

What, as precisely as possible, do you mean when you say "truth is subjective"? Define the term subjective for me, because I'm unsure how to make sense of much of the last reply.

I defined the terms at least one other time in this thread, but I know it's way too much stuff to read through. So quoting myself from another post of mine a few pages back:

Subjective = mental phenomena, that is, brains functioning in mental ways.

Objective = the complement of mental phenomena, or in other words--"everything else," everything that isn't a brain functioning in a mental way.

Truth value is a judgment about the relation between a proposition and something else, such as states of affairs if we use correspondence theory. In my view it's necessarily a judgment, because there's no objective relation (such as correspondence) between sets of marks on a screen, say, and other states of affairs. And part of the reason for that is that meaning and intentionality are things that only occur mentally.

So, truth is brains functioning in mental ways?

Read what you're quoting. "Brains functioning in mental ways" is a definition of "subjective" above, right? And then I give you a definition of "truth (value)." The definition I gave of truth value wasn't "brains functioning in mental ways." It's rather WRITTEN RIGHT ABOVE.

[Terrapin Station]

State what you think is the 'opposite', and we shall see . . .

Simply negate what I said: "There are reasons to take noumena to be different than phenomena in cases where we don't have evidence supporting that some particular phenomenon was illusory."

You do not understand the terms you are using.

Hahaha, you really are either a ridiculously moronic ass or a great troll.

[A_Seagull]

This would appear to be the position of naive realism. Do you not consider the distinction between phenomena and noumena to be significant? For me it is at the very beginning of philosophy.

I don't believe there's any reason to take noumena to be different than phenomena in cases where we don't have evidence supporting that some particular phenomenon was illusory.

In my view, thinking that we can't access (a la knowledge by acquaintance) noumena is a mistake, and it leads to a lot of absurd views.

I should clarify that I'm not saying that noumena and phenomena are identical--there's what we're perceiving and there's perception. Rather, if we're perceiving a tree with a big knot on the trunk, say, there's no reason to not take it to really (objectively) be a tree with a big knot on the trunk. We'd need evidence that that was an illusion to believe otherwise, and evidence that it's an illusion is evidence that noumena matches alternate phenomena.

The logical flaw in your argument is that it is circular. You presume you are perceiving a tree. This is an unjustified assumption. The only justification for perceiving a tree is through perception.

[creativesoul]

I defined the terms at least one other time in this thread, but I know it's way too much stuff to read through. So quoting myself from another post of mine a few pages back:

Subjective = mental phenomena, that is, brains functioning in mental ways.

Objective = the complement of mental phenomena, or in other words--"everything else," everything that isn't a brain functioning in a mental way.

Truth value is a judgment about the relation between a proposition and something else, such as states of affairs if we use correspondence theory. In my view it's necessarily a judgment, because there's no objective relation (such as correspondence) between sets of marks on a screen, say, and other states of affairs. And part of the reason for that is that meaning and intentionality are things that only occur mentally.

So, truth is brains functioning in mental ways?

Read what you're quoting. "Brains functioning in mental ways" is a definition of "subjective" above, right? And then I give you a definition of "truth (value)." The definition I gave of truth value wasn't "brains functioning in mental ways." It's rather WRITTEN RIGHT ABOVE.

I didn't ask about truth value. Truth value is not truth.

I asked about what you said. You said truth is subjective. Now, if subjective is brains functioning in mental ways, and truth is subjective, then it only follows that truth is brains functioning in mental ways.

[creativesoul]

Simply negate what I said: "There are reasons to take noumena to be different than phenomena in cases where we don't have evidence supporting that some particular phenomenon was illusory."

You do not understand the terms you are using.

Hahaha, you really are either a ridiculously moronic ass or a great troll.

No, Terrapin. While Hobbes' is definitely an ass at times, and seems like a troll at others in this case he is right. You've invoked the representationalism and/or phenomenalism, and yet while doing so you have also rejected parts of it that make it what it is, as compared/contrasted to what you've been claiming. The biggest problem, of course, is that you've taken to charging others with not being well informed about philosophical schools of thought. You've mistakenly attributed what you perceive as a lack in others' understanding regarding what you're saying to the notion that the reason they do not understand you is as a result of not understanding the schools of thought of which you've absconded with their jargon.

The reason your talk is being misunderstood is because when one correctly applies a phenomenalist scheme to your words it renders them unintelligible.

[Terrapin Station]

The logical flaw in your argument is that it is circular. You presume you are perceiving a tree. This is an unjustified assumption. The only justification for perceiving a tree is through perception.

First, in order to have a fallacy, you need to state an argument per se. I did not. I rather just explained my view and a bit about why it's my view.

Secondly, your comment doesn't make any sense.

You say, "The only justification for perceiving a tree is through perception" and then you say, "You presume you are perceiving a tree. This is an unjustified assumption." Well, if I think that I'm perceiving a tree, how is that not perception? And that's what "justifies" perceiving a tree in your view. So why would it be unjustified?

As I noted above, nobody in philosophy of perception debates believes that we aren't perceiving things, nobody thinks that perception isn't involved. What's at issue is the relationship between our perception as such and what it is that we're perceiving.

So everyone in a philosophy of perception debate believes that they're perceiving a tree when that's what we're discussing. You think you're perceiving a tree. I think I'm perceiving a tree. The dispute would be over exactly whatever it is that we're perceiving, or what the relationship is between the stuff that's not a perception--that is, the stuff that we're perceiving--and the perception.

[Terrapin Station]

I didn't ask about truth value. Truth value is not truth.

Why did I put parentheses around the word "value"? And don't say you have no idea, because you read it and you didn't bother to ask. Surely you wouldn't read something, have no idea what it's saying or why it's written the way it is, but just plow through as if you do understand it, right?

I asked about what you said. You said truth is subjective.

Yes, subjectivity is a property that truth has. Subjectivity isn't a definition of truth, however.

Now, if subjective is brains functioning in mental ways, and truth is subjective, then it only follows that truth is brains functioning in mental ways.

You could say that truth is a property of brains functioning in mental ways and I'd agree. But "brains functioning in mental ways" isn't a definition of truth, which in that case, grammatical conventions would suggest.

[Terrapin Station]

You do not understand the terms you are using.

Hahaha, you really are either a ridiculously moronic ass or a great troll.

No, Terrapin. While Hobbes' is definitely an ass at times, and seems like a troll at others in this case he is right. You've invoked the representationalism and/or phenomenalism, and yet while doing so you have also rejected parts of it that make it what it is, as compared/contrasted to what you've been claiming. The biggest problem, of course, is that you've taken to charging others with not being well informed about philosophical schools of thought. You've mistakenly attributed what you perceive as a lack in others' understanding regarding what you're saying to the notion that the reason they do not understand you is as a result of not understanding the schools of thought of which you've absconded with their jargon.

The reason your talk is being misunderstood is because when one correctly applies a phenomenalist scheme to your words it renders them unintelligible.

There is no correct in this realm.

And "understanding" in no way amounts to "using terms the way I use them" or "using terms in a conventional way to use them."

I can give you my definition of "understanding" if you're interested, which is not a conventional definition, but it does get descriptively right what's going on re understanding in my view.

Also, it would be nice to have some substance instead of just bickering-level criticism: if you believe that I'm trying to relay some conventional idea, concept, definition etc. per se, or someone else's views per se, but you believe that I'm getting it wrong (that I agree I could get wrong, by the way; there are facts about what the conventional concepts, definitions, etc. are), then plainly say, "Term x doesn't conventionally refer to that and such, it's this and such instead."

No one, including you, is bothering to do that. Of course, you're often going to be mistaken that I'm trying to relay some conventional idea, concept, definition, etc. if you're frequently reading me that way. I'm typically providing my views instead. The only time I am trying to relay some conventional or received view is when I explicitly say, "Conventionally," or "In the received view," or "In Russell's view," or whatever the case may be.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Simply negate what I said: "There are reasons to take noumena to be different than phenomena in cases where we don't have evidence supporting that some particular phenomenon was illusory."

You do not understand the terms you are using.

Hahaha, you really are either a ridiculously moronic ass or a great troll.

That comment might help you to tell your self you understand what you are saying but that does not make it true.
You are simply clueless about the noumena and the phenomena.

[Terrapin Station]

That comment might help you to tell your self you understand what you are saying but that does not make it true.
You are simply clueless about the noumena and the phenomena.

Clueless about whose concept of it? And why aren't you giving a clue (telling us what you concept you think we should be employing) to those of us without a clue in your opinion?