|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 25, 2018 13:19:53 GMT -5
Then "the sun rises in the East" can never be a true statement. The context does not change the truth value. Therefore, context is irrelevant to a statement's truth value. Therefore, any statement is either universally correct at all times and in all places, or it is universally incorrect. Correct? Not quite. Primitive people saw the Sun apparently rise in the East. Based on the context of their knowledge, the Sun did rise in the East. Later on, as scientific knowledge grew, it was clear that the Sun only appeared to rise in the East. And in relation to the Earth, from a geocentric point of view, the Sun does rise in the East. Let's take another example. Scientists discovered that there were 4 blood types, A, B, AB, and O. They also found that when blood was transfused from one individual to another, some of these blood types were compatible while others were not. Later, a new discovery was made. In certain cases, transfusion had an undesirable reaction even when the blood types were compatible. Further investigation revealed another factor, the RH factor. It turned out the initial generalization (certain blood types are compatible) only held in certain circumstances that were not known earlier. Knowledge is not only contextual. It is also hierarchical. Since a later discovery rests hierarchically on earlier knowledge, it cannot contradict its own base. So the initial claim about blood types should have been stated: "Within the context of known circumstances, similar blood types are compatible." This proposition represented real knowledge when it was first reached, and it still does so. Within the context initially specified, similar blood types are and always will be compatible. The appearance of a contradiction between old knowledge and new comes from context-dropping. If the original researchers decided to view their knowledge as an absolute, if they had declared as a matter of dogma, that all similar blood types will always be compatible regardless of altered circumstances, then of course new discoveries would plunge them into a contradiction. But as long as the context is kept, there is no contradiction. The same argument applies to the claim "The Sun rises in the East." In the original context, that is a true statement. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 12:55:21 GMT -5
That sounds very post modern. How do you deal with the problem that your knowledge is supposed to be universally correct?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 27, 2018 16:39:04 GMT -5
That sounds very post modern. How do you deal with the problem that your knowledge is supposed to be universally correct? It sounds very postmodern? That was a direct quote from "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff, pg. 173. As for knowledge being "universally correct", the answer is given at the end of the quote: The appearance of a contradiction between old knowledge and new comes from context-dropping. If the original researchers decided to view their knowledge as an absolute, if they had declared as a matter of dogma, that all similar blood types will always be compatible regardless of altered circumstances, then of course new discoveries would plunge them into a contradiction. But as long as the context is kept, there is no contradiction." Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 22:11:33 GMT -5
That sounds like old scientific claims are still true even though they have been disproven in a more recent context.
How do you square that with your rejection of relative truth?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 27, 2018 23:33:28 GMT -5
That sounds like old scientific claims are still true even though they have been disproven in a more recent context. No. Not claims. Knowledge. It was discovered that Type A blood will mix with other Type A blood. Because of further discoveries, it is no longer 100% true that Type A blood will always mix with other Type A blood. But this is still largely true. Can you give me some examples of what you consider to be "relative truth?" Then I can tell you if I reject them or not. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 12:23:50 GMT -5
You rejected post modernism based on your assessment that it discards the notion of universal truth, did you not?
Does your embrace of contextual truth mean you changed your mind and embraced post modern truth after all, or is there something I'm missing?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 28, 2018 23:32:21 GMT -5
You rejected post modernism based on your assessment that it discards the notion of universal truth, did you not? Does your embrace of contextual truth mean you changed your mind and embraced post modern truth after all, or is there something I'm missing? Not quite. I rejected postmodernism because it is self-referentially inconsistent. The claim that there is no universal truth is itself a universal truth. And I disagree with the term "contextual truth." That makes it sound as if there were a separate sort of truth. From the fact that truth is contextual, it does not follow that there is a separate sort of truth called "contextual." Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 12:18:45 GMT -5
So truth is contextual. Is that true regardless of context?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 1, 2018 17:11:53 GMT -5
So truth is contextual. Is that true regardless of context? Exactly how can the context change to make the statement "truth is contextual" untrue? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 12:30:16 GMT -5
So the claim that truth is contextual is true in all contexts? Even in contexts that reject the notion that truth is relative to context?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 2, 2018 15:28:19 GMT -5
So the claim that truth is contextual is true in all contexts? Even in contexts that reject the notion that truth is relative to context? You didn't answer the question. Exactly how can the context change to make the statement "truth is contextual" untrue? And how can a context reject anything? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 2:00:12 GMT -5
For example, the claim that moral truths are universal is posed in a context that rejects contextual truth.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 3, 2018 11:34:27 GMT -5
For example, the claim that moral truths are universal is posed in a context that rejects contextual truth. Isn't that claim just part of the overall context? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 15:53:54 GMT -5
I don't know. Is it? So how does your concept of contextual truth differ from post modern conceptions of contextual truth?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 4, 2018 0:50:50 GMT -5
I don't know. Is it? So how does your concept of contextual truth differ from post modern conceptions of contextual truth? Tell me what you consider post-modern conceptions of contextual truth to be and I will tell you how my concept of contextual truth differs. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 12:43:25 GMT -5
Conceptions of truth that are propagated by people you consider "postmodernist".
For example, conceptions of truth advanced by the people whom you attacked in your opening posts.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 8, 2018 15:47:02 GMT -5
Conceptions of truth that are propagated by people you consider "postmodernist". For example, conceptions of truth advanced by the people whom you attacked in your opening posts. Rorty and Derrida? Sure. Rorty said "Language is not an image of reality." He also said he wanted to get rid of the expression "fact of the matter." Derrida said that everything is text. In both these cases, there is no connection between language and objective reality. That's the difference between their version of truth and mine. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 20:01:02 GMT -5
When Rorty said that, he was relating the fact that the meaning of a word is not inherent to it, a claim about language that has been well established as far back as Saussure.
Dog and Hund are different words. But there is nothing about a German dog that makes it inherently a Hund rather than a Dog.
Are you saying that only one of those words is the correct term for a domestic canine?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 8, 2018 21:55:03 GMT -5
When Rorty said that, he was relating the fact that the meaning of a word is not inherent to it, a claim about language that has been well established as far back as Saussure. Dog and Hund are different words. But there is nothing about a German dog that makes it inherently a Hund rather than a Dog. Are you saying that only one of those words is the correct term for a domestic canine? No. Of course not. But in both cases, "dog" and Hund" refer to something objective. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 13:29:28 GMT -5
Not by logical necessity.
I could talk about fictional dogs, for example, or dogs that I just made up (and therefore only exist inside my own mind), or dogs that aren't dogs. I could be using the term as a figure of speech, or as an insult. None of those would be a reference to the objective reality of a real physical dog.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 9, 2018 14:14:17 GMT -5
Not by logical necessity. I could talk about fictional dogs, for example, or dogs that I just made up (and therefore only exist inside my own mind), or dogs that aren't dogs. I could be using the term as a figure of speech, or as an insult. None of those would be a reference to the objective reality of a real physical dog. If a dog exists inside your mind, then that is a result of a objective physical brain state. Even if the term is used as a figure of speech or an insult, it still depends on the connection to an objective reality. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 17:40:34 GMT -5
If our brain states are objective reality, then sure, literally everything we think and feel is objective reality, including things that don't exist physically.
But I don't think that was Rorty's argument.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 10, 2018 12:07:38 GMT -5
If our brain states are objective reality, then sure, literally everything we think and feel is objective reality, including things that don't exist physically. It is only objective reality when observed third-person, from the outside by someone else. But no method has been found yet to enable an outside observer from experiencing what someone else is subjectively thinking and feeling. Right. Rorty's argument seems to have been that groups of people get together and decide what is real. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2018 12:51:48 GMT -5
If our brain states are objective reality, then sure, literally everything we think and feel is objective reality, including things that don't exist physically. It is only objective reality when observed third-person, from the outside by someone else. But no method has been found yet to enable an outside observer from experiencing what someone else is subjectively thinking and feeling. That's why I'm skeptical of the concept of a single "objective" truth. It is impossible to attain for a human being because we are inherently not objective, and can never be. Right. Rorty's argument seems to have been that groups of people get together and decide what is real. Bob If we were able to adopt an outsider position looking in on human behavior, then I am pretty sure that would be their conclusion. From an objective point of view, we do get together in groups and decide what is real and what isn't. I don't think Rorty's argument is that simple, but I do think your (subjective) interpretation of it contains a grain of (contextual) truth.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 10, 2018 23:57:47 GMT -5
It is only objective reality when observed third-person, from the outside by someone else. But no method has been found yet to enable an outside observer from experiencing what someone else is subjectively thinking and feeling. That's why I'm skeptical of the concept of a single "objective" truth. Don't confuse truth with knowledge of the truth. Isn't that an objective truth? If we were able to adopt an outsider position looking in on human behavior, then I am pretty sure that would be their conclusion. From an objective point of view, we do get together in groups and decide what is real and what isn't. Does that make it real though? Remember "1984?" If Big brother says that 2 and 2 makes 5, is it really 5? It would not be true at all if there weren't a link to the objective reality of what Rorty wrote. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2018 15:44:07 GMT -5
That's why I'm skeptical of the concept of a single "objective" truth. Don't confuse truth with knowledge of the truth. What's the difference? No, it's a subjective opinion, based on my subjective observations of the evidence at hand. Just like your own. Does that make it real though? Remember "1984?" If Big brother says that 2 and 2 makes 5, is it really 5? Your example posits a case where one power is trying to go against the ruling consensus though: Big Brother says one thing, we as a reader know a different thing based on the context in which we are reading it. If Big Brother had simply said 2+2=4, on the other hand, we would have simply nodded along with this obviously correct truth. Imagine being a 15th century Christian European and this Copernicus guy said that the Earth moves around the Sun. "What a crazy theory, and no way to prove it! And who does he think he is, going against the scientific consensus? Ptolemy's calculations have been repeatedly proven correct by observations after all!" Why not?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 11, 2018 18:09:53 GMT -5
Don't confuse truth with knowledge of the truth. What's the difference? Things can exist even if no one knows about them. The evidence you mention wouldn't happen to be objective evidence, would it? Claimed but not demonstrated. Where is your supporting evidence? Your example posits a case where one power is trying to go against the ruling consensus though: Big Brother says one thing, we as a reader know a different thing based on the context in which we are reading it. If Big Brother had simply said 2+2=4, on the other hand, we would have simply nodded along with this obviously correct truth. Imagine being a 15th century Christian European and this Copernicus guy said that the Earth moves around the Sun. "What a crazy theory, and no way to prove it! And who does he think he is, going against the scientific consensus? Ptolemy's calculations have been repeatedly proven correct by observations after all!" Those 15th century people were wrong though, weren't they? If there were no link to what Rorty actually wrote, it would be a misquote, and therefore wrong. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 12:56:17 GMT -5
Things can exist even if no one knows about them. We've been at this before. Truth is not a thing. Truth is a characteristic of statements, and those only exist in our minds. What is "objective evidence" and how does it differ from "subjective evidence"? My supporting evidence is the absence of evidence that your conscious mind and sensory apparatus are both fundamentally different from mine. Those 15th century people were wrong though, weren't they? Were they? In the context of their own society, at the time, based on the evidence available to them, they were as correct as they could have been. The Copernicans couldn't predict planetary motions with the same accuracy as Ptolemy's model. It took a long time to gather enough evidence to disprove Ptolemy and prove the Copernican (or rather, Keplerian-Newtonian) model. They are incorrect from our own point of view, but we have access to information they didn't and couldn't have. How do you determine whether any given interpretation is a misquote?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 12, 2018 14:16:31 GMT -5
Things can exist even if no one knows about them. We've been at this before. Truth is not a thing. Truth is a characteristic of statements, and those only exist in our minds. Exactly what is that "characteristic of statements? It is a connection to an objective reality that exists independently of what anyone thinks about it. Objective evidence is evidence that depends on the existence of an objective reality. As for subjective evidence, I have no idea what that would be. That's a good example of an Argument from Ignorance, which is a fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceWere they? In the context of their own society, at the time, based on the evidence available to them, they were as correct as they could have been. The Copernicans couldn't predict planetary motions with the same accuracy as Ptolemy's model. It took a long time to gather enough evidence to disprove Ptolemy and prove the Copernican (or rather, Keplerian-Newtonian) model. They are incorrect from our own point of view, but we have access to information they didn't and couldn't have. True. They did not have access to the information we have. But they didn't have to burn Copernicus' book and Giordano Bruno either. A quote is not an interpretation. A quote has to reproduce what someone has actually said. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2018 19:22:39 GMT -5
How are Rorty's words objective reality? You just argued that he is wrong.
|
|