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

[creation]

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?

Besides the last part of the sentence after the comma, the steps would be:

1. If all events and things in the Universe are linked together we have the ground for universal morality. So,

2. If 'morality' refers to what is right and what is wrong in Life in regards to human behavior, then,

3. What it is that 'we', human beings, all agree with and accept as being the right and wrong behavior in Life, then,

4. We have a universal morality to which we could all be guided by and followed.

[creation]

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.

How would any so called "philosopher", "writer", and/or "speaker" KNOW how their audience understands words?

What will come to be noticed and better understood is even the so called "philosopher", "writer", and/or "speaker" does not even fully understand ALL of the words that they themselves use, let alone knowing how others understand the same words.

Have you ever considered why EVERY one is NEVER fully understood?

A great place to consider this is in a philosophy forum.

Do you ever wonder why you are never understood here?

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.

But I thought it was YOU who was stating: Truth is not agent-relative or agent-dependent.

But now it appears that you are stating that agents do make a judgement about something's (or a proposition's) 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.

Will you please inform us, who do not yet understand you: HOW does one KNOW, for sure, whether a proposition is, in fact, true or not?

How does one KNOW, for sure, if a proposition is consistent with 'that' truth value? How is the 'that' determined?

The proposition is true if the state of affairs it asserts exists.

How does one KNOW, for sure, if the "state of affairs" that a proposition asserts, exists or not?

Alfie's judgment of whether or not it is true has no bearing on its truth.

So, if a person's judgement does not have bearing on a proposition's truth, then what exactly does have a bearing on a proposition's truth?

If you are unable to explain this, which you have not been able to so for, are you at all at least able to provide an example of proposition that is absolutely true, and then explain WHAT IT IS that makes your proposition absolutely true, so then I will not have to judge if it is or is not true?

From then on I can just use what 'it' IS, that you say determines, and/or has a bearing on, a proposition's truth, or not.

[GE Morton]

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

"Work out" what it means? Do you mean attaching some arbitrary meaning to it? Guessing what someone else means by it?

Sure, I could do that all day. But none of those meanings would be any more substantive or informative than phrase itself.

The phrase itself is confused. "Truth" is not a thing, not an entity, not anything mystical, transcendental, or "metaphysical." It is just a property of propositions. A "truth" is just any proposition that happens to be true. And adding "absolute" to it adds no more information to a proposition.

[creation]

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.

HOW and WHY is this judgement itself is false?

WHY did you judge this judgement itself to be false?

What are you basing your own judgments on exactly?

[creation]

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

"Work out" what it means?

Yes.

Do you mean attaching some arbitrary meaning to it?

I mean you just attaching whatever you want to that phrase.

You have obviously attached whatever you have wanted to attach, to absolutely every other phrase you say and use. So, why would this one be any different.

By the way, you are completely free, as well, to not attach anything to that phrase if you do not wish to. Or, you are completely free to keep attached what you have attached to that phrase right now, and keep maintaining that same attachment as long as you like, which is:
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.

If you want to keep attaching some arbitrary meaningless thing to that phrase, then go right ahead and keep doing that.

Guessing what someone else means by it?

I absolutely and certainly do NOT mean this at all. In fact, I suggest you do the exact very opposite of this.

Sure, I could do that all day.

But I suggested not to do that. In fact, if you follow my suggestion for ALL discussions, then you would not be doing what you are doing right now. And that is; guessing what my answers would be, which only ends up with you being far more often WRONG then you will be right.

But none of those meanings would be any more substantive or informative than phrase itself.

But you do not even know what any of "those meanings" are yet. You clearly told us this when you wrote that you have no idea what "one big absolute truth" might be, and hence you have no idea how to go about determining whether it exists (whatever it is). If you knew any of our meanings, then you would not have wrote that.

As for our meanings or for anything else being more substantive or informative than the phrase itself, then this could never happen. This is because you believe that that phrase is a "meaningless phrase". And, obviously, while you maintain that belief, then nothing else will be more substantive nor informative, to you.

The phrase itself is confused.

How could a phrase itself ever be confused?

Obviously, human beings are the only thing that can be confused.

Phrases are just some thing human beings express, in writings or speech.

"Truth" is not a thing, not an entity, not anything mystical, transcendental, or "metaphysical."

If 'truth' is none of these things, and truth is not agent-relative or agent-dependent, then what is 'truth' and how is 'truth' determined exactly?

It is just a property of propositions.

The phrase "a 'property' of propositions" implies that there is a 'thing'. If a 'property' of some thing is not a 'thing' itself, then what is 'it'?

A "truth" is just any proposition that happens to be true.

But how do you know what 'that' IS, which happens to be true?

And adding "absolute" to it adds no more information to a proposition.

This may well be 'true'. But adding the word 'absolute' to 'truth' is done for the very reason of what the word actually means. And, remember you already KNOW, for sure, what "happens to be true".

Unfortunately though you are keeping the secret and so have yet to explain what 'it' IS exactly, which determines what "happens to be true".

[GE Morton]

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.

You're right. And often enough, when philosophers finish their analyses they arrive at beliefs that are even less tenable and much less informative.

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.

We've covered this. Do you want to go over it again?

Let's start with a newly-coined word (new words are added to every language every day). Suppose it is a newly-minted name for a recently discovered species of insect. The discoverers named it the "Lady Gaga bug." * They publish a journal article describing the insect, placing it in the genus kakaia (kakaia gaga), and include some photos. Thereafter journalists publicize the find, using the name given by the discoverer. In short order, the phrase "Lady Gaga bug" will be understood by all familiar with the field to denote that particular species of insect, and will eventually appear in dictionaries. An association between that name and that insect is now established in the language, and entomology students around the world will learn that association, that meaning of, "Lady Gaga bug."

Every word in the language, and its meaning, was established in the same way.

Does that answer your question?

* "If there's going to be a Lady Gaga bug, it's going to be a treehopper, because they've got these crazy horns; they have this wacky fashion sense about them," said Brendan Morris, the entomology student who first described and named the insect in March 2020. "They're unlike anything you've ever seen before."

https://www.dw.com/en/new-insect-specie ... a-52723759

[GE Morton]

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.

HOW and WHY is this judgement itself is false?

Please read the backthread. That question has been answered many times.

[GE Morton]

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

Besides the last part of the sentence after the comma, the steps would be:

1. If all events and things in the Universe are linked together we have the ground for universal morality. So,

2. If 'morality' refers to what is right and what is wrong in Life in regards to human behavior, then,

3. What it is that 'we', human beings, all agree with and accept as being the right and wrong behavior in Life, then,

4. We have a universal morality to which we could all be guided by and followed.

I assume 3. should be preceded with "if."

Your argument is valid enough. But of course, the problem is all of those "ifs." They assume conditions which are false. "Morality" does not refer "to what is right and what is wrong in Life in regards to human behavior," and there is nothing "'we human beings all agree with and accept as being the right and wrong behavior in Life."

Your conclusion only follows because it is a tautology (which follows from any premises): Any morality to which everyone agreed would be universal, and we could be guided by any morality. But that tells us nothing about which of those moralities we should follow, if any.

[GE Morton]

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.

HOW and WHY is this judgement itself is false?

Because it contradicts the proposition, which is true. It is true because the state of affairs it asserts exists.

[creation]

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.

You're right. And often enough, when philosophers finish their analyses they arrive at beliefs that are even less tenable and much less informative.

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

We've covered this. Do you want to go over it again?

Let's start with a newly-coined word (new words are added to every language every day). Suppose it is a newly-minted name for a recently discovered species of insect. The discoverers named it the "Lady Gaga bug." * They publish a journal article describing the insect, placing it in the genus kakaia (kakaia gaga), and include some photos. Thereafter journalists publicize the find, using the name given by the discoverer. In short order, the phrase "Lady Gaga bug" will be understood by all familiar with the field to denote that particular species of insect, and will eventually appear in dictionaries. An association between that name and that insect is now established in the language, and entomology students around the world will learn that association, that meaning of, "Lady Gaga bug."

Every word in the language, and its meaning, was established in the same way.

Does that answer your question?

LOL you are joking right?

The example you gave are for things that can be seen with the eyes.

Is this why you cannot explain what you have been asked to explain?

The very reason WHY words like 'morality' and topics related around 'morality' are discussed and disputed, with disagreements and refutations continually made, even after thousands upon thousands of years, without any resolution being unanimously agreed with, is because the very word is NOT like words that are used to describe things that can be pointed at, looked at, and seen with the physical human eye.

LOL I thought that this was surely already obviously KNOWN. This just goes to show just how STUPID I really am.

* "If there's going to be a Lady Gaga bug, it's going to be a treehopper, because they've got these crazy horns; they have this wacky fashion sense about them," said Brendan Morris, the entomology student who first described and named the insect in March 2020. "They're unlike anything you've ever seen before."

https://www.dw.com/en/new-insect-specie ... a-52723759

Lucky there was a PICTURE there, otherwise I would not have had a clue what you were talking about.

Pictures can really be worth more than a thousand words.

Now, are you able to provide a PICTURE of 'morality' as well please?

Your words are obviously not showing us a PICTURE of how the 'truth' of propositions can be KNOWN if 'truth' is not relative to nor dependent upon an 'agent'.

[creation]

HOW and WHY is this judgement itself is false?

Please read the backthread. That question has been answered many times.

NO IT HAS NOT.

And, if it had been answered, then I am sure you would have just linked us to it, or, copied and pasted it.

This kind of response you just gave is very common one when one has run out of ways to deflect away from the issue being pointed out.

[creation]

Besides the last part of the sentence after the comma, the steps would be:

1. If all events and things in the Universe are linked together we have the ground for universal morality. So,

2. If 'morality' refers to what is right and what is wrong in Life in regards to human behavior, then,

3. What it is that 'we', human beings, all agree with and accept as being the right and wrong behavior in Life, then,

4. We have a universal morality to which we could all be guided by and followed.

I assume 3. should be preceded with "if."

It 'could' be, and not "should" be, as it 'would' not make any difference to the outcome. But on second glance if number 3 was preceded with an "if", then the sentence would not sound correct. So, your assumptions is wrong.

Number 3 is better remaining exactly how it is written.

Your argument is valid enough. But of course, the problem is all of those "ifs."

They are NOT a problem in and of themselves.

They assume conditions which are false.

How can an 'if' assume a condition which is false.

An 'if' infers just that. If 'it' is something, then it is. But, if 'it' is not, then it is that.

"Morality" does not refer "to what is right and what is wrong in Life in regards to human behavior,"

IF, as you propose and as you are implying you KNOW, 'morality' does NOT refer 'to what is right and what is wrong in Life in regards to human behavior', then what DOES 'morality' refer to exactly?

Once you answer that correctly and properly, and YOUR proposition happens to be what is true, then we can move on.

and there is nothing "'we human beings all agree with and accept as being the right and wrong behavior in Life."

So, once again, the human being labeled "ge morton", who is just one human being makes the proposition that it KNOWS thee actual Truth of things. If, however, what this one is saying here was actually True, then EVERY one would have to agree with this and accept this.

Your conclusion only follows because it is a tautology (which follows from any premises): Any morality to which everyone agreed would be universal, and we could be guided by any morality. But that tells us nothing about which of those moralities we should follow, if any.

Thee ONLY moralities any one could and would follow are the One's that EVERY one agrees with and accepts.

There is NO 'should' in morality, as this would defeat the purpose of being the 'agent' known as 'human being'.

[GE Morton]

The very reason WHY words like 'morality' and topics related around 'morality' are discussed and disputed, with disagreements and refutations continually made, even after thousands upon thousands of years, without any resolution being unanimously agreed with, is because the very word is NOT like words that are used to describe things that can be pointed at, looked at, and seen with the physical human eye.

The issue in the exchange you quoted was not a moral one. It was how associations between words and things are formed. Please try to stay focused and respond to the issue at hand.

[Belindi]

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.

I see you need to have the guidance explained. Science does explain a lot of connections. Knowledge and reason are required so specific connections can be understood.
The sorts of connections are as follows:

1. Causal chains

2. Causal circumstances

3 Nomic connections

[GE Morton]

How can an 'if' assume a condition which is false.

Egads. It is done all the time, in philosophy and in every-day speech. Those are called "contrary-to-fact conditionals."

No more replies from me, creation. You don't have the background to discuss these issues productively. Your questions are naive, uninformed, and often silly.