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

[Thomyum2]

What I think James is saying is that truth (or factuality) is a judgment we make based on more strict criteria than that which we would use to form an opinion or belief. One of those criteria is that it be able to hold true for everyone - if and when it doesn't, it no longer qualifies. In other words, truth could be thought of as the highest quality of belief.

Truth is what you see and experience; what has happened, and what is happening. Truth is above and beyond your judgment and criterion, no matter how qualified you may be. Truth establishes itself by its very existence.

The highest quality of belief is conviction.

Truth is true, full stop.

Truth is true? I'd say you've almost mastered the art of the tautology.

Consider though that there are other senses to the word 'true' beyond just 'factual' - true can also mean loyal or trustworthy (a 'true' friend), or properly aligned (as in carpentry) or consistent with, honest, ideal, etc. I think it just serves to demonstrate that there really is an element of value and quality to the word, just as James was suggesting.

[Pattern-chaser]

Many things in life are self evident.

I find that people often use "self-evident" like scientists use "axiom". These are things that people just assume are true, and the complete lack of proof or evidence prompts them to bluster, and say things like "self-evident". Do you have an example of something that you consider to be self-evident?

Evidence is when you are unsure of something. The obsession with evidence in intellectual circles is a sure sign of uncertainty of mind, AKA fear of the unknown, paranoia, lack of confidence.

Interesting. So how do you confirm that your theories or ideas are useful? Perhaps just declare them to be "self-evident"?

[Asif]

Many things in life are self evident.

I find that people often use "self-evident" like scientists use "axiom". These are things that people just assume are true, and the complete lack of proof or evidence prompts them to bluster, and say things like "self-evident". Do you have an example of something that you consider to be self-evident?

Evidence is when you are unsure of something. The obsession with evidence in intellectual circles is a sure sign of uncertainty of mind, AKA fear of the unknown, paranoia, lack of confidence.

Interesting. So how do you confirm that your theories or ideas are useful? Perhaps just declare them to be "self-evident"?

By self evident I mean things that are obvious,like the fact I'm typing now. My existence,other people,matter,etc,etc. In other words the things which philosophers debate about and pontificate about but which are in reality totally obvious.
As for some matters which are not known,such as is morrisons open past 11 o clock,you may have an educated guess then investigate till its self evident.

[Pattern-chaser]

Many things in life are self evident.

I find that people often use "self-evident" like scientists use "axiom". These are things that people just assume are true, and the complete lack of proof or evidence prompts them to bluster, and say things like "self-evident". Do you have an example of something that you consider to be self-evident?

By self evident I mean things that are obvious, like the fact I'm typing now.

In a philosophy forum I used to frequent, one of our number couldn't type, and used a speech-recognition computer to dictate his posts. From my computer terminal, I couldn't tell the difference. It was the same as if he had typed his replies. If I had assumed he was typing, as you ask me to accept that you are typing now, I would've been wrong. His typing was not "self-evident".

My existence, other people, matter, etc, etc. In other words, the things which philosophers debate about and pontificate about but which are in reality totally obvious.

Your existence is self-evident only to you. The existence of other people is the same, but worse. Even the existence of matter is not self-evident; we have only the apparent evidence of our senses to confirm it, and we know how inaccurate our senses (combined with our perception: our 'processing' of sensory data to make sense of it) can be, don't we?

As for some matters which are not known, such as is morrisons open past 11 o clock, you may have an educated guess then investigate till its self evident.

In this case, it is your investigation that confirms your theory (that Morrisons is open) is correct or not. The investigation was only necessary because Morrisons being open was NOT self-evident, n'est ce pas?

Something that is self-evident somehow carries with it proof of its own correctness, no?

[Asif]

Many things in life are self evident.

I find that people often use "self-evident" like scientists use "axiom". These are things that people just assume are true, and the complete lack of proof or evidence prompts them to bluster, and say things like "self-evident". Do you have an example of something that you consider to be self-evident?

By self evident I mean things that are obvious, like the fact I'm typing now.

In a philosophy forum I used to frequent, one of our number couldn't type, and used a speech-recognition computer to dictate his posts. From my computer terminal, I couldn't tell the difference. It was the same as if he had typed his replies. If I had assumed he was typing, as you ask me to accept that you are typing now, I would've been wrong. His typing was not "self-evident".

My existence, other people, matter, etc, etc. In other words, the things which philosophers debate about and pontificate about but which are in reality totally obvious.

Your existence is self-evident only to you. The existence of other people is the same, but worse. Even the existence of matter is not self-evident; we have only the apparent evidence of our senses to confirm it, and we know how inaccurate our senses (combined with our perception: our 'processing' of sensory data to make sense of it) can be, don't we?

As for some matters which are not known, such as is morrisons open past 11 o clock, you may have an educated guess then investigate till its self evident.

In this case, it is your investigation that confirms your theory (that Morrisons is open) is correct or not. The investigation was only necessary because Morrisons being open was NOT self-evident, n'est ce pas?

Something that is self-evident somehow carries with it proof of its own correctness, no?

Misunderstood my entire post!
And used inaccurate examples as well.
I'm not sure why you don't find other minds or matter self evident?
And this "we" you refer to,how do you know what I perceive from your own logic of uncertainty? If you do not trust your perceptions because of the odd mistake or because it being incomplete that's not on me. I trust my intuitions.

[Pattern-chaser]

If you do not trust your perceptions because of the odd mistake or because it being incomplete that's not on me. I trust my intuitions.

Good for you. I wish you luck on your journey of learning!

[Asif]

If you do not trust your perceptions because of the odd mistake or because it being incomplete that's not on me. I trust my intuitions.

Good for you. I wish you luck on your journey of learning!

No luck needed,nor passive aggressive comments.
Cheers.

[Pattern-chaser]

If you do not trust your perceptions because of the odd mistake or because it being incomplete that's not on me. I trust my intuitions.

Good for you. I wish you luck on your journey of learning!

No luck needed,nor passive aggressive comments.
Cheers.

I'm autistic. My words are used explicitly, and entirely without implication. [More info here]

Your course differs significantly from mine; I wished (and wish) you luck on yours.

[Asif]

If you do not trust your perceptions because of the odd mistake or because it being incomplete that's not on me. I trust my intuitions.

Good for you. I wish you luck on your journey of learning!

No luck needed,nor passive aggressive comments.
Cheers.

I'm autistic. My words are used explicitly, and entirely without implication. [More info here]

Your course differs significantly from mine; I wished (and wish) you luck on yours.

These days everybody claims a disease.
If you are intelligent enough to debate,you are intelligent enough to know what your words mean and how they come across.
I wish you well to,but I don't like excuses.

[gad-fly]

Truth is true? I'd say you've almost mastered the art of the tautology.

Consider though that there are other senses to the word 'true' beyond just 'factual' - true can also mean loyal or trustworthy (a 'true' friend), or properly aligned (as in carpentry) or consistent with, honest, ideal, etc. I think it just serves to demonstrate that there really is an element of value and quality to the word, just as James was suggesting.

I am wary about the present topic being off-focus by the distraction of side-issues like Truth, Miracle, and so on.

Language is often subject to ambiguity, especially in daily use. Terms are borrowed to emphasize feeling more than what they mean. True means loyal or trustworthy? No. Loyal is loyal. No excuse to use a different term which will only serve to confuse. Guess what. You say loyal instead of true because you value both. You equate one thing good with another also good. loyal = good = true. Hence loyal = true, right? It is an innocent attempt, which does not carry weight in critical thinking in forum like this.

I do not disagree that "there really is an element of value and quality to the word", but that element is subject to your discretion. True friend, true money like the US Dollar, and so on. I have friends, whether trustworthy or not. For me, friends = true friends. As for Us Dollars, I regard currency as (true!) money despite the exchange rate.

There is nothing wrong to play with words. It can be fun too. However, it will be seditious to undermine the foundation on which a term is based on, like challenging Truth being true, and miracle being predictable. The game can be dangerous.

[Pattern-chaser]

Good for you. I wish you luck on your journey of learning!

No luck needed,nor passive aggressive comments.
Cheers.

I'm autistic. My words are used explicitly, and entirely without implication. [More info here]

Your course differs significantly from mine; I wished (and wish) you luck on yours.

These days everybody claims a disease.
If you are intelligent enough to debate,you are intelligent enough to know what your words mean and how they come across.
I wish you well to,but I don't like excuses.

I have a formal diagnosis of autism spectrum condition (ASC). We communicate differently from you. I know what my words mean, and use them in that way. You insist on seeing implications that I do not put there. That's your 'excuse', and your problem.

[Asif]

No luck needed,nor passive aggressive comments.
Cheers.

I'm autistic. My words are used explicitly, and entirely without implication. [More info here]

Your course differs significantly from mine; I wished (and wish) you luck on yours.

These days everybody claims a disease.
If you are intelligent enough to debate,you are intelligent enough to know what your words mean and how they come across.
I wish you well to,but I don't like excuses.

I have a formal diagnosis of autism spectrum condition (ASC). We communicate differently from you. I know what my words mean, and use them in that way. You insist on seeing implications that I do not put there. That's your 'excuse', and your problem.

I have no need for your identity politics or "we",us and them spiel.
I will use my own judgement thanks.
The irony is you were the one claiming our senses or judgements are not self evident,now your certain about your own judgement!

[gad-fly]

"Didn't Satan reportedly encourage Jesus to throw himself down from the top of the temple so that the angels could catch him on the way down? Wouldn't that have been an amazing miracle of the type that would have convinced many people? Yet, Jesus refused. Why would Jesus refuse to provide such convincing evidence? What say you?"

Suppose someone says you cannot swim. would you then jump into the sea to prove that you can? You may? Fine, but if you do it every time you are challenged, let me say you are foolhardy or showing off.

"Furthermore, if a man saves another from drowning, isn't it possible that the man arranged to put the other in danger for no other reason than to save him and thus show tDo others what a good job he had done?"

It can be a show, but that is another issue.
When a man is drowning, and you can save him, you don't think otherwise, except whether you can save him.
What follows:
1. there is a factual event, that someone is drowning.
2. there is factual outcome, that a drowning person is saved.
3. the emergent evidence, that a person can be saved from drowning.
4. the possible validity or application of the evidence, that you are brave, you don't mind getting wet, you are a good citizen, divine intervention, stroke of luck, etc. Pick one, or a few.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm autistic. My words are used explicitly, and entirely without implication. [More info here]

Your course differs significantly from mine; I wished (and wish) you luck on yours.

These days everybody claims a disease.
If you are intelligent enough to debate,you are intelligent enough to know what your words mean and how they come across.
I wish you well to,but I don't like excuses.

I have a formal diagnosis of autism spectrum condition (ASC). We communicate differently from you. I know what my words mean, and use them in that way. You insist on seeing implications that I do not put there. That's your 'excuse', and your problem.

I have no need for your identity politics or "we",us and them spiel.
I will use my own judgement thanks.
The irony is you were the one claiming our senses or judgements are not self evident,now your certain about your own judgement!

Look, I'm just trying to apologise for offence given wholly inadvertently, and to try to explain. Please accept my genuine apology, and stop ramping up the aggression. Thanks.

[Asif]

My point still stands. Apology accepted. There is no aggression here. Just stating my piece.