As the title says. Also, any recommended reading on philosophy of truth to get a better picture of your perspective?
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
For materialists, do you believe that truth exists independent of mind? If so, how?
Collapse
X
-
For materialists, do you believe that truth exists independent of mind? If so, how?
-The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
Sir James Jeans
-This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
Sir Isaac NewtonTags: None
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostAs the title says. Also, any recommended reading on philosophy of truth to get a better picture of your perspective?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/
Interesting question. I hold to some concept of correspondence theory where truth is defined as matching reality. I don't see how it could be dependent on minds, but it would be pretty weird to ask if a statement is true when there's nothing that can make the statement. Truth doesn't cease to exist in that case; it just becomes irrelevant.
Why limit it to materialists, though?I'm not here anymore.
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostAs the title says. Also, any recommended reading on philosophy of truth to get a better picture of your perspective?
As a Theist I believe Truth is independent of the mind, and resides only with God. The 'Materialist'? (Metaphysical Naturalist) the Truth ultimately lies with Natural Laws and the inherent in the nature of our physical existence, as understood by science.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe category ' Materialist' is not a good category to ask the question. I will go into it further in later posts, but . . .
As a Theist I believe Truth is independent of the mind, and resides only with God. The 'Materialist'? (Metaphysical Naturalist) the Truth ultimately lies with Natural Laws and the inherent in the nature of our physical existence, as understood by science.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostI always recommend the SEP or the IEP. They both have long articles with lots of references to get a good summary of things.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/
Interesting question. I hold to some concept of correspondence theory where truth is defined as matching reality. I don't see how it could be dependent on minds, but it would be pretty weird to ask if a statement is true when there's nothing that can make the statement. Truth doesn't cease to exist in that case; it just becomes irrelevant.
To put it in premise form:
P1: Truth is defined as "x"* that corresponds to reality.
P2: Truth exists without "x" necessarily existing.
C : "x"* that corresponds to reality exists without "x" necessarily existing. (Just replace truth by its definition).
Are any of these premises to be rejected?
*-"x" may be defined as statements, ideas, propositions etc.
Why limit it to materialists, though?-The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
Sir James Jeans
-This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
Sir Isaac Newton
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostPlease define 'truth' as you understand it.-The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
Sir James Jeans
-This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
Sir Isaac Newton
Comment
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostI think the correspondence theory is correct, as well. However if you define truth as "x"* that corresponds to reality, and state that truth exists without "x" necessarily existing, that would mean that "x" that corresponds to reality exists(i.e. there exists some "x") without "x" necessarily existing. This seems quite clearly to be a contradiction.
To put it in premise form:
P1: Truth is defined as "x"* that corresponds to reality.
P2: Truth exists without "x" necessarily existing.
C : "x"* that corresponds to reality exists without "x" necessarily existing. (Just replace truth by its definition).
Are any of these premises to be rejected?
Yeah, I think so. P2. Truth, doesn't necessarily exist without the existence of the corresponding reality.
*-"x" may be defined as statements, ideas, propositions etc.
I think that platonists (small 'p') can account for truth existing independent of mind (by definition of platonism). Idealists and Substance dualists can account for the existence of truth by positing that mind (or a greater mind) is eternally existing. Materialists reject platonism, Idealism and Substance dualism, so I wonder about how they can account for it. That's why I'm mostly limiting it to them, to hear and discuss their views.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostI think the correspondence theory is correct, as well. However if you define truth as "x"* that corresponds to reality, and state that truth exists without "x" necessarily existing, that would mean that "x" that corresponds to reality exists(i.e. there exists some "x") without "x" necessarily existing. This seems quite clearly to be a contradiction.
To put it in premise form:
P1: Truth is defined as "x"* that corresponds to reality.
P2: Truth exists without "x" necessarily existing.
C : "x"* that corresponds to reality exists without "x" necessarily existing. (Just replace truth by its definition).
Are any of these premises to be rejected?
*-"x" may be defined as statements, ideas, propositions etc.
However, I probably wouldn't say 'truth' actually exists even with minds. That would seem to entail an application of realism that I don't accept. The question for me wouldn't be if it's dependent on a mind but if it exists at all.
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostI think that platonists (small 'p') can account for truth existing independent of mind (by definition of platonism). Idealists and Substance dualists can account for the existence of truth by positing that mind (or a greater mind) is eternally existing. Materialists reject platonism, Idealism and Substance dualism, so I wonder about how they can account for it. That's why I'm mostly limiting it to them, to hear and discuss their views.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostPlease define 'truth' as you understand it.
The fallible human minds are are dependencies on whichever is true.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe fallible human minds are are dependencies on whichever is true.
There is also truth of mind about substance, "adequation of intellect to the thing".
There is also truthfulness in words about one's mind, "adequation of words to thought".
There being an ultimate reality and there being adequation of words to thought, somehow that could conceivably be there, even if ultimate reality were materialistic.
B u t, if ultimate reality were per se mindless, if highest minds were human ones (or perhaps even superhuman ones, in Raelian & perhaps von Däniken versions of materialism), still depending on an ultimately mindless reality, how does an adequation of mind to exterior thing come about?http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostThe nature of ultimate reality is called "true" in one sense of the word, namely truth of substance.
There is also truth of mind about substance, "adequation of intellect to the thing".
There is also truthfulness in words about one's mind, "adequation of words to thought".
There being an ultimate reality and there being adequation of words to thought, somehow that could conceivably be there, even if ultimate reality were materialistic.
B u t, if ultimate reality were per se mindless, if highest minds were human ones (or perhaps even superhuman ones, in Raelian & perhaps von Däniken versions of materialism), still depending on an ultimately mindless reality, how does an adequation of mind to exterior thing come about?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostLike the mind/brain itself, it evolves.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostAs the title says. Also, any recommended reading on philosophy of truth to get a better picture of your perspective?“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
“not all there” - you know who you are
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostAnd how would evolution of brain bring about evolution of mind and of adequation of mind to external thing?Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-25-2016, 07:28 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostHow? The processes of adaption, adequation, and natural selection in our relationship to external things real and imagined are well documented.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThere exists in the animal kingdom significant evidence of progressive complexity of the brain and the resulting mind, consciousness, will and intellect.
Universal truthclaims and adaptation to surroundings are two different types of mental activity. The one doesn't follow from the other.
Even a very good philosopher can be rather ditzy about gestures in everyday life, trip on banana skins and so on. And even a very agile cat, with extremely good hunting skills, doesn't really reason.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe other primates in our evolutionary family show many of our characteristics of the mind, but in a simpler form.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
597 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment