I sometimes think a new name is in order to separate logical truth, necessary truth, colloquial truth, etc... because all too often they are mixed and mingled, diced and sliced in conversation making it very hard to distinguish one's usage of the word (and we all know we hate adjectives right?)

But why could not some statement be true that is inconsistent with the evidence. Many people think that the statement that there is a God is inconsistent with the evidence, but it may be true nonetheless.

If we are to be reasonable and retain some level of sane coherence with our reality, then the claim that a supernatural agent exists should be rejected on parsimonious grounds if not logical grounds.

It is true, I think, that nothing is certain. But why should that mean that there is no truth? What have certainty and truth to do with one another?

I sometimes think a new name is in order to separate logical truth, necessary truth, colloquial truth, etc... because all too often they are mixed and mingled, diced and sliced in conversation making it very hard to distinguish one's usage of the word (and we all know we hate adjectives right?)

I can't agree with this. I don't think we "know what's down there." I don't think that "there is nothing new under the sun." I don't think that fundamental questioning "leads nowhere." Are we forgetting Socrates?

Another thing: do you find no thrill in the grand questions?

I meant "there is no truth" as in "nobody knows the truth". Who can say what is true?

But isn't it also very likely that the more times one considers these questions, the deeper the understanding of them becomes? And isn't it also sometimes the case that each time, we ask a slightly different question that leads us into unchartered and, for each of us, unencountered waters?

I suppose I see what you're saying but the god example isn't a very good one. If an agent's attributes contradict observed reality then the logical conclusion is that such an agent does not exist. If we are to be reasonable and retain some level of sane coherence with our reality, then the claim that a supernatural agent exists should be rejected on parsimonious grounds if not logical grounds.

I think thats true for everyone, what also means that everyone is thrilled by those questions. But, like I said, the more you have already tried to answer then, the less you want to try =)

I meant "there is no truth" as in "nobody knows the truth". Who can say what is true?

I said that many people believe what is inconsistent with the evidence. I did not say they should do so.

You make a good point, but what authority is this should grounded upon? Should the claim that a universally applicable reason exists also be rejected on parsimonious grounds? Or is faith in a universal reason justified by its fruit?

This should is grounded upon logical coherence with the world around you. There is a such thing as reality and a such thing as imagination. Any confusion of the two is an affirmation of the latter.

Your statements imply that we need a transcendent, metaphysical authority in order to have a coherent view of reality. God is dead but you remain in his shadow.

Your statements imply that we need a transcendent, metaphysical authority in order to have a coherent view of reality. God is dead but you remain in his shadow.

I suppose I see what you're saying but the god example isn't a very good one. If an agent's attributes contradict observed reality then the logical conclusion is that such an agent does not exist. If we are to be reasonable and retain some level of sane coherence with our reality, then the claim that a supernatural agent exists should be rejected on parsimonious grounds if not logical grounds.

That's hilarious, man. You are stealing my lines! Actually we are both stealing Nietzsche's and Rorty's lines. If you are a neo-pragmatist, I salute you.

I just looked at my statements to make sure. What are you talking about? Are you on this planet?

In my opinion, this "reality" of yours is the shadow of "God." Is this the age-old correspondence theory of truth? Old news. Good for certain purposes but crammed with prejudice.

Let's see if you've been paying attention. What is my view of reality and what is my theory of truth?

You keep mentioning authority and the fact that man invents concepts and words, which seems to render everything (even truth) relative in your view. This results from your lack of belief in an omniscient metaphysical authority to give you a god's eye view. Not that you're consciously aware of this, though.

This should is grounded upon logical coherence with the world around you. There is a such thing as reality and a such thing as imagination. Any confusion of the two is an affirmation of the latter.

Reconstructo;128101 wrote:

Do we stop questioning because our current position is emotionally satisfying? Are all intellectual positions based on a sort of faith? On the cessation of questioning?
Is the "pursuit of truth" a bluff, then? Is "truth" just adjustment?

Do you question the singularity of reality because you fear to face it? Is your implicitly relativistic position the rationalization of a coward? Isn't this pseudo-problematic exhibition a refuge from the real work of philosophy?

Do you question the singularity of reality because you fear to face it? Is your implicitly relativistic position the rationalization of a coward? Isn't this pseudo-problematic exhibition a refuge from the real work of philosophy?

Debating with oneself is often preferable to debating with others. At least the conversation is intelligent.

But isn't it also very likely that the more times one considers these questions, the deeper the understanding of them becomes? And isn't it also sometimes the case that each time, we ask a slightly different question that leads us into unchartered and, for each of us, unencountered waters?

But I know a great many truths. I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. I know that Mars is the fourth planet. I know that I was born, and I had parents. Shall I go on? And so do you know many truths. I can say that all these truths are true.

I find it addictive. I also reject the notion that the results are the same for everyone. I utterly reject that assumption. The more books one reads and more importantly digests, the richer one's vocabulary becomes for re-contextualization of these texts, for pitting them against one another.

I like Bacon. Knowledge is sometimes power. But I don't think philosophy is all about the practical. This is philosophy, not carpentry or waste management.

Debating with oneself is often preferable to debating with others. At least the conversation is intelligent.

Perhaps, but emphasis on debating with oneself online. I'm just giving him a hard time, in a sense I think we function by debating with ourselves, kind of like a sane version of multiple personality disorder.

What if the people of Quito are wrong, and that is not the name of the city? It may be thousands and thousands of people with centuries of writen history against one crazy man, but is it really impossible for the crazy man to be wrong?

But why could not some statement be true that is inconsistent with the evidence. Many people think that the statement that there is a God is inconsistent with the evidence, but it may be true nonetheless.

You mean it might be true, not may be true, right?

How about you just save us the time and briefly state your position.

Sincerely, you seem to be using the word "affirmation" is a strange manner here. Also, "logical coherence" is a questionable phrase.

For a well-fed man wants myths, stories, entertainment, etc. And this is where wishful thinking comes in, as a luxury item.

Debating with oneself is often preferable to debating with others. At least the conversation is intelligent.

You spoke as if you knew what my position was. I'm a scientific realist and my position is that truth is logical and parsimonious consistency with evidence. In order for something to be true, I hold that is must be able to be verified by empirical study or logical decidability. For example, it's true that your screen name is Reconstructo. That's a synthetic proposition that can be verified by empirical study. Here's another truth: all bachelors are unmarried. That's an analytic proposition. My notion of truth is coherence grounded in correspondence and justified by pragmatic meta-consideration.

My use of the word may have been slightly out of context, but you get my point. Logical coherence is only a questionable phrase if you don't know what I mean by logical. There a field in philosophy known as logic. The field uses induction and deduction to arrive at a coherent conclusion. In other words, 1+1=2 and 2+1=3.

That's what aesthetics is for.

You should have quoted a bit more, what I said to be true for everyone are not the results, but the fact that you need to have some interest in a question to make it. Nobody makes a question without having interest in the answer. Since everyone makes the grand questions, everyone is interested in then.

Perhaps, but emphasis on debating with oneself online. I'm just giving him a hard time, in a sense I think we function by debating with ourselves, kind of like a sane version of multiple personality disorder.