true v. believed to be true

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » true v. believed to be true

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

3k1yp2
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 07:35 pm
:Not-Impressed:which of the following: emotion/intuition, reason/logic, language, and our senses (sight, taste, smell...)

least help us to distinguish what is true from what is only believed to be true?

they all have great limitations, but i'm kinda leaning towards reason&logic or senses as better than language or emotion...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 08:47 pm
@3k1yp2,
3k1yp2;110728 wrote:

they all have great limitations, but i'm kinda leaning towards reason&logic or senses as better than language or emotion...


I do see much that is language and emotion in this statement.


Welcome to the forum!!
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:01 pm
@3k1yp2,
Definitely not emotion. Emotion is easily clouded up by other peoples feelings, which are often not "The truth". I do believe that reason and logic is the best way to find the truth, but language is the only way to communicate it. One person may know the truth, but they could be one of those people in the mental institute, marked "Crazy" for something they believe. They could be mute. They could be dead. They could be lost. They could be uneducated. What I'm getting at is, linguistics are most likely the best way to spread "The truth". If one of us knew "The truth", or if someone very calm and persuasive did, then they would be able to spread it, and justify it more.

I.e: Porn may not be a good thing. But I can make it seem that way, simply through persuasion.
 
3k1yp2
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:02 pm
@Reconstructo,
:detective:
Reconstructo;110742 wrote:
I do see much that is language and emotion in this statement.


Welcome to the forum!!


as do I. There are weaknesses in logic (the ten deadly fallacies, or plain faulty logic) and also in perception (optical illusions most obviously) , but language and emotion seem the most fallible. Gut feelings are more often wrong than right (lucky lottery #s) and emotion has lead everyone in this world down the wrong path at least once. Language is the as bad as emotion and is perhaps the greatest stumbling block for logical reasoning. One can collapse nearly any argument by arguing over what things mean...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:05 pm
@3k1yp2,
3k1yp2;110747 wrote:
:detective:

as do I. There are weaknesses in logic (the ten deadly fallacies, or plain faulty logic) and also in perception (optical illusions most obviously) , but language and emotion seem the most fallible. Gut feelings are more often wrong than right (lucky lottery #s) and emotion has lead everyone in this world down the wrong path at least once. Language is the as bad as emotion and is perhaps the greatest stumbling block for logical reasoning. One can collapse nearly any argument by arguing over what things mean...


I swear I'm not trying to be difficult, but isn't this critique of language and emotion a value-judgment in the form of language?

I see language as the root of all our thought, for what most call thought is inseparable from language -- and for that matter emotion. Or can we reasonably assume a perfectly unbiased view, considering that we are animals with needs?
 
3k1yp2
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:09 pm
@Quinn phil,
:sarcastic:
Quinn;110746 wrote:
Definitely not emotion. Emotion is easily clouded up by other peoples feelings, which are often not "The truth". I do believe that reason and logic is the best way to find the truth, but language is the only way to communicate it. One person may no the truth, but they could be one of those people in the mental institute, marked "Crazy" for something they believe. They could be mute. They could be dead. They could be lost. They could be uneducated. What I'm getting at is, linguistics are most likely the best way to spread "The truth". If one of us knew "The truth", or if someone very calm and persuasive did, then they would be able to spread it, and justify it more.

I.e: Porn may not be a good thing. But I can make it seem that way, simply through persuasion.


quite a perceptive observation, i had neglected to consider this, and had written off language as being as useless as emotion in determining what is tue as opposed to just believed. However it does have its weaknesses...
i propose this heirarchy: (most usefull in determination of truth at the top)

☆Reason
☆Perception
☆Language
☆Emotion
 
Quinn phil
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:13 pm
@3k1yp2,
That's a good chart. However, think of it this way.

If no one were reasonable, change would never occur for the better.

If no one were linguistic, most people would not know how to be reasonable.

Most people would not realize how to reason with other people, for without language, there is no way to express complex ideas. Sign Language, also being a language; How would you reason without language?
 
3k1yp2
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:15 pm
@Reconstructo,
:a-ok:
Reconstructo;110749 wrote:
I swear I'm not trying to be difficult, but isn't this critique of language and emotion a value-judgment in the form of language?

I see language as the root of all our thought, for what most call thought is inseparable from language -- and for that matter emotion. Or can we reasonably assume a perfectly unbiased view, considering that we are animals with needs?


you make a valid point, i love it, but i ask you, how does emotion assist in the differentiation between whether something is true or just believed? unlessss... the truth in question is a matter of emotion in itself. emotion would definitely trump logic if you were determining whether you love someone or not...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:16 pm
@3k1yp2,
3k1yp2;110751 wrote:
:sarcastic:

quite a perceptive observation, i had neglected to consider this, and had written off language as being as useless as emotion in determining what is tue as opposed to just believed. However it does have its weaknesses...
i propose this heirarchy: (most usefull in determination of truth at the top)

☆Reason
☆Perception
☆Language
☆Emotion


I appreciate your courtesy and think a hierarchy is a good idea. I would have to ask you to differentiate between "reason" and "language." You seem to perhaps think of them as logic compared to rhetoric. And this makes sense. It should be mentioned however that rhetoric rather than logic is associated with metaphor, and metaphor, in my opinion, is the source of concepts like "reason" and "logic" in the first place.

Linguistic philosophy, is for me, one of the most eye-opening branches of philosophy? Can we hope to escape the limitations of language? Check this out...from Wiki

The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. The theory is opposed to the coherence theory of truth which holds that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined by its relations to other statements rather than its relation to the world.
 
3k1yp2
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:21 pm
@Quinn phil,
:sarcastic:
Quinn;110753 wrote:


Most people would not realize how to reason with other people, for without language, there is no way to express complex ideas. Sign Language, also being a language; How would you reason without language?


language is indeed intertwined with reason, but only to an extent; i can reason things out just fine in my mind, i don't necessarily have the desire to spread my findings...the thing were doing is using language, senses, emotion, and reason as tools to discern mere belief from truth...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:22 pm
@3k1yp2,
How would you define truth? And do you believe in thought without language?
 
3k1yp2
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:26 pm
@Reconstructo,
:whoa-dude:
Reconstructo;110756 wrote:
Check this out...from Wiki

The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. The theory is opposed to the coherence theory of truth which holds that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined by its relations to other statements rather than its relation to the world.


hmmmm...i like it! that's pretty cool!
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:31 pm
@3k1yp2,
Here's the thing, tho. I think the correspondence theory is at times redundant. For instance, if two scientist disagree about what reality is, how can we say what is true in this case? Ultimately what we mean by "finding the truth" is often the same thing as what we mean by "finding out about reality." So truth as accuracy about reality is a bit redundant. Of course if it's a simple case of some guy getting caught on a security camera unknowingly only to get caught in a lie.... well, that's where the correspondence theory works just fine.

But the coherence theory is more psychologically accurate. For instance, people who already believe in God tend to keep their eyes open for proofs of God, and the reverse is also true. We believe or disbelieve new things in relation to what we already believe. It's like a network of belief. No one wants to accept something that makes them rethink everything.....

But these are just my opinions of course...
 
3k1yp2
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:40 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;110760 wrote:
How would you define truth? And do you believe in thought without language?


going with th easier question first, i do believe that one can logically reason without language. Do you believe that all animals have language? they do reason, at least i believe so... as for what truth is, i think that the following can be said of truth...

truth is contextual, that is, a statement can be true in certain circumstances and not in others
"There are truths on this side of the Pyranees that are falsehoods on the other -Blaise Pascal"
also, thing can be true at some point in time, yet not be true later (i am alive). also, aren't some statements truer within a certain context? i can say my gas tank is empty, and indeed ther is no gasoline, but is it truly empty?
i cant think of a more complete definition at th moment, but i like what came off wiki...what about you?

---------- Post added 12-12-2009 at 09:45 PM ----------

wow, i really like this site, it's been a while since i could talk to someone like this, yeah, i gotta go offline for tonight, see ya later! I shall ponder the truth...how cn we be buddies?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:46 pm
@3k1yp2,
3k1yp2;110768 wrote:
going with th easier question first, i do believe that one can logically reason without language. Do you believe that all animals have language? they do reason, at least i believe so... as for what truth is, i think that the following can be said of truth...

truth is contextual, that is, a statement can be true in certain circumstances and not in others
"There are truths on this side of the Pyranees that are falsehoods on the other -Blaise Pascal"
also, thing can be true at some point in time, yet not be true later (i am alive). also, aren't some statements truer within a certain context? i can say my gas tank is empty, and indeed ther is no gasoline, but is it truly empty?
i cant think of a more complete definition at th moment, but i like what came off wiki...what about you?


Whether animals have reason depends I suppose on what we mean by "reason." I agree with you that truth is contextual, as language is quite contextual indeed. I like that Pascal quote. Here's another line in that line: last years truths are next years lies. today's lies are tomorrow's truths. Science itself has changed its mind so many times, and many regard science as the paragon of truth. For me "truth" is a word with many uses. I think the only accurate way to define it is to look at its context, and even this is always an act of interpretation. I would agree that some statements are truer in a certain context.

I'm quite fond of the term "ironist" which I stole from Richard Rorty or from whoever he stole it from. Here's some background on my favorite more recent philosopher:

The central plank of Rorty's thinking was laid out in his most influential book, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity (1989), though his scepticism about epistemology (questions about what we know) and external truth had caused a stir when they were first raised in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature 10 years earlier.
Rorty distinguished between the "metaphysician" - which in his description included all those absorbed by the questions of traditional philosophy - and the "ironist", his preferred philosophical hero.
(Or, rather, heroine, for he adopted the now-fashionable academic practice of using "she" as a neuter pronoun when writing of ironists. A metaphysician remained "he", however, perhaps to emphasise his wrongness.)
The two positions were separated by their "final vocabulary", words such as "true"; "right"; "good" and "beautiful" (and, at a lower level, terms such as "professional standards"; "decency"; "kindness"; "Christ"; "England"; "creative"; "the Revolution" and so on) which were as far as people could go in using language to justify their beliefs, actions and ambitions.
Ironists are distinguished from metaphysicians, in Rorty's view, by their distrust of such vocabularies, because they are aware of completing vocabularies, and by the fact that the existence of the vocabulary does nothing to shore up such doubts.
END QUOTE
That was from the Telegraph.

This is one of Rorty's best books. It's direct, not too technical, and brilliant. If you like this, you should move on to his essays.Contingency, irony, and solidarity - Google Books
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 02:38 am
@3k1yp2,
3k1yp2;110728 wrote:
:Not-Impressed:which of the following: emotion/intuition, reason/logic, language, and our senses (sight, taste, smell...)

least help us to distinguish what is true from what is only believed to be true?

they all have great limitations, but i'm kinda leaning towards reason&logic or senses as better than language or emotion...


How would language help us make the distinction? Or, for that matter, emotion? Or for that matter, intuition?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 02:45 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;110839 wrote:
How would language help us make the distinction? Or, for that matter, emotion? Or for that matter, intuition?


Well, reason and logic are made of language.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 02:56 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;110844 wrote:
Well, reason and logic are made of language.


Even were that true (and I have no idea what that would mean except that I use language to reason) it would not follow that language makes the distinction.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 03:32 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;110846 wrote:
Even were that true (and I have no idea what that would mean except that I use language to reason) it would not follow that language makes the distinction.


That's what I mean. You use language to reason. What else is reason if not words? It seems to me that the limits of language are the limits of reason. This is why I value metaphor. By means of it we develop new concepts which extend the possibilities of reason.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 03:44 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;110860 wrote:
That's what I mean. You use language to reason. What else is reason if not words? It seems to me that the limits of language are the limits of reason. This is why I value metaphor. By means of it we develop new concepts which extend the possibilities of reason.


To say we use language to reason is not to say that reason is just words. The first is true, the second, if it means anything at all, is false.

It is like saying that since we use a paint brush to paint, that painting is just using a paint brush. (Only that makes more sense).
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » true v. believed to be true
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/16/2019 at 05:39:20