What is truth?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What is truth?

Post by Terrapin Station » Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:15 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
Londoner wrote:...
At this point I can only conclude that you have some sort of mental illness (and I do suspect that you're an Aspie, at least). Well, or you're a pretty dedicated troll.

Also, LOL (literally) re reading "concerns" as "contentious issues" or "worries" etc., and not as "has to do with."
And with that terrapin station looses what little grasp of his side of the argument he had remaining.
There's either something wrong with him, or he's trolling. I'm not going to keep explaining the same thing in different words to someone who apparently can't understand anything he doesn't already think.

Not that I know why I'm telling you. Also, I noticed you always pop up to white knight any mention of Aspies. That's not at all suggestive.
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What is truth?

Post by Terrapin Station » Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:16 pm

Londoner wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:At this point I can only conclude that you have some sort of mental illness (and I do suspect that you're an Aspie, at least). Well, or you're a pretty dedicated troll.

Also, LOL (literally) re reading "concerns" as "contentious issues" or "worries" etc., and not as "has to do with."
Yet another post with no philosophical content.

I'm quite happy to leave it to others to judge which of us has a problem.
Yeah, you would endorse the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:31 pm

Londoner wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:At this point I can only conclude that you have some sort of mental illness (and I do suspect that you're an Aspie, at least). Well, or you're a pretty dedicated troll.

Also, LOL (literally) re reading "concerns" as "contentious issues" or "worries" etc., and not as "has to do with."
Yet another post with no philosophical content.

I'm quite happy to leave it to others to judge which of us has a problem.
I think your thoughts on distant galaxies was top notch.
I assume that you also assert that colour is a phenomenon of the perception and not a property of the object?
TerraStat, has a problem with his own reality.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by creativesoul » Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:50 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
creativesoul wrote:But...


That's not Kant's view, and he coined the terms.
What's the relevance of that in your view?
Speaking with a fair amount of self-righteous indignation, you've verbally assaulted others here for not getting your viewpoint right. Some of us expect you to use key terms judiciously.


You're using Kant's terminological(conceptual) framework.

Londoner
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by Londoner » Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:33 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I think your thoughts on distant galaxies was top notch.
I assume that you also assert that colour is a phenomenon of the perception and not a property of the object?
TerraStat, has a problem with his own reality.
Yes, I think colour must be a property of perception.

For one thing, we know we do not all perceive it the same way, not humans and certainly not animals. So, even if we thought colour was the property of the object, we could not know what that property was. Even for the same individual, colour is not fixed; an object seen under coloured lights will be a different colour. So, if we are going to insist that colour is a property of objects, we would not only have to specify 'to which observer' but also 'under which conditions'.

Of course, for a blind person there is no colour. Or, if we insist that the colour is still there, even if the blind person is not equipped to see it, then we would have to extend the notion of colour to include radio waves, and gamma rays, since these are also part of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Yes, we are not normally equipped to see them, but nor was the blind person equipped to see the visible spectrum, yet we insisted that colour still existed. So we have to add 'using which equipment' to the list of things for detecting colour.

As we add more conditions, our claim that a colour is the property of an object becomes more and more subjective; saying 'the tree is green' has become 'the tree looks green, at least to me, under certain conditions, using particular tools'. i.e. it is more about the observer than the observed.

(Alternatively, if we allow the whole electro-magnetic spectrum to count as 'colour', then our understanding of 'colour' is absorbed in our understanding of physics generally, but a scientific account of the universe is not subjective at all.)

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Nov 13, 2016 6:26 pm

Londoner wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: I think your thoughts on distant galaxies was top notch.
I assume that you also assert that colour is a phenomenon of the perception and not a property of the object?
TerraStat, has a problem with his own reality.
Yes, I think colour must be a property of perception.

For one thing, we know we do not all perceive it the same way, not humans and certainly not animals. So, even if we thought colour was the property of the object, we could not know what that property was. Even for the same individual, colour is not fixed; an object seen under coloured lights will be a different colour. So, if we are going to insist that colour is a property of objects, we would not only have to specify 'to which observer' but also 'under which conditions'.

Of course, for a blind person there is no colour. Or, if we insist that the colour is still there, even if the blind person is not equipped to see it, then we would have to extend the notion of colour to include radio waves, and gamma rays, since these are also part of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Yes, we are not normally equipped to see them, but nor was the blind person equipped to see the visible spectrum, yet we insisted that colour still existed. So we have to add 'using which equipment' to the list of things for detecting colour.

As we add more conditions, our claim that a colour is the property of an object becomes more and more subjective; saying 'the tree is green' has become 'the tree looks green, at least to me, under certain conditions, using particular tools'. i.e. it is more about the observer than the observed.

(Alternatively, if we allow the whole electro-magnetic spectrum to count as 'colour', then our understanding of 'colour' is absorbed in our understanding of physics generally, but a scientific account of the universe is not subjective at all.)
I've been diagnosed as "colour blind". But as far as I can tell I see al the colours normally. Others like myself agree that all the colours I see as have the same name and hue as them. It's only the "normal" people who disagree with me on issues of colour.
This fact has alway sled me to think that colour has to be the subject of our interpretation. There are major anomalies in colour perception. Greeks had no name for Blue, there is an African community that can see colours no white person can, and there is at least two types of "so called" colour blindness in the western world.

I think you have to be pretty dull not to see the obvious when it comes to matters of qualia.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What is truth?

Post by Harbal » Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:08 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I've been diagnosed as "colour blind".
Oh dear, and on top of all your other shortcomings. Life can be so unfair.
It's only the "normal" people who disagree with me on issues of colour.
In this, as with everything else, I'm sure you'll take the opposite view to the normal people.
Greeks had no name for Blue, there is an African community that can see colours no white person can,
Conversely, there are some African communities that have no word for Greek. Actually, there is a certain shade of purple that I would be more than happy not to be able to see.
and there is at least two types of "so called" colour blindness in the western world.
Well just be thankful that you only have one of them, Hobbes.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What is truth?

Post by Terrapin Station » Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:28 pm

creativesoul wrote:You're using Kant's terminological(conceptual) framework.
You're not answering what you take the relevance of that to be. Is it that just in case S initiated some particular terminology, you expect everyone after S to use the terminology in the same way that S did? (Also, this is assuming that S used the terminology in question in some sort of consistent and/or coherent way, which when S=Kant, is not the case.)

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by creativesoul » Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:53 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
creativesoul wrote:You're using Kant's terminological(conceptual) framework.
You're not answering what you take the relevance of that to be. Is it that just in case S initiated some particular terminology, you expect everyone after S to use the terminology in the same way that S did? (Also, this is assuming that S used the terminology in question in some sort of consistent and/or coherent way, which when S=Kant, is not the case.)
If you cannot see the relevance, there's probably not much more I can say to help you understand why and/or how others here are having trouble understanding the position you're arguing for.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:23 am

creativesoul wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
creativesoul wrote:You're using Kant's terminological(conceptual) framework.
You're not answering what you take the relevance of that to be. Is it that just in case S initiated some particular terminology, you expect everyone after S to use the terminology in the same way that S did? (Also, this is assuming that S used the terminology in question in some sort of consistent and/or coherent way, which when S=Kant, is not the case.)
If you cannot see the relevance, there's probably not much more I can say to help you understand why and/or how others here are having trouble understanding the position you're arguing for.
I had to give up on him too.
I comment your patience. But when a person does not respond to decently made points; when he obfuscates; when he misuses terminology, there is very little else you can do except walk away.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What is truth?

Post by Terrapin Station » Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:20 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
creativesoul wrote:You're using Kant's terminological(conceptual) framework.
You're not answering what you take the relevance of that to be. Is it that just in case S initiated some particular terminology, you expect everyone after S to use the terminology in the same way that S did? (Also, this is assuming that S used the terminology in question in some sort of consistent and/or coherent way, which when S=Kant, is not the case.)
If you cannot see the relevance, there's probably not much more I can say to help you understand why and/or how others here are having trouble understanding the position you're arguing for.
How about just answering the question I asked? Is that the relevance in your view?

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by creativesoul » Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:01 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
You're not answering what you take the relevance of that to be. Is it that just in case S initiated some particular terminology, you expect everyone after S to use the terminology in the same way that S did? (Also, this is assuming that S used the terminology in question in some sort of consistent and/or coherent way, which when S=Kant, is not the case.)
If you cannot see the relevance, there's probably not much more I can say to help you understand why and/or how others here are having trouble understanding the position you're arguing for.
How about just answering the question I asked? Is that the relevance in your view?
I did answer the question, in part at least. The relevance is two-fold. I offered the first facet only. That aspect regarded your outspokenness concerning others' misunderstanding your position.

The second aspect is not so much about what I expect with regard to your use of Kantian jargon. Rather, it is what most everyone serious about philosophy expects of others during philosophical discourse, particularly those familiar with the historical greats. Kant is most certainly one of those.

Just as it is the case that if you want someone to understand that your car is broken, you would say "My car is broken", not "My bicycle is broken", when you talk about Noumena, those well-versed in philosophy will expect you to be talking about the negative limit regarding our empirical knowledge. The unknown realm. The unknowable realm - by definition alone.

I, and I would expect that others would as well, would be interested in reading your justification for what you're saying about Kant. That is worthy of it's own thread though. Do not be misled, I'm no Kantian. Rather, I'm just wondering if you can effectively argue for what you claim.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What is truth?

Post by Terrapin Station » Wed Nov 16, 2016 2:24 pm

creativesoul wrote:...
Okay, so your argument is that (a) (almost) anyone in an academic philosophical milieu is going to read the terms phenomena/noumena in a strictly Kantian manner, with no heed paid to the various ways in which the terms have been used after Kant, and (b) that strictly Kantian manner in which they read the terms would not have noumena simply as "things in themselves" a la, per Kant's views "the unknowable, indescribable reality that, in some way, lies 'behind' the world of observed phenomena," or (c) at least if they do have "the unknowable, indescribable reality that, in some way, lies 'behind' the world of observed phenomena," then they'll only be able to read "noumena" as necessarily being unknowable, etc.?

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by creativesoul » Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:57 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
creativesoul wrote:...
Okay, so your argument is that (a) (almost) anyone in an academic philosophical milieu is going to read the terms phenomena/noumena in a strictly Kantian manner, with no heed paid to the various ways in which the terms have been used after Kant, and (b) that strictly Kantian manner in which they read the terms would not have noumena simply as "things in themselves" a la, per Kant's views "the unknowable, indescribable reality that, in some way, lies 'behind' the world of observed phenomena," or (c) at least if they do have "the unknowable, indescribable reality that, in some way, lies 'behind' the world of observed phenomena," then they'll only be able to read "noumena" as necessarily being unknowable, etc.?
Fer fuck's sake Terrapin...

Those who use Kantian terminology correctly will not conflate noumena and phenomena, as you have done...

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What is truth?

Post by Terrapin Station » Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:06 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
creativesoul wrote:...
Okay, so your argument is that (a) (almost) anyone in an academic philosophical milieu is going to read the terms phenomena/noumena in a strictly Kantian manner, with no heed paid to the various ways in which the terms have been used after Kant, and (b) that strictly Kantian manner in which they read the terms would not have noumena simply as "things in themselves" a la, per Kant's views "the unknowable, indescribable reality that, in some way, lies 'behind' the world of observed phenomena," or (c) at least if they do have "the unknowable, indescribable reality that, in some way, lies 'behind' the world of observed phenomena," then they'll only be able to read "noumena" as necessarily being unknowable, etc.?
Fer fuck's sake Terrapin...

Those who use Kantian terminology correctly will not conflate noumena and phenomena, as you have done...
You're against making progress I guess.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests