Epistemology, Propositions

[Peter Holmes]

This is about descriptions of features of reality. Moral rightness and wrongness - like all values - are not features of reality.

Peter, these are your exact words:

Language is language - the use of signs, which are real things.

According to you, my description of reality (my language) is real. If language is real, then language is a feature of reality.

You are describing a feature of reality (my language) as "wrong".

See the previous correction. Same mistake.

It's hardly a "correction" is it? There's no way to dig yourself out of your philosophical grave.

I genuinely don't understand what you're saying.

Of course, language (the use of linguistic signs) is a feature of reality. And we can use signs to describe features of reality. Those descriptions consist of factual assertions that are (classically) true or false - given the way we use the signs in context - depending on whether the features of reality obtain: true if they do and false if they don't. But any number of factual assertions about a feature of reality can be true, and none is essentially true or truer than other true assertions. That's why correspondence theories of truth misfire.

I deny that moral rightness and wrongness are such features of reality. So it's an ontological matter - nothing to do with description, and so nothing to do with truth or falsehood. It's for moral realists (and therefore objectivists) to demonstrate that moral values are features of reality. But moral assertions obviously are features of reality - people make them all the time. 'Murder is wrong' is an example. The question is whether that is a factual assertion, and therefore one that is true or false. By all means, please demonstrate that it is.

If your point is that what we call a true factual assertion depends on convention and context- I couldn't agree more. But if your extension is that therefore what we call truth and falsehood is a matter of opinion, just like a moral or aesthetic judgement, I completely disagree - because I think that's to misunderstand the different functions of factual and non-factual assertions.

[Skepdick]

I genuinely don't understand what you're saying.

I genuinely don't understand what is confusing you!

Of course, language (the use of linguistic signs) is a feature of reality.

The signs we all use are themselves a feature of reality. These are words you are reading on your screen right now.

And we can use signs to describe features of reality.

Exactly! You are using signs to describe the signs other people use.

You are using the signs "right", "wrong", "correct", "incorrect", "mistaken" etc. to describe the signs that I am using.

I deny that moral rightness and wrongness are such features of reality.

Then how and why are you making moral judgments about the signs other people use?

[Peter Holmes]

I genuinely don't understand what you're saying.

I genuinely don't understand what is confusing you!

Of course, language (the use of linguistic signs) is a feature of reality.

The signs we all use are themselves a feature of reality. These are words you are reading on your screen right now.

And we can use signs to describe features of reality.

Exactly! You are using signs to describe the signs other people use.

You are using the signs "right", "wrong", "correct", "incorrect", "mistaken" etc. to describe the signs that I am using.

I deny that moral rightness and wrongness are such features of reality.

Then how and why are you making moral judgments about the signs other people use?

Again - what are you on about? I assume you know that we can use the words 'right' and 'wrong' non-morally, to mean 'true' and 'false' or 'correct' and 'incorrect'. To say a factual assertion such as 'the earth is flat' is false, wrong or incorrect is not to make any moral judgement whatsoever. If the earth isn't flat, then the factual assertion 'the earth is flat' is false, because it asserts a feature of reality that doesn't obtain. How hard is this to understand?

[Skepdick]

I assume you know that we can use the words 'right' and 'wrong' non-morally, to mean 'true' and 'false' or 'correct' and 'incorrect'.

Can you even string a single sentence together without contradicting yourself?

Truthfulness, falsehood, correctness and incorrectness are moral judgments about linguistic statements.

To say "that's false" or "that's incorrect" is just a short-hand for "What you said is improper - you ought not have said it!".

I would've happily settled for "your words don't correspond to reality" but you rejected the correspondence theory...

To say a factual assertion such as 'the earth is flat' is false, wrong or incorrect is not to make any moral judgement whatsoever.

Then what kind of judgment/assertion are you making if it's not a moral one?

There is no other foundation except subjective moral values upon which to base such arbitrary assertions.

If the earth isn't flat, then the factual assertion 'the earth is flat' is false, because it asserts a feature of reality that doesn't obtain.

That which obtains is an abstract philosophical idea. You rejected abstraction a few posts up. I've also never seen anybody use the verb "obtains" while rejecting the correspondence theory. That's two own goals, eh? Lets focus on something more concrete - signs!

Which feature of the sentence "Earth is flat" is its "wrongness", "incorrectness" or "falsity" ?
Which feature of the sentence "Earth is round" obtains?

How hard is this to understand?

It's virtually impossible to understand when you keep DOING the opposite of what you SAY.

[Peter Holmes]

I assume you know that we can use the words 'right' and 'wrong' non-morally, to mean 'true' and 'false' or 'correct' and 'incorrect'.

Can you even string a single sentence together without contradicting yourself?

Truthfulness, falsehood, correctness and incorrectness are moral judgments about linguistic statements.

To say "that's false" or "that's incorrect" is just a short-hand for "What you said is improper - you ought not have said it!".

I would've happily settled for "your words don't correspond to reality" but you rejected the correspondence theory...

To say a factual assertion such as 'the earth is flat' is false, wrong or incorrect is not to make any moral judgement whatsoever.

Then what kind of judgment/assertion are you making if it's not a moral one?

There is no other foundation except subjective moral values upon which to base such arbitrary assertions.

If the earth isn't flat, then the factual assertion 'the earth is flat' is false, because it asserts a feature of reality that doesn't obtain.

That which obtains is an abstract philosophical idea. You rejected abstraction a few posts up. I've also never seen anybody use the verb "obtains" while rejecting the correspondence theory. That's two own goals, eh? Lets focus on something more concrete - signs!

Which feature of the sentence "Earth is flat" is its "wrongness", "incorrectness" or "falsity" ?
Which feature of the sentence "Earth is round" obtains?

How hard is this to understand?

It's virtually impossible to understand when you keep DOING the opposite of what you SAY.

Whoa. This is getting surreal. 'That which obtains is an abstract philosophical idea.' ? Reality is an abstract philosophical idea?

Oh ... kaaaaay. We're not using these words in the same way. So we'll get nowhere. Again.

[attofishpi]

There often is little point in conversing with Skepdick since it tends to return to the ineptitude of language, in our case what can be conveyed, comprehended logically within English - 'Gods' language still fools short.

[Skepdick]

Whoa. This is getting surreal. 'That which obtains is an abstract philosophical idea.

The incoherence of your philosophy is indeed, surreal.

Does the sentence "Earth is round" obtain or not?

Demonstrate.

[Skepdick]

There often is little point in conversing with Skepdick since it tends to return to the ineptitude of language

Don't hate the player - hate the (language) game called Philosophy.

idea noun a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

Peter is not proposing any actions - he has no ideas. He's just trying to define things in vacuum - in a broad context free from any particular purpose, ergo there's no telos to help us contextualise anything he says - It's just vacuous lip service.

"That which obtains" is just another way of saying "that which is true". Is just that I have no idea which truth-theory Peter subscribes to.

If our conceptions of abstract truth are incommensurable, we are better off talking to walls than to each other.

in our case what can be conveyed, comprehended logically within English

It still falls short of a telos in which to contextualise your words.

Why do you want to convey/comprehend things logically within English? It's "Why?" all the way down the abyss of nihilism.

[uwot]

Truthfulness, falsehood, correctness and incorrectness are moral judgments about linguistic statements.

To say "that's false" or "that's incorrect" is just a short-hand for "What you said is improper - you ought not have said it!".

Lemme get this straight. It seems to me that you are suggesting that everyone that lacks an appropriate context for everything they say is a bad person.

I would've happily settled for "your words don't correspond to reality" but you rejected the correspondence theory...

But as you point out, no one knows what reality is that any claim could correspond to. By the generally accepted use of moral, everyone who says anything is naughty. Think that if you please, but don't expect many people to agree with you.

[attofishpi]

in our case what can be conveyed, comprehended logically within English

It still falls short of a telos in which to contextualise your words.

Why do you want to convey/comprehend things logically within English? It's "Why?" all the way down the abyss of nihilism.

Y = LOGIC - and English has ample room for such discourse with reason to good standing.

If English was 'nihilistic' then certainly the 3rd party entity that rendered its key components must be considered in the same vain.

What language would satisfy you? C++?

[Peter Holmes]

"That which obtains" is just another way of saying "that which is true".

This is false. The only features of reality that can be true or false are factual assertions - typically linguistic expressions. 'That which obtains' or 'a state-of-affairs' just is or was, nothing to do with language. Reality is not linguistic.

Is just that I have no idea which truth-theory Peter subscribes to.

The failure of correspondence theories and truth-maker arguments isn't my discovery. And I agree that accounting for truth without them, and without the myth of propositions that informs them, isn't easy.

[Skepdick]

Lemme get this straight. It seems to me that you are suggesting that everyone that lacks an appropriate context for everything they say is a bad person.

"Good" and "bad" is ontological child-speak. If you interpret my words within a two-value semantic then I can see how you might arrive at such a conclusion.

Interpret me as a linguistic and ontological relativist who believes in objective morality. You can think of it as a pragmatic version of the anthropic principle - objective morality is the on-going avoidance of extinction. Go for high-score!

Rationality/wisdom/morality is akin to prudence. Practical risk management at both the individual and collective scale.

But as you point out, no one what reality is that any claim could correspond to.

It's useful and contradictory, then contradiction is useful. Sprinkle "I don't know what truth is, but if it's not useful it's not true.." on top.

I am talking about the concept of correspondence, knowing full well that there's no objective mechanism to determine correspondence between our models and that which is often labeled as "reality", "existence", "being" or "noumena".

By the generally accepted use of moral, everyone who says anything is naughty.

So what? Is just words. We are ontologically "nauglty". Oh noooooo! It's the same sentiment as the Christian's "everybody is a sinner" - an idea which triggers you very much (from what I've seen).

If the word "naughty" triggers you, then describe yourself as "inexperienced", "unwise" or "ignorant" instead. Describe yourself however pleases you, because descriptions don't matter if they don't result to prescriptive action.

Think that if you please, but don't expect many people to agree with you.

I don't really care if you agree or disagree with me, so long as you get off your butt and DO something constructive that has broad and positive impact.

[Skepdick]

This is false. The only features of reality that can be true or false are factual assertions - typically linguistic expressions.

Peter, now you are confusing matters even more!

Can you give me an example of a false factual assertion?

'That which obtains' or 'a state-of-affairs' just is or was, nothing to do with language.

So you are using "that which obtains" synonymously with "existence", "being", "noumena" etc. All the things you are making assertions ABOUT.

Reality is not linguistic.

I have absolutely no idea what "reality" is or isn't - I have no direct access to it. You keep falling for the very metaphysical delusion you are warning us about.

With that said, ALL descriptions, assertions or knowledge ABOUT that which you have labeled as "reality" are linguistic. If they were not linguistic they would not be communicable. Not even to your future-self.

The failure of correspondence theories and truth-maker arguments isn't my discovery.

In so far as they give us the concept of "correspondence" it's are perfectly useful theory where ostensive definitions are possible.

And I agree that accounting for truth without them, and without the myth of propositions that informs them, isn't easy.

Have you tried accounting for all of them in the context of a telos/instrumentalism?

What do you USE truth for and why?
What do you USE propositions for and why?
What do you USE language for and why?

[Skepdick]

Y = LOGIC - and English has ample room for such discourse with reason to good standing.

Y/Why is not logic. All logic is declarative - the notion of a "question" is meaningless in logic/mathematics.

If English was 'nihilistic' then certainly the 3rd party entity that rendered its key components must be considered in the same vain.

An external (scientific) pursuit of "Why?" question leads to nihilism.

What language would satisfy you? C++?

Whatever language we develop interactively through shared experience and within the context of our shared objective?

The grammar/notation doesn't matter. English, Russian, Afrikaans, Zulu, Mathematics, C++

[uwot]

Lemme get this straight. It seems to me that you are suggesting that everyone that lacks an appropriate context for everything they say is a bad person.

"Good" and "bad" is ontological child-speak.

Then don't do it.

If you interpret my words within a two-value semantic then I can see how you might arrive at such a conclusion.

No doubt, but where do you draw that inference from?

Interpret me as a linguistic and ontological relativist who believes in objective morality.

Thank you for the advice, but I can draw my own conclusions.

Rationality/wisdom/morality is akin to prudence. Practical risk management at both the individual and collective scale.

But as you point out, no one what reality is that any claim could correspond to.

It's useful and contradictory, then contradiction is useful. Sprinkle "I don't know what truth is, but if it's not useful it's not true.." on top.

Ah well, this is where you and I disagree. Call me old fashioned, but there are many ideas that we know are not true, Newton's law of universal gravitation springs to mind, but it's still useful.

I am talking about the concept of correspondence, knowing full well that there's no objective mechanism to determine correspondence between our models and that which is often labeled as "reality", "existence", "being" or "noumena".

Right, and the mistake you are making is that you believe you are the only person contributing to this forum who understands that. You compound that cock-up by getting into silly arguments with people who fully appreciate what you mean, but with whom you are apparently compelled to disagree, even when they agree with you, because some of us know you are not nearly as smart as you can't bear not to be.

By the generally accepted use of moral, everyone who says anything is naughty.

So what? Is just words. We are ontologically "nauglty". Oh noooooo! It's the same sentiment as the Christian's "everybody is a sinner" - an idea which triggers you very much (from what I've seen).

And there ya go. You have never seen me be triggered by 'naughtiness'.

If the word "naughty" triggers you, then describe yourself as "inexperienced", "unwise" or "ignorant" instead. Describe yourself however pleases you, because descriptions don't matter if they don't result to prescriptive action.

Well, in the current context, I suppose a reasonable description of me would be 'occasionally giving a fuck what you think, to see if you are still a total twat.' I can see some movement there, which is encouraging, but there's still a way to go.

Think that if you please, but don't expect many people to agree with you.

I don't really care if you agree or disagree with me, so long as you get off your butt and DO something constructive that has broad and positive impact.

Funny you should say that. Have I mentioned the books and articles I have written?