Truth?

[AlbertKLloyd]

You do have excellent points.

As far as quantum measurements go, there are theories that state that the problems of measurement arise because particles are properties, not entities. I believe this...

The concept that truth is subjective defies practice for me, no matter what one thinks of truth, no matter what one believes, one cannot fly... So what is the value of stating that truth is what we make of it?

What is the practical application of this concept aside from argument?

 

[Lumos]

Well I don't mean if one believes in flying enough one will be able to fly like superman. However, there was a time when it was thought that man would never fly, this was considered to be true. Then two guys came along, the Wright brothers, and they believed that man could fly. They had so much faith that they never gave up, even in the face of doubt and ridicule; but, they did it, and they made their own truth.

We all have our own truths because we all see the world differently, it is not the reality of debatable existence that is important. It is the meanings and experiences we get from it that are most precious. That is where we get our truth.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

While I can respect your opinion, I cannot share it.

I (for example) do not see the wright brothers as making their own truth, I see them as seeing truth as objective and therefor rejecting the subjective opinion that man could not fly and utilizing objective tests to explore the notion.

My "truth" is so much closer to Chop Wood, Carry Water, than it is to any sentiment or meaning.

While it is stated that we see the world differently I wonder if we really do aside from opinions that are formed...
This is something to think about in relation to this:

News Center | University of Rochester

For both new and returning visitors, the University’s News Center is a digital hub for the latest news stories showcasing the research, accomplishments, expertise, and perspectives of the Rochester community. In addition, the News Center features University announcements and updates from...

www.rochester.edu

 

[Lumos]

That is a very interesting article Clearly we are seeing different sides of the same thing, that is why I feel that truth is different for everyone. We all find what works best for us, being a science major I agree that objective truth is very important, I just like to add sentiment and meaning because it makes life special.

This is one truth the world needs more of: mutual respect for opposing opinions.

 

[Seldom]

So what is the value of stating that truth is what we make of it?

this is conflating error with subjectivity, subjectivity has little to do with truth or falsity, to say something is subjectively true doesn't mean you can say everything is anything and anything is everything .. no one is saying that. if something is subjective then it depends on minds in order to exist. that's all it means.

That is an oxymoron to me. a paradox.
Deduction yields plausibility, terms of probability, but not truth.

deduction at its base is formal logic, i.e. the anatomy of thinking .. truths in philosophy are seperated into deductively true [all a's are b's, all b's are c's ~ all a's are c's, etc] and inductively (empirically) supported or falsified [every swan i've seen is white, therefore all swans are white, etc] .. one proceeds from general axioms to the world, the other from the world to working hypotheses. 'analytic truths'are ones proved by virtue of the subjects definition, eg. there are no square circles, or "The truth of comparative measurements is non-axiomatic."

really there are almost as many theories of truth as there are people thinking about it, there's cognitivist, coherentist, correspondence-ists, empiricist, idealist, existential, Platonic, eh could make a career alone from listing them .. there was interesting work done a few years ago by David Chalmers and Andy Clark surveying 177 of the top publishing academic philosophers Preliminary Metasurvey results | PhilPapers Surveys .. a theory of truth in any individual philosophers work is i think like a view you can only fully see after spanning a long distance of mental terrain, Hegel for eg., truth as a brutal vacuum standing at the end of time retroactively tearing being through the pulsing of triadic dialectics forcing inevitably higher and higher levels of its own realisation .. Truth need not be a simple thing!

coolest theory of truth i've come across in a while is from Bruno Latour, who has the idea of truth as a translation .. he uses the analogy of truth as Saudi oil which exists out there but is tapped and goes through successive material processes of refinement, processed into petroleum distilates, naptha, plastic, endless series of progressive differentiation .. p.s imo you shouldn't criticise philosophy if you don't understand it ..

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

p.s imo you shouldn't criticise philosophy if you don't understand it ..

So then I can criticize it.
Having a different opinion than you on it doesn't mean i don't understand it.
I have taken many upper division college courses in various aspects of it and got an A in every one and was offered a scholarship, which I refused. I have been reading Plato since I was young, as well as others, philosophy doesn't strike me as intellectually challenging.

The reason i don't like it, is I understand it.
I think it is largely pseudo-intellectual.

I don't think you have understood any of what I have written in this thread, so you shouldn't criticize it. :thumb_up:

To call formal logic the anatomy of thinking is just silly to me. That is an entirely different topic than this, but it presumes an awful lot about thinking... If I actually used language in thought and thought in linear patterns that logic can be applied to I might agree.

I will give you this, philosophy is certainly imaginative.

 

[Valura]

Philosophy is largely what you make of it. If you believe it to be pseudo-intellectual then you are just not investing energy in it correctly. A lot of human knowledge could not exist if it was not for philosophy, because it is strongly based on philosophical ideas. Math is very philosophical, it is applied logic. Without philosophy no math, meaning no physics, etc...

Philosophy goes far, far beyond college courses and popular authors. Philosophy is like a blank canvas. If you call such a blank canvas pseudo-intellectual, it just means you say you are not very intellectual in filling it. And besides that, what is intellectual and what is not is just another subjective matter.

 

[Lumos]

Thanks for all the input, my paper turned out great

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

Philosophy is largely what you make of it. If you believe it to be pseudo-intellectual then you are just not investing energy in it correctly. A lot of human knowledge could not exist if it was not for philosophy, because it is strongly based on philosophical ideas. Math is very philosophical, it is applied logic. Without philosophy no math, meaning no physics, etc...

Philosophy goes far, far beyond college courses and popular authors. Philosophy is like a blank canvas. If you call such a blank canvas pseudo-intellectual, it just means you say you are not very intellectual in filling it. And besides that, what is intellectual and what is not is just another subjective matter.

I could not agree more, this is why I turned down the scholarship.

What was being called philosophy in College was anything but, it was just regurgitating the history of philosophy. Person Y said this, person T said that etc. It is worthless unless you are going to teach philosophy majors.

A philosopher has their own position, their own outlook, they do not say well there are 50+ ways to look at it, if you read their works they have their own view, which change from time to time, and their own reasoning. Philosophy is something everyone does, whether they know it or not, children especially because they question, wonder and research instinctively.

Someone who tells you that philosophy is being about to recount 50 different positions of 50 different philosophers is actually a history major in disguise and is not a philosopher and likely cannot do philosophy. This indeterminate view that there are endless outlooks isn't very philosophical, for most philosophers while recognizing that there are different ways of looking at a subject still form their own stance, position and belief and have their reasoning behind it, which is by no means pseudointellectual. However academic philosophy is in my experience almost entirely pseudointellectual and is of very little value outside the world of academic philosophy.

They say that those who can; do, and those who can't; teach, I believe this is entirely true for philosophy.

I have had several friends who were philosophy majors, and professors, and they are incredibly intelligent, but that does not mean that what they are doing isn't (my opinion) pseudointellectual, it takes a great deal of intelligence to pursue pseudointellectual things, people lacking in intelligence cannot do it.

I am glad the paper turned out good!

Math is very philosophical, it is applied logic.

I will address this, I disagree. certain lizards for example have been demonstrated to be able to count and to plan. Other animals have developed methodological approaches (technologies) to doing things without the aid of philosophy. So I agree in one way that philosophy contributes a lot to the development of human awareness and sciences etc, I do not agree that without philosophy there would be no math, it seems that mathematical awareness can develop to one degree or another in other species without philosophy, as can methods for accomplishing many things like obtaining food or hunting.

My position isn't actually that philosophy is pseudointellectual, it is that academic philosophy is. I enjoy Plato and other philosophers for example, but you don't find anyone like that in academia for the most part.

I always enjoyed setting the curve in philosophy classes. :twisted:

 

[hixidom]

Regarding the utility of imagination, I will quote an NPR story that I have quoted in one other thread on the forum.

Believing in magic, being superstitious, counterintuitively, has actually helped us evolve as a species, says Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine.

He explains it this way: Millions of years ago, if you heard a rustle in the grass, do you think it's a predator or the wind?

"If you think the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator, and it turns out it was just the wind, that's a superstition. But there's no harm in that, you just become more vigilant." says Shermer. "But if you think the rustle in the grass is just the wind, and it turns out it's a dangerous predator, you're lunch. You fail to see a connection that was real. And that's very costly."

And, he adds, those of us who think we are too rational for superstitions should think again: We are all superstitious to some degree.

"It's built into our brains. It's called learning," he says. "You think A is connected to B. And sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't."

Clearly we all find our respective beliefs to be useful to ourselves and, as such, they are respectively "subjectively true". They are "subjectively true" in that they have survived testing, by our respective minds, against our own reasoning and perceptual evidence. I would define "objectively true" as pertaining to a belief's survival when tested against the reasoning and perceptual evidence of others.

The surviveability of a belief pertains to the amount of time and number of minds through which a particular belief has propagated. Let's say S=survivability and N(t)=the number of minds which held a given belief at a given time. The surviveability could them be written as the integral of N over all t:

S=int[over all t] N(t) dt

Since S is an integral over all time, S is constant for any given belief. A time-dependent definition of surviveability would take into account that environmental conditions change over time, thus affecting the time-dependent surviveability of a given belief.
A better measure of surviveability might be the average number of minds, at a given time, that minds holding a given belief transfers their beliefs to. The transfer of a belief corresponds to a change in N(t). The average number of minds to which a belief is transferred at time t, per time T, would be (N(t+T)-N(t))/(N(t)*T). As T approaches zero, we get the derivative of N(t) divided by N(t). Therefore S=(dN(t)/dt)/N(t). I like this time-dependent definition of S much more than the time-independent previous one.

To get back on topic, I would accept S (or something similar) as a [wholly utilitarian] measure of apparent objective trueness. I think it could still be said that these truths are subjective in that the operation of society can be likened to that of a mind consisting of individual people as subconscious cogs. My conclusion is that objective truths are beliefs which prove to be most useful to society in the long run. They prove utility by spreading faster, thereby surviving longer.

(This assumes that society exists, of course)

P.S. I think that an even better definition of surviveability would consider second degree transfer of beliefs. i.e. The probability that a master's beliefs are transferred to his students' students.

 

[NamahsNaicigam]

Truth.

 

[Korey]

"yeah man, just put the barrel up to your temple and pull the trigger once you realized that there is no gun or no bullet, you"ll be fine man!"

"there is no sp00n." -neo

But really, this subjective/objective problem we have here is tiring. When a group of researchers can observe and measure a problem using methods our minds most definitely developed from a fundamental understanding of objective reality, and time and time again the equation or problem not only fits, but can be observed and tested by everyone willing to study and test as well, we can infer that there are objective truths.

When a man walks up to you on a street corner and tells you the CIA has implanted microchips into his testicals to spy on microscopic Russian KBG agents trying to harvest his sperm to impregnate Hannah Montana so she can give birth to the second coming of Christ, we can infer that this mans subjective truths mean nothing to me, and have no true or real meaning in regards to "truth."

 

[Kronas]

The truth will set u free....

 

[Seldom]

AlbertKLloyd what do you think philosophy is about? why dismiss it so easily ?

good philosophy doesn't answer questions of the kind 'is ... true' .. philosophy is not about establishing truths it's about distancing oneself from what's true and what's false in order to reflect on how the things you take to be true and false function in producing material change .. in your life .. philosophy is a skill-set. Heidegger believed those who know philosophy live it in the form of a persistent question, fidelity to the 'truth' of acting from the depth of what you don't know ..

When someone asks ‘what’s the use of philosophy?’ the reply must be aggressive, since the question tries to be ironic and caustic. Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy which saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. Its only use is the exposure of all forms of baseness of thought. . . . Philosophy is at its most positive as a critique, as an enterprise of demystification. (NP 106)

To the question ‘what is the use of philosophy?’ the answer must be: what other object would have an interest in holding forth the image of a free man, and in denouncing all of the forces which need myth and troubled spirit in order to establish their power? (LS 278)

[LS = The logic of Sense, NP = Nietzsche and Philosophy, both G. Deleuze]

 

[hixidom]

@Korey

But really, this subjective/objective problem we have here is tiring. When a group of researchers can observe and measure a problem using methods our minds most definitely developed from a fundamental understanding of objective reality, and time and time again the equation or problem not only fits, but can be observed and tested by everyone willing to study and test as well, we can infer that there are objective truths.

I disagree. Your criteria for objective truth consists of subjective evidence.

@AKL
I just realized something about the phrase "Those who can't do teach": What about people trained in teaching? They do both, I guess.

Anyways, I disagree that teaching philosophy indicates a poor philosopher. On the contrary, in a field that everyone seems to think they can contribute to, the only reliable sign of a good philosopher is a faculty position at a university. There is essentially no other way to make money as a good philosopher, and even good philosophers need money. Long gone are the days when a philosopher could make a living simply developing and dictating philosophy from the streets (unless sidewalk preachers are considered philosophers).

My position isn't actually that philosophy is pseudointellectual, it is that academic philosophy is.
...
I always enjoyed setting the curve in philosophy classes.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your prowess at academic philosophy... Does that represent intellectual or pseudointellectual aptitude?

Anyways, I've briefly outlined in my previous post a measure of objective truthfulness, given the presumption that the external world exists as we [presumably] interpret it. Let me know what you think if that is a direction that you would want to take this conversation.

 

[Valura]

Anyways, I disagree that teaching philosophy indicates a poor philosopher. On the contrary, in a field that everyone seems to think they can contribute to, the only reliable sign of a good philosopher is a faculty position at a university. There is essentially no other way to make money as a good philosopher, and even good philosophers need money. Long gone are the days when a philosopher could make a living simply developing and dictating philosophy from the streets (unless sidewalk preachers are considered philosophers).

This is a false argument. One does not have to make money to be a good philosopher. What makes a good philosopher? His/Her philosophy, and absolutely nothing else.

 

[olympus mon]

AlbertKLloyd-:thumb_up:
good thread mates.

 

[hixidom]

This is a false argument. One does not have to make money to be a good philosopher. What makes a good philosopher? His/Her philosophy, and absolutely nothing else.

I agree, but how do you gauge the quality of a person's philosophy? I was simply arguing that employment as an academic philosopher is an indicator of philosophy aptitude, not ineptitude, as AKL would say. Most, if not all, of the great philosophers were "academic philosophers", and philosophers have traditionally been employed by universities. So to say that academic philosophers are pseudo-intellectual is basically discounting the intellectualism of Kant, Descarte, Plato, etc. The list is endless.

In my experience interacting with and probing philosophy professors, they have always seemed to be experts in the art of constructing philosophical arguments and deconstructing and analyzing philosophical ideas, as well as in history of philosophy. It's what they do for a living. It's what they've dedicated their lives to. I think they deserve some defense from statements such as "those who can't do; teach".

 

[Seldom]

Most, if not all, of the great philosophers were "academic philosophers", and philosophers have traditionally been employed by universities.

i think it depends on your definition of great .. Great in the sense that a number of the stereotypical 'great philosophers' in philosophy's history .. but a philosopher need not be connected to a university to be great, Spinoza for eg. spent his days in voluntary exile as a lense grinder, Nietzsche, left his position as a philology professor after writing birth of tragedy, never to return, Sartre's work was never connected to a university, Blanchot, Bataille was trained a librarian, Klossowski, Manuel Delanda taught himself philosophy outside university .. the list is long but I would call all these people great ..


i hesitate to think that having a university position indicates aptitude .. one analogy i like is that of the sea squirt, the underwater creature who after birth floats around the ocean until reach maturity, who at a period fixes itself permanently to a rock, and digests its own cerebral ganglion, a large section of its nervous system related to movement .. in my observations of some uni lecturers, this process is close to their passage to getting tenure

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

AlbertKLloyd what do you think philosophy is about?

Philosophy is something everyone does, whether they know it or not, children especially because they question, wonder and research instinctively.

why dismiss it so easily ?

Because I find it boring and useless with some exceptions. I see the utility of it, if you find it entertaining or it addresses questions one has and is stimulating.
I think I've known a few too many phil majors and professors to experience it as intellectual, but mental masturbation is a fun recreation, let alone career path.

Most, if not all, of the great philosophers were "academic philosophers", and philosophers have traditionally been employed by universities. So to say that academic philosophers are pseudo-intellectual is basically discounting the intellectualism of Kant, Descarte, Plato, etc.

Nah...

But i was referring to academia at present and in the last hundred years give or take an epoch.

I have a lot more respect for academic institutions and teaching methods and subjects of the past than I do in regard to today, but it also seems a lot of noted philosophers also rejected and or strongly criticized positions in their own time and were later increasingly accepted into academia. What would Nietzsche think of the academic situation at present that deals with philosophy? I have no clue, but i think he'd embrace postmodernism as the manifestation of the pragmatism inherent in modern philosophical thought.