Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

If all events are interlinked together , think Indra's net if you like, then we have the great big absolute.

Well, that all things and events in the universe are linked together, however remotely, is an assumption all but universally accepted by both physicists and philosophers. But it is not a very interesting one, and has little explanatory power. Useful explanations are those that reveal specific connections between specific things.

If that fact is all that is meant by "one big absolute truth," then it is pretty ho-hum.

[Belindi]

If all events are interlinked together , think Indra's net if you like, then we have the great big absolute.

Well, that all things and events in the universe are linked together, however remotely, is an assumption all but universally accepted by both physicists and philosophers. But it is not a very interesting one, and has little explanatory power. Useful explanations are those that reveal specific connections between specific things.

If that fact is all that is meant by "one big absolute truth," then it is pretty ho-hum.

If all events and things in the universe are linked together we have the ground for a universalistic morality, and a left-wing political system to boot.

[Terrapin Station]

"Definition of true (Entry 1 of 4)
1a(1): being in accordance with the actual state of affairs"

Being a philosopher doesn't just amount to looking up words in a dictionary.

Your task then is to say, "Okay, so how is it the case that something is 'in accordance with the actual state of affairs'"? Just how does that work? Just how does it obtain? Just what is going on? And then you need to use your noggin as you analyze this.

[Terrapin Station]

Nope. This is just one more thing that you're wrong about. The only way to arrive at a truth value is by making a judgment about the relation of a proposition to something else.

That's quite true. But that truth value depends only upon whether that relation exists, not upon the fact that someone judges that it does.

The relation exists by virtue of making the judgment about a proposition and something else.

[Terrapin Station]

Obvious how?

Because every one agrees on this, and accepts this.

But that's not the case. And I'm one person who doesn't agree with it.

[GE Morton]

If all events and things in the universe are linked together we have the ground for a universalistic morality, and a left-wing political system to boot.

Really? Could you set forth the steps leading from that premise to those conclusions?

[GE Morton]

"Definition of true (Entry 1 of 4)
1a(1): being in accordance with the actual state of affairs"

Being a philosopher doesn't just amount to looking up words in a dictionary.

If the philosopher intends to communicate his ideas to anyone else he'll need to use words as they are understood by his audience, and as they are defined in common dictionaries. Else he will not be understood.

Your task then is to say, "Okay, so how is it the case that something is 'in accordance with the actual state of affairs'"?

By "something," do you mean a proposition? It is the case because the words of the proposition denote specific things, and the syntactical rules of the language specify how to describe relations between things, per the conventions followed in that speech community. Anyone who understands those conventions will know what to look for to determine whether the proposition is true. He will, of course, make a judgment as to its truth. His judgment may be right or wrong, depending upon whether the proposition is or is not, in fact, true, and is consistent with that truth value. The proposition is true if the state of affairs it asserts exists. Alfie's judgment of whether or not it is true has no bearing on its truth.

[GE Morton]

The relation exists by virtue of making the judgment about a proposition and something else.

Er, no. The relation exists by virtue of the conventional meanings of the words of the proposition, and the observable state of affairs it thereby asserts. No one's judgments are involved or necessary. Anyone may, of course, reach a judgment as to whether "Paris is the capital of France" is true, but if that judgment is that the proposition is false, then the judgment itself is false.

[Belindi]

If all events and things in the universe are linked together we have the ground for a universalistic morality, and a left-wing political system to boot.

Really? Could you set forth the steps leading from that premise to those conclusions?

There is only one "step". All that happens affects everything else that happens. Jesus said it in the form of a question "Who is my brother?"

One concrete example: coronavirus knows no natural national boundaries

[Terrapin Station]

If the philosopher intends to communicate his ideas to anyone else he'll need to use words as they are understood by his audience, and as they are defined in common dictionaries. Else he will not be understood.

If you don't deviate from the standard/generic definitions of words at all, you're not doing philosophy, because many standard/generic definitions are not going to hold water if you're doing any analysis. The standard/generic definitions are basically journalism about common usage, which often reflects beliefs that are untenable, concept usage that winds up being contradictory, etc.

By "something," do you mean a proposition?

Propositions are definitely something, but I didn't want to limit it to that.

It is the case because the words of the proposition denote specific things,

How do they do this? That's what you're not thinking about enough.

[Terrapin Station]

Er, no. The relation exists by virtue of the conventional meanings of the words of the proposition,

Conventional definitions, you mean, but those are just sound or text strings, and there's no way for them to have anything like a "matching"/"not matching" relation to something else on their own.

[creation]

You do believe that the 'one big absolute truth' does not even exist, correct?

Not correct. I have no idea what "one big absolute truth" might be, and hence have no idea how to go about determining whether it exists (whatever it is). It is a meaningless phrase.

WHY is 'it' a meaningless phrase, to you?

Is it absolute impossibility for you to just work out what the idea of the phrase 'One absolute Truth' could mean?

[GE Morton]

There is only one "step". All that happens affects everything else that happens.

While that is true in the abstract, that fact has little or no explanatory value, and hence offers little or no guidance as to what we should do about anything. That is because most of those effects are insignificant, if not undetectable, are not understood, and are not predictable. Just knowing that there is a connection between two or more things tells us nothing useful; we need to know what sort of connection it is, and be able to predict the effects it will have on the two connected things. You have a connection to every star you see in the sky, since light from that star is now stimulating your optic nerve. But that fact has utterly no moral significance.

[creation]

If 'truth' is not relative nor dependent upon an agent, then how is 'truth' arrived at exactly?

You seem to be suffering from the same confusion as TP. Whether a proposition is true is a separate question from the question of how someone determined that it is true.

So, if I am confused, then help stop this by answering the actual question I am asking you.

How is 'whether a proposition is true (or whether it is false)' determined?

By the way, "Whether a proposition is true" is NOT even a question anyway, so HOW could it be a "separate question"?

Also, do not let this stop you from answering this question; How do you determine whether a proposition is true?

E.g., "It is raining outside" is true IFF it is raining outside.

How do you determine whether it is raining outside?

"Alfie determined that it is raining outside by looking out a window" is true if Alfie looked out a window and saw that it was raining outside.

How did "alfie" determine that it was actually 'rain' that "alfie" saw?

How Alfie determined that it is raining outside has no bearing on whether it is raining outside.

Hope this helps.

Not at all.

What EXACTLY determines that it is raining outside?

If "alfie", all by them self, can not determine that it is raining outside by looking out a window, then 'what' exactly determines it is raining outside? And, how is it determined that it is raining outside?

My question still remains the same: If 'truth' is not relative nor dependent upon an agent, then how is 'truth' arrived at exactly?

What exactly has a bearing on whether it is raining outside?

[creation]

Because every one agrees on this, and accepts this.

But that's not the case. And I'm one person who doesn't agree with it.

So, if you do not agree that taking away from 'what is necessary for survival' is obviously doing what is morally wrong. Then explain how me preventing you from living would not be morally wrong.