I thought you said you don't have a religion?
Except the religion of Truth.
No! Because all that is the actual state of affairs is the Absolute Truth. The real question for humankind is what is, and what is not the absolute truth. And thanks to science, a revisionist study, the absolute truth becomes clearer every day!
OK, but two different people describe the "actual state of affairs" in to different ways e.g they have two different ontologies.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:15 am No! Because all that is the actual state of affairs is the Absolute Truth.
Do you believe Science when Science tells you that it's not after Truth? It's after constructing models of reality. By definition a model is not "Absolutely True". By definition a model is incomplete.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:15 am And thanks to science, a revisionist study, the absolute truth becomes clearer every day!
Like I've already said, Science is a revisionist study. Which means that what is said today, may be different tomorrow.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:34 amOK, but two different people describe the "actual state of affairs" in to different ways e.g they have two different ontologies.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:15 am No! Because all that is the actual state of affairs is the Absolute Truth.
Whose ontology is closer to "the actual state of affairs"?
I never said I know all the answers to all things. I'm the same as others, (relative to the universe, very young), only capable of knowing those things that have been uncovered up till now, while possibly capable of only 'slightly' pushing the envelope forward.
Do you believe Science when Science tells you that it's not after Truth? It's after constructing models of reality. By definition a model is not "Absolutely True". By definition a model is incomplete.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:15 am And thanks to science, a revisionist study, the absolute truth becomes clearer every day!
Q.E.D You are arguing for Ontological Relativity.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:59 am Like I've already said, Science is a revisionist study. Which means that what is said today, may be different tomorrow.
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.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:22 amQ.E.D You are arguing for Ontological Relativity.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:59 am Like I've already said, Science is a revisionist study. Which means that what is said today, may be different tomorrow.
What was said yesterday cannot be said tomorrow.
If Science was capable of Absolute Truths it would not require revision.
You 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
Yeah you do. You keep banging on about pragmatism. Meaning is what works.
Bollocks. Granted it may not be precisely what I mean, but your version is close enough that you can respond to it in way that appears cogent and appropriate. It works.
You are conflating meaning with truth. Pragmatist say "truth is what works", while making no claims about meaning whatsoever.
Appropriate for or working towards what shared goal/objective?
Pragmatism isn't a dogma, so to imply that there is a coherent group that all agree is simply untrue. Off the top of my head, Peirce's theory of signs had a lot to say about meaning.
Call me old fashioned, but for me 'true' refers to what obtains. For instance, it is true that any number of narratives can account for the observations. It doesn't follow from the fact that there are many interpretations of the data that there is more than one reality.
You have whined about philosophers challenging your particular brand of fruitloopery. You really should accept that we don't share all the same objectives.
I'm with Feyerabend on this: who cares?
Sounds plausible. Is that an appeal to authority?
It sounds like you are saying "Pragmatism means many things to many Pragmatists"...
On the one hand you say Pragmatism is not dogma, on the other hand you put all Pragmatists under Peirce's semiotics. What gives?
That is not a complete English sentence. Obtains.... what?
Surely that depends entirely on the use/meaning/interpretation of the word "reality"?
You really should accept that's precisely the point I am making. Ontology is a function of telos. This is typically how most engineers approach problem-solving - you work your way backwards.
At least the person who defines the meaning of "it works" and "it doesn't work".
You may see it that way.
Well yeah, give yourself a pat on the back for working out the punchline to most of Plato's dialogues.
Oh please. If you really think that because I point out that Peirce had something to say about meaning, it follows that I believe anyone calling themself a pragmatist subscribes to his efforts, you are wasting your time.
In your own words: who cares?
Peirce didn't have anything to say about meaning (in general). Peirce had something to say about the meaning of signs in particular.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:43 am Would you say that the theory of semiotics works? What signified does the signifier "meaning" point to? Do you have an ostensive definition or is the signified a concept?
What do you make of the fact that there are multiple theories of meaning? Which theory of meaning is most meaningful?
You call yourself a Pragmatist.
Either you are very stupid, or very dishonest to edit the above as you did.
No I don't.
Isn't that your point?
That your claim that pragmatists have nothing to say about meaning is false.
Either the above is a false dichotomy; or it's a false dichotomy.
So (just to double-check) you aren't a pragmatist?
I doubt it. My point is usually that making points before agreeing on objectives (e.g setting context) is putting the cart before the horse.
It's not true that it's false.