True. You could be both.
That's a false dichotomy.
Well aren't you the bossy one. The signified for the signifier "meaning" is meaning.
True. You could be both.
That's a false dichotomy.
Well aren't you the bossy one. The signified for the signifier "meaning" is meaning.
I could be neither also.
Very well. The dichotomy is that you are either a Pragmatist or you aren't.
That sounds circular. Perhaps I am mistaken...
Well yeah, I suppose that's possible.
Ah well, it depends on what you mean by "Pragmatist" with a capital P.
Oh please. Are you really going to make a twat of yourself trying to score some point? Grow up and learn to have a proper conversation.
It's just a capitalised "pragmatist". It's for Philosophical effect. Like capitalising "philosophy".
Why don't I just make a twat of you by pointing out that you actually misunderstood what I meant by the word 'meaning'?
Why is it that only Philosophers seem to think I am unable to converse? I used to think it's me, but I am starting to think it's you...
You see, I see that our life's journey (quest) from day one of our, as a natural chemistry experiment, existence, has been to uncover the absolute truth of the universe, thus our lives, and we have made much progress in this monumental quest, but we are still far too young to know it all. That if we can outlive our foolish stages of possible (probable?) total annihilation, we may one day know it complete, the absolute truth, that is!Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:50 amYou are mistaken. I am attempting to pull the words out of your mouth, not put them there.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am That's not true, what was said yesterday may be said today. You said cannot, that's not what I said. You're attempting to put words in my mouth.
According to you it MAY be said that Earth is flat. Just as it MAY be said that the Earth is round.
To argue that both of those things MAY be said is precisely the argument for Ontological Relativity!
If you are agreeing with me - just say it. There's no need for sophistry.
Your premises are invalid, therefore your conclusions are false.
Sure anything may be said. But that has nothing to do with absolute truth, other than it can be done, and often is done by foolish humans.
That any particular human may say anything they choose, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ontology either.
Ontology asks what is, thus what is not, what exists, what reality is? That some people believe in leprechauns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows, and state as much, is only ontologically sound in that these type people exist, not that what they say is absolutely true. Instead it's absolutely true (probably) that they are mentally 'touched'.
In this one sentence you have fallen for Sorites paradox.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am The Absolute Truth is the actual state of affairs.
You are using "the" incorrectly. In the English language "the" is known as the definite particular.
So you're a English teacher, that's nice, but I don't believe I signed up for your class.
There is fuckall "definite" or "particular" about the sentence "THE state of affairs",
So you say, but then who the fuck are you? Just another swinging dick full of testosterone, that fears his inevitability, seeking his shelter in certainty, when in fact, in such a case, there is none, that is, not much considering the current human condition, (percentage of "THE" 'absolute truth' that humans currently "KNOW"!
(Now go ahead and correct my English like all losers do, that are, instead of knowledge, full of subterfuge and ploys!) You know, that self certainty thing you so enjoy!
when 'the' said affairs keep changing, and when 'the' said affairs keep being described in different language by different people.
"the state of affairs" It's so vague a sentence as to be meaningless.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be one of those idiots, that believe that a short summation must contain all the particulars, as self evident, that are contained within the summation. Sorry but you have to think about what's included when it comes to a very short sentence that encompasses infinity.
How can something that is changing from one moment onto the next be an "Absolute Truth"?!?SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am If the current state of affairs is that we don't currently know, then that's the absolute truth. If ontology is currently incorrect as to any particular aspect of metaphysics then that is the Absolute Truth. If relativity of anything is the actual state of affairs then that is the absolute truth.
The absolute truth is all encompassing of that which is the universe, the actual state of affairs despite human ignorance of it.
That's certainly the case, since I reject the very notion of Absolute Truth. Since you don't - perhaps you should explain it?SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am Maybe you don't understand what the Absolute Truth is as I see it.
In the beginning, the membrane knew nothing of the absolute truth, it just absorbed what was required to stay alive. Evolution: chemistry over time changed it into the plethora of life that currently exists, but it was a very long journey, as we very slowly grew in knowledge, (which is our ferreting out bits and pieces of the absolute truth of things, (the actual state of affairs))
As a Human, how could you ever come to acquire knowledge from such a perspective?SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am It's the truth from the universal perspective, not necessarily humankind’s.
Time!! We have already amassed some of it. For instance we know much of both the macro and micro-scopic. Math, as it pertains to the universe. Though there are still many idiots that believe in things that have yet to be proven, as if they ever shall.
You are a human (are you not?), so how have you come to know anything about Absolute Truth, if all your knowledge is relative?SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am So while the absolute truth is a constant it's humankinds theories that are relative,
You totally left out the most important word, "theories!"
Surely Absolute Truth is not relative to anything? Because it's Absolute.
Absolutely!
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:36 am Does the notion of Ontological relativity (introduced below) undermine the notion of Absolute Truth?
From the wikipedia page on Neopragmatism Quine's argument for ontological relativity follows:
* All ideas and perceptions concerning reality are given to our minds in terms of our own mental language.
I disagree! As per it's definition, perception is given to us by our senses.
* Mental languages specify how objects in the world are to be constructed from our sense data.
Incorrect, sense data came first, language came later. Sequence (time) is everything!
* Different mental languages will specify different ontologies (different objects existing in the world).
Totally incorrect! I would say that different languages may specify different aspects, but that all objects have many different aspects, that when combined simply create truer ontologies. Objects never differ, rather only ever have differing perspectives, again adding to ontologies.
* There is no way to perfectly translate between two different mental languages; there will always be several, consistent ways in which the terms in each language can be mapped onto the other.
Translation is not at issue, rather incorporation is, because all aspects, perspectives make for a clearer understanding.
* Reality apart from our perceptions of it can be thought of as constituting a true, object language, that is, the language which specifies how things actually are.
No language defining an object is possible without first perceiving the object, and all objects including our senses are of reality, due to reality. "how things are", "state of affairs", "absolute truth", "reality", all mean the same thing.
* There is no difference in translating between two mental languages and translating between the object language of reality and one's own mental language.
There is no such thing as language without the animal, the object has no language, though all objects that actually exist are reality, are the absolute truth of things, are the actual state of affairs, are how things are. It's up to humans to create language so as to speak of those realities, which has no bearing upon reality, simply a means to speak of them.
* Therefore, just as there is no objective way of translating between two mental languages (no one-to-one mapping of terms in one to terms in the other) there is no way of objectively translating (or fitting) the true, object language of reality into our own mental language.
Not true, all we can ever have is our own language which does not differ in the mind, it's just that like us, currently our language is incomplete, it is young, it contains many errors and misconceptions. After all, how can young animals have anything more than a young language?
* And therefore, there are many ontologies (possibly an infinite number) that can be consistently held to represent reality.
Nope! It's just that like all our science it's revisionist in nature. Currently it's in the state of our current evolutionary condition, which is still immature. But we have done some work that is very accurate.
But always remember that any time you formulate an argument against language you 'can' both improve it and argue against your own argument. If only one could use something other than language to argue against language...
Your fallacy is - appeal to logic.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:57 pm Your premises are invalid, therefore your conclusions are false.
And epistemology has limits which prevent you from getting to the answer.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:57 pm Ontology asks what is, thus what is not, what exists, what reality is?
Strawman.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:57 pm That some people believe in leprechauns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows, and state as much, is only ontologically sound in that these type people exist, not that what they say is absolutely true. Instead it's absolutely true (probably) that they are mentally 'touched'.[/color]
OK - if you want to remain ignorant just say the word "Please stop pointing out my errors to me".SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am So you're a English teacher, that's nice, but I don't believe I signed up for your class.
I am an epistemologist
You must be projecting. I am not a determinist by any stretch of the imagination - and I am perfectly comfortable knowing than knowledge is impossible.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am Just another swinging dick full of testosterone, that fears his inevitability, seeking his shelter in certainty, when in fact, in such a case, there is none, that is, not much considering the current human condition, (percentage of "THE" 'absolute truth' that humans currently "KNOW"!
I don't enjoy certainty - In only sell it. I am in the insurance business - risk management.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am (Now go ahead and correct my English like all losers do, that are, instead of knowledge, full of subterfuge and ploys!) You know, that self certainty thing you so enjoy![/color]
You don't know what infinity is.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be one of those idiots, that believe that a short summation must contain all the particulars, as self evident, that are contained within the summation. Sorry but you have to think about what's included when it comes to a very short sentence that encompasses infinity.
We don't have any knowledge - the latest thing to come our way is abstract thought. Logic, Mathematics, Language.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am In the beginning, the membrane knew nothing of the absolute truth, it just absorbed what was required to stay alive. Evolution: chemistry over time changed it into the plethora of life that currently exists, but it was a very long journey, as we very slowly grew in knowledge
Math doesn't pertain to the Universe. It pertains to the human mind. Math is our abstract understanding OF the universe.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am Time!! We have already amassed some of it. For instance we know much of both the macro and micro-scopic. Math, as it pertains to the universe. Though there are still many idiots that believe in things that have yet to be proven, as if they ever shall.
Lets keep that word there then. A theory of Absolute Truth is NOT Absolute Truth.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am You totally left out the most important word, "theories!"
Then how can you say anything about it when all of your knowledge is relative?
And it's not going to get much better than this for as long as the only instrument we have for understanding The Universe is abstract language.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 am You see, I see that our life's journey (quest) from day one of our, as a natural chemistry experiment, existence, has been to uncover the absolute truth of the universe, thus our lives, and we have made much progress in this monumental quest, but we are still far too young to know it all. That if we can outlive our foolish stages of possible (probable?) total annihilation, we may one day know it complete, the absolute truth, that is!
Today many humans don't even know themselves, in denial, fearful of the inevitable, fevorishly grappling for any sort of beliefs they can call truths so as to try and quell those fears of uncertainty. They can't see that the time has come do dissolve their selfishness and greed, that together as one human force we can be unstoppable it the quest of ascertaining the complete certain absolute truth of us all that is this universe.
Most men as still denying their need to cry. We are in fact currently pathetic, stabbing at windmills, too frightened to see them for what they truly are, namely: self defeatist imaginary monsters!
As a species, we're currently largely, simply still, monkey brained, dumb hairless apes.[/color]
You are going to have to take up your disagreement with physics. I don't care for it.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:14 pmSkepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:36 am Does the notion of Ontological relativity (introduced below) undermine the notion of Absolute Truth?
From the wikipedia page on Neopragmatism Quine's argument for ontological relativity follows:
* All ideas and perceptions concerning reality are given to our minds in terms of our own mental language.
I disagree! As per it's definition, perception is given to us by our senses.
* Mental languages specify how objects in the world are to be constructed from our sense data.
Incorrect, sense data came first, language came later. Sequence (time) is everything!
* Different mental languages will specify different ontologies (different objects existing in the world).
Totally incorrect! I would say that different languages may specify different aspects, but that all objects have many different aspects, that when combined simply create truer ontologies. Objects never differ, rather only ever have differing perspectives, again adding to ontologies.
* There is no way to perfectly translate between two different mental languages; there will always be several, consistent ways in which the terms in each language can be mapped onto the other.
Translation is not at issue, rather incorporation is, because all aspects, perspectives make for a clearer understanding.
* Reality apart from our perceptions of it can be thought of as constituting a true, object language, that is, the language which specifies how things actually are.
No language defining an object is possible without first perceiving the object, and all objects including our senses are of reality, due to reality. "how things are", "state of affairs", "absolute truth", "reality", all mean the same thing.
* There is no difference in translating between two mental languages and translating between the object language of reality and one's own mental language.
There is no such thing as language without the animal, the object has no language, though all objects that actually exist are reality, are the absolute truth of things, are the actual state of affairs, are how things are. It's up to humans to create language so as to speak of those realities, which has no bearing upon reality, simply a means to speak of them.
* Therefore, just as there is no objective way of translating between two mental languages (no one-to-one mapping of terms in one to terms in the other) there is no way of objectively translating (or fitting) the true, object language of reality into our own mental language.
Not true, all we can ever have is our own language which does not differ in the mind, it's just that like us, currently our language is incomplete, it is young, it contains many errors and misconceptions. After all, how can young animals have anything more than a young language?
* And therefore, there are many ontologies (possibly an infinite number) that can be consistently held to represent reality.
Nope! It's just that like all our science it's revisionist in nature. Currently it's in the state of our current evolutionary condition, which is still immature. But we have done some work that is very accurate.
But always remember that any time you formulate an argument against language you 'can' both improve it and argue against your own argument. If only one could use something other than language to argue against language...
Not at all HQ!henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:02 pm No, we're fairly bright, collectively and (especially) individually.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:12 pmNot at all HQ!henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:02 pm No, we're fairly bright, collectively and (especially) individually.
Not at all, you mentioned someone's argument in your OP. Everything on the cutting edge of science is always in dispute, simply theories. There is never absolute agreement by everyone toying with the answers.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:23 pmYou are going to have to take up your disagreement with physics. I don't care for it.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:14 pmSkepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:36 am Does the notion of Ontological relativity (introduced below) undermine the notion of Absolute Truth?
From the wikipedia page on Neopragmatism Quine's argument for ontological relativity follows:
* All ideas and perceptions concerning reality are given to our minds in terms of our own mental language.
I disagree! As per it's definition, perception is given to us by our senses.
* Mental languages specify how objects in the world are to be constructed from our sense data.
Incorrect, sense data came first, language came later. Sequence (time) is everything!
* Different mental languages will specify different ontologies (different objects existing in the world).
Totally incorrect! I would say that different languages may specify different aspects, but that all objects have many different aspects, that when combined simply create truer ontologies. Objects never differ, rather only ever have differing perspectives, again adding to ontologies.
* There is no way to perfectly translate between two different mental languages; there will always be several, consistent ways in which the terms in each language can be mapped onto the other.
Translation is not at issue, rather incorporation is, because all aspects, perspectives make for a clearer understanding.
* Reality apart from our perceptions of it can be thought of as constituting a true, object language, that is, the language which specifies how things actually are.
No language defining an object is possible without first perceiving the object, and all objects including our senses are of reality, due to reality. "how things are", "state of affairs", "absolute truth", "reality", all mean the same thing.
* There is no difference in translating between two mental languages and translating between the object language of reality and one's own mental language.
There is no such thing as language without the animal, the object has no language, though all objects that actually exist are reality, are the absolute truth of things, are the actual state of affairs, are how things are. It's up to humans to create language so as to speak of those realities, which has no bearing upon reality, simply a means to speak of them.
* Therefore, just as there is no objective way of translating between two mental languages (no one-to-one mapping of terms in one to terms in the other) there is no way of objectively translating (or fitting) the true, object language of reality into our own mental language.
Not true, all we can ever have is our own language which does not differ in the mind, it's just that like us, currently our language is incomplete, it is young, it contains many errors and misconceptions. After all, how can young animals have anything more than a young language?
* And therefore, there are many ontologies (possibly an infinite number) that can be consistently held to represent reality.
Nope! It's just that like all our science it's revisionist in nature. Currently it's in the state of our current evolutionary condition, which is still immature. But we have done some work that is very accurate.
But always remember that any time you formulate an argument against language you 'can' both improve it and argue against your own argument. If only one could use something other than language to argue against language...
At the ontological foundation of human thought are point-particles (e.g categories!) they cause physicists a whole lot of headaches when they get too close to each other giving birth to infinities. Is why physics has to do renormalization to make sense of the world at such small scale.
It's also one of the reasons for spawning string theory. It's born out of the idea that the Atomists may actually be wrong - at the smallest scales, maybe reality is not divisible into parts/points. Maybe strings are fundamental?
The point being: if your mind is categorical, but reality isn't. You can't be a realist - you lack the capacity for it.
Be my guest. So what do I think you mean by'meaning', and what do you actually mean?
Fair enough. I doubt that there is more than one ontology responsible for any given phenomenon. Seems terribly wasteful. I have pointed out that I have written articles for Philosophy Now that make my position clear, and have stated my case in other threads to which you have responded. But for the purposes of this thread, it is epistemology that I think is relative; as above, I really doubt there is more than one ontology. In other words, for any experience there may be any number of contributory factors, but that set of factors is adequate, there is no need for alternative ontologies to explain it. The way you put the question suggests that ontologies are private. Maybe, but I can't see how you could demonstrate it.
Big if. Nope, I'm pretty old school about this. My thought is that "reality" refers to the journal, rather than phenomenal.
The Meaning that can be told of is not the eternal Meaning; The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
Everything we call "ontology" exists with epistemologies. If epistemology is relative (and it is) then so are all ontologies.
This argument doesn't address under-determination. Just because you need and seek one explanation, doesn't detract from the fact that multiple, overlapping explanations exist.
Do I have to? It's obvious. Ask 10 different people "what exists?" and you will get 10 different answers.
If by the "journal" you mean the ledger which records the correct ordering of causes and effects (e.g events in time), it sure begs the question.
Ignoring the philosophers ask them if the external world exists and I'm betting all would answer "yes".Skepdick wrote:... Do I have to? It's obvious. Ask 10 different people "what exists?" and you will get 10 different answers.
...