On The Deflationary Theory

[tagriffy]

 

 

I suggest you read this and refute it somehow or show how it doesn't apply before you try to reinvent the wheel.

 

Outside of religious universities, where heads seem to be firmly in the sand, this is pretty much the main view of truth, or is at least THE 800 pound gorilla in the room to at least be acknowledged.  https://www.google.com/search?q=deflationary+theory+of+truth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there.

 

 

 

Now that I've had some sleep and have had a chance to think about the subject, I'm still not entirely sure I understand it. I'm going to work with it as best I can and leave it to you to correct my misunderstandings. I've also decided to start a new topic because I fear the thread we were on would get derailed. My references to the deflationary theory of truth comes from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

 

At first glance, there doesn't seem to be anything that needs to be refuted before going on with the conversation. In that conversation, all the parties seemed to have enough common ground about with truth is in order to have a conversation on the questions asked. There would be no point in reinventing the wheel there.

Moving away from the relative discussion into a discussion what what truth is, my first reaction is that it is irrelevant whether truth is a property. The statements "Caracas is the capital of Venezuela" and "The earth revolves around the sun" are both true, and insofar as it goes, that is enough. It doesn't really matter whether they have a shared explanation for why they are true. Both statements correspond with "facts" (note the quote marks) and that would seem to be enough.

Edited July 3, 2015 by tagriffy

[mfbukowski]

That's basically it.  It's about the idea that the word "true" is a WORD, nothing more, nothing less.  It says something like "I agree with what you are saying" or  "I also affirm that fact"

 

It seems totally commonsensical until one realizes why it is necessary to even HAVE a "deflationary theory of truth", and that happened because of the dualism of Greek philosophy and then picked up by Descartes and the others.

 

What that did was create a divide between language and "Truth".  It reified "Truth" into being some floating essence or Form of "Truthfulness".  Truth was usually said to be "correpondence" between the statement and a state of affairs in the world.  Certainly that is the case to some extent on a common sense level, but the problem is what people do with that.

 

What people do with it is make it into a metaphysical statement.  They say that a "statement" or "proposition" "corresponds to reality" REGARDLESS of our perceptions of reality.

 

There becomes a divorce between "reality" and "our perceptions of reality", and the statements are within the realm of perception, while reality is different or the same as the statement.

 

The central problem with that is that as humans, everything we see and feel and know is completely our perceptions and nothing more, ever, and cannot ever be anything "more" than our perceptions.

 

We assert "truths" or paradigms based on our perceptions and sometimes we make mistakes and have to re-define what "truth" is.

 

THAT is what makes this central to a religion based on revelation or an open canon.

 

We do not see "what is" as humans- we only see what our best guess of "reality" is, until we get a better look at it.  We may think that there is water on the road, only to have it turn into a mirage.  I actually had an experience once where I was driving in the desert and saw a mirage.  As I got closer, I thought "Boy- that is a pretty persistent mirage- it still looks like water!"  Then I hit it, and and my car started skidding and fishtailing and almost went off the road.  I found it hard to stop.

 

I got out and investigated.  There was a puddle there.   A big puddle.  But why did I skid so badly?  I got closer.  It smelled funny- another sense perception.  I put my finger in it.  

 

Should I have done that?  Let's keep you in suspense about that for a minute, and let you put yourself in my place

 

So let's summarize that experience.  I KNEW it was a "mirage"- nothing there, an optical illusion.  I was absolutely certain it was going to disappear.  It didn't.  Then my car stated skidding,  which was another sense perception and a scary one at that.  "What??  That was water?"   It made no sense!

 

Suddenly what I "knew" was gone, the "truth" that this was a mirage.

 

This was now "clearly" NOT a mirage.  It was "real".

 

What made it "real"?   The fact that I now had a different perspective of it- my car skidding across the road.  It was a new perception and another way of seeing it that had a tangible effect which was clearly scary and suddenly I now KNEW that it was "real".

 

I got out and looked.  I could see the "puddle" in the pavement- it was a darker color than the rest of the pavement.  Sense perception.  Now, because I was right there I also noticed a funny odor.  Another sense perception.

 

Then I stuck my finger in it.   A nanosecond after I did so, I realized that could have been a hazardous move. But I wanted still another perspective- more sense data to give me more information, but  I had no clue what this stuff could be.  It could be acid, it could be poison, some kind of hazardous stuff fallen from a truck- raw sewerage- who knows?

 

Literally who KNOWS? 

 

All I had was my sense perceptions and theories about "what had really happened".

 

I looked at my finger.   It did not hurt, no evidence of a burning sensation. 

 

The stuff was kind of pink and oily and definitely slippery.  All of those words are adjectives describing nouns which are my attempt at verbally describing an experience.   Was it "really" pink?   Maybe it was reflecting my shirt color.  I don't know.  Was it "really" "oily"?  It felt like oil to me- I have no clue what it "really"was.  Maybe it was just water after all that had picked up some oil from the road oil on a hot day.

 

I got back in my car, and found a napkin under the seat, and wiped off my finger.   Still no pain, no blistering of the skin.  I poured some water on it, and wiped it again.  No problem.

 

I drove on.

 

I drove carefully watching the road much more closely than before.  I slowed down.  I was a ware of possible hazards I might not have seen.  My behavior changed.

 

So where does "truth" enter into this discussion?   What was "true"?  Yes, I saw a "mirage" that was not a mirage, but it is true that I "experienced" a mirage.  My experience was that "clearly that is a mirage".  So YES it is "true" that I experienced a mirage. 

 

Do we want to get weird and say that since a mirage is an illusion and I was definitely deluded into thinking it was a "real mirage" then it is not true that it was or was not a "false mirage"?

 

Frankly, THAT is the kind of discussion I would expect to erupt on this board.  THAT is the kind of thing that happens with all this!!   What is TRUTH?  What is the TRUTH of this situation?  It's all words.

 

What is a "false mirage"?  What is a "true mirage"?   What is the "essence" of a mirage?  What was the "substance" on the road?  Why did my car "really" skid?   What correct proposition corresponds to the truth of the situation??

 

There isn't any.  It depends on what you are talking about.  It's just communication.  "Truth" doesn't "really exist" in this situation.  Discussing the truth here has no relevance to anything, or really much else.  What possible use is it to discuss the truth here?

 

THE "REAL" SITUATION IS UNKNOWABLE AND THEREFORE IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION

 

Yet my life was changed- at least for a few minutes.  I drove more carefully.  I remember that weird situation to this day and think about it every time I see a "mirage" or a puddle.  Is it a "real" mirage to be ignored or a real puddle of who knows what?  How should I act in the presence of an unknown puddle?

 

What made that puddle "real" was the effect it had in my life.  I learned something from it.  I learned that things may or may not be what we think they are and even what we think they are may not be what they "really are" at all, but we still have to blunder though life minute to minute every day.

 

Worrying about "truth" when that term is undefinable is really a waste of time.

 

Now let me throw something else in here.  Do you think the above story "really happened" and was a "historical event" or not, and is that important for anything?

 

So why is this important for LDS people?

 

Because prophets are inspired human people.  The writers of the scriptures were inspired human people doing their best to communicate what they felt God wanted them to communicate.

 

We take in their words, and use our own brains and inspiration to amplify the paltry squiggles on a page, full of misunderstandings and "mirages" which may or may not be "true" or "true mirages" or "false mirages".

 

While doing so, we dip in our finger, and see if it resonates with our lives or not.   It's Alma 32 all the way.

 

In this life there is no "TRUTH" etched in stone, in words as if on the pediment of a Greek temple.  Doesn't happen.  It's a mirage itself to think that way.

 

All we have is cruising down the road of life looking out for puddles and sticking our finger in them to see what the heck is happening, and walking away with our best guess about how to live our lives better.

 

Then we have other people's stories telling us things they think are important, with no way to know if they are "true" in any abstract sense or not, except what the Spirit tells us and what resonates with us from the stories.

 

Like it or not, that's the way it is.  We had better get used to it and deal with it because this is a world full of true and false mirages and all we have is our fingers and nose and the Spirit to decide if it smells funny or not.

Edited July 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[tagriffy]

There is much in what you say that definitely resonates with me. Heaven knows I've talked enough about distinguishing between logos and mythos for it not to. Since mythic thinking is more intuitive and subjective, and as such, it is certainly Alma 32 all the way. A myth is true insofar as it resonates with our lives. This is basically what I mean when I say that asking whether the Book of Mormon is true is the wrong question. The right question to ask is whether the Book of Mormon is True. Maybe not quite the same thing as what you saying, but I do think I see where you are coming from.

 

OTOH, I am not prepared to give up that there is "reality" (and again, note the quote marks), and that "reality" is the base standard of distinguishing between true and false. Our perceptions of reality are subject to that standard and are true or false to the degree those perceptions align with "reality." Of course, since we are limited by what we can perceive, or, as you put it, "We do not see "what is" as humans- we only see what our best guess of "reality" is, until we get a better look at it" we'll never be able to do much more than approximate it. As long as we keep that in mind and keep trying to get a better look it it, the more our perceptions will align with "reality."

[Auggybendoggy]

Mfbukowski,

Excellent post and one that I resonate with.  When I left traditional Christianity for Christian Universalism, I found much of what you're saying to be accurate.  It seems that religious people of all types either walk by faith (which is how I read your perception) or by sight (which is more scientific - historical in a literal sense). 
 

As far as I can tell, the story of the Garden of Eden is far more worthy as a tale than it is as history.  I doubt there was a literal Adam and Eve, but for me the story is a story of relationship and love; for me it's true.

 

[The Nehor]

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

(Doctrine and Covenants 93:24-25)

 

There is not much room for philosophers discussing the nature of truth in the Kingdom of God.

 

So by God's standards even beautiful faith-affirming stories are not truth if they are not historically accurate. Thus ends the idea that the Book of Mormon can be historically false but "truth" in some sense that God would recognize.

[mfbukowski]

People often think I am talking about some kind of "matrix" idea as caricatured in the movies, but I see it as rigorous empiricism.

There is simply no way out of the TRUTH that everything any of us knows or can know comes from our being human. There is nothing we can know beyond what humans can know, period.

From quantum physics to Joseph's visions, from obsidian flaking techniques to unimaginable technological feats, they all came through a human mind/brain/consciousness, pick your word.

There is simply no way around that to any other "reality".

For us, that's all there is, or can be.

[mfbukowski]

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

(Doctrine and Covenants 93:24-25)

 

There is not much room for philosophers discussing the nature of truth in the Kingdom of God.

 

So by God's standards even beautiful faith-affirming stories are not truth if they are not historically accurate. Thus ends the idea that the Book of Mormon can be historically false but "truth" in some sense that God would recognize.

Unfortunately that is irrelevant because I am not God.

I only get to recognize what my paltry little worm brain can see.

I pray someday to get something better, but until then, I am handicapped by this meat that entraps my spirit.

[mfbukowski]

Mfbukowski,

Excellent post and one that I resonate with.  When I left traditional Christianity for Christian Universalism, I found much of what you're saying to be accurate.  It seems that religious people of all types either walk by faith (which is how I read your perception) or by sight (which is more scientific - historical in a literal sense). 

 

As far as I can tell, the story of the Garden of Eden is far more worthy as a tale than it is as history.  I doubt there was a literal Adam and Eve, but for me the story is a story of relationship and love; for me it's true.

How would you like to learn about worshipping the highest imaginable Humanistic ideals, given to our intuition by a God we see as embodying those ideals because He himself is "Human", or modeled as if He were human?

Stick around- that is why I joined the church coming from the same point of view 36 years ago.

[Calm]

Unfortunately that is irrelevant because I am not God.

I only get to recognize what my paltry little worm brain can see.

I pray someday to get something better, but until then, I am handicapped by this meat that entraps my spirit.

We are promised we will...I suspect it will have to do with adding perception abilities of some sort plus the ability to share as if we were thinking the thoughts ourselves others' thoughts...including God's. The Internet and other tech has dramatically affected our culture and how we relate and learn from each other. It is impossible to conceive how an information and communication system perhaps infinitely more informative and precise will affect us as individuals and as a community/family. And one where a perfect (whatever that is) physical system will be perfectly melded with a perfect (whatever that is) spiritual system with no glitches or bugs.

No more need to walk on eggshells because of fear of being misunderstood. No more need of masks for same reason. No more searching dictionaries and thesauruses looking for a word that comes somewhere in the vicinity of what we mean.

It can only be hinted at in the scriptures with the analogy of limited sight and knowledge now (through a glass darkly...remembering when that was written glass was not clear and faultless as it is now) and pure knowledge in the future (knowing as God knows).

Did a bit of research, in Greek the "glass" refers to a looking glass or mirror which given what those were yields even greater distortions:

"The Greek word is to esoptron, meaning, as the translation, "looking-glass, mirror" (Liddell) and comes ultimately from osse, meaning "[two] eyes" (a cognate of oculus and of our own word eye, and of the Gothic ahjan "think"—Wharton). The Gothic cognate is interesting, because it is from the senses that we do all our reasoning—we reckon according to what we have seen . Paul says here that we are doing this reckoning as though a glass, a mere reflection of what things are like. Ancient esoptra, consisting usually of nothing but polished metal, were not nearly as good as the practically perfect ones we have today; they might stretch one part or shrink another, and gave a distorted and darkened view of reality. It is through the imperfect that we now see, through the perfect that we will see. The idea of looking through a distorted mirror reminds one of Plato’s image of the Forms: We now see the mere shadow of objects (or rather, shadows of copies of real objects), but will one day see the objects themselves and in their true light."

"Though this all fits our discussion very well, darkly is just a translation (good enough as it is) for the phrase en ainigmati, meaning in a riddle or puzzle, by an enigma. A riddle is a short and particularly difficult metaphor or sketchy description, and it is often very difficult to understand the symbolism; so it is with life. And if we fail to know the symbolism or significance of things (Plato would say, if we see the shadows without the forms), we become modern literary critics and life becomes a riddle with no answer. "Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,/ That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,/ And then is heard no more; it is a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (Mac .5.5.24-28). But though we understand in part, what’s left still to pick apart is overwhelming."

http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/greek2.html

PS to Mark: sorry for the reference to Plato, those linguistic people?!

Edited July 4, 2015 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

We are promised we will...I suspect it will have to do with adding perception abilities of some sort plus the ability to share as if we were thinking the thoughts ourselves others' thoughts...including God's. The Internet and other tech has dramatically affected our culture and how we relate and learn from each other. It is impossible to conceive how an information and communication system perhaps infinitely more informative and precise will affect us as individuals and as a community/family. And one where a perfect (whatever that is) physical system will be perfectly melded with a perfect (whatever that is) spiritual system with no glitches or bugs.

No more need to walk on eggshells because of fear of being misunderstood. No more need of masks for same reason. No more searching dictionaries and thesauruses looking for a word that comes somewhere in the vicinity of what we mean.

It can only be hinted at in the scriptures with the analogy of limited sight and knowledge now (through a glass darkly...remembering when that was written glass was not clear and faultless as it is now) and pure knowledge in the future (knowing as God knows).

Did a bit of research, in Greek the "glass" refers to a looking glass or mirror which given what those were yields even greater distortions:

"The Greek word is to esoptron, meaning, as the translation, "looking-glass, mirror" (Liddell) and comes ultimately from osse, meaning "[two] eyes" (a cognate of oculus and of our own word eye, and of the Gothic ahjan "think"—Wharton). The Gothic cognate is interesting, because it is from the senses that we do all our reasoning—we reckon according to what we have seen . Paul says here that we are doing this reckoning as though a glass, a mere reflection of what things are like. Ancient esoptra, consisting usually of nothing but polished metal, were not nearly as good as the practically perfect ones we have today; they might stretch one part or shrink another, and gave a distorted and darkened view of reality. It is through the imperfect that we now see, through the perfect that we will see. The idea of looking through a distorted mirror reminds one of Plato’s image of the Forms: We now see the mere shadow of objects (or rather, shadows of copies of real objects), but will one day see the objects themselves and in their true light."

"Though this all fits our discussion very well, darkly is just a translation (good enough as it is) for the phrase en ainigmati, meaning in a riddle or puzzle, by an enigma. A riddle is a short and particularly difficult metaphor or sketchy description, and it is often very difficult to understand the symbolism; so it is with life. And if we fail to know the symbolism or significance of things (Plato would say, if we see the shadows without the forms), we become modern literary critics and life becomes a riddle with no answer. "Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,/ That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,/ And then is heard no more; it is a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (Mac .5.5.24-28). But though we understand in part, what’s left still to pick apart is overwhelming."

http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/greek2.html

PS to Mark: sorry for the reference to Plato, those linguistic people?!

 

Yes, that is everywhere unfortunately but the real meaning still comes out despite making what is real illusion, and what is illusion real.

 

It's all through the looking glass after all

 

But note the real meaning

 

 12 For now we see through a ^aglass, ^bdarkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

 

12 a glass

2 Cor. 3:18; James 1:23 (22–27). TG Veil.

 

 

Sometimes left is right and right is left.

Edited July 5, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Stroopwafel]

To me, the deflationary theory of truth (DTT) is simply emphasizing the idea that "truth" can only be meaningfully applied to statements, and then spending a lot of ink to explain the ramification of this, why this is important, etc. Yes, of course "true" can only be said of statements. The thing is, people too often use the concept to mean "real", as for instance when people say "the sun is true" when they really mean to say "the sun is real", so the deflationators (those who adheres to the tenets of the DTT, obviously) are led to argue that the concept of truth is meaningless, a tautology at best, etc.

 

The Ancient Greeks were fascinated by the world around them, a world which they saw as changing and in flux, while at the same time realizing it has permanent elements as well. So they were very much preoccupied with the distinction they saw between "appearances", "transitoriness", and "reality", "permanence". So they asked the question, "What is real?", or put otherwise, "What is the fabric of reality?" They tried to understand what the world is made of. To them, things that decay, thing that pass away are not what is most important. They were looking for the permanent. That is why they saw, and felt they could catch a glimpse of the divine with geometry and mathematics. This intuition of making distinctions between mere appearances and the "real" cause behind the phenomenons was unprecedented in the ancient world. This is the origin of our modern scientific mind. The Greeks found it was important to understand the world they were to live in while the great civilizations in the East were more concerned about the world they were to leave to (i.e., the after-life).

 

Why did I bother to write all this? you ask. Well, just to highlight that we are simply part of an old argument, and that through the power of the human mind, although they did get a lot of things wrong, the Ancients were nevertheless able to see further than the things our senses immediately experience, and they got closer to the truth (sorry using that word) about reality than any other people would in history for thousands of years after their time. Cheers!

[mfbukowski]

There is nothing wrong with the word "true", it is a very useful word.  It says "yes, that's the way it is- that's what happened"   In court we swear to tell the "truth" and we know perfectly well what that means.  We know what a lie is- it's saying something that is not the truth.

 

Remember the idea is that saying something is "true" adds nothing to a statement than the assertion itself.  "Snow is white"- yes, that is true.  But saying so adds nothing to the statement "the snow is white".

 

We know what justifies a belief, but saying it is "true" doesn't add anything to the discussion.

 

I know I have quoted this video a million times here, and apologies to those who have seen it before, but I know there are some here who have not seen it, so here it is again.  Rorty says it so much better than I can.

 

Maybe some who have seen it before will actually understand it this time.

 

Edited July 5, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

There is much in what you say that definitely resonates with me. Heaven knows I've talked enough about distinguishing between logos and mythos for it not to. Since mythic thinking is more intuitive and subjective, and as such, it is certainly Alma 32 all the way. A myth is true insofar as it resonates with our lives. This is basically what I mean when I say that asking whether the Book of Mormon is true is the wrong question. The right question to ask is whether the Book of Mormon is True. Maybe not quite the same thing as what you saying, but I do think I see where you are coming from.

 

OTOH, I am not prepared to give up that there is "reality" (and again, note the quote marks), and that "reality" is the base standard of distinguishing between true and false. Our perceptions of reality are subject to that standard and are true or false to the degree those perceptions align with "reality." Of course, since we are limited by what we can perceive, or, as you put it, "We do not see "what is" as humans- we only see what our best guess of "reality" is, until we get a better look at it" we'll never be able to do much more than approximate it. As long as we keep that in mind and keep trying to get a better look it it, the more our perceptions will align with "reality."

Just to clarify, this is the position I think that is the source of the confusion.

 

The problem is that one cannot get "outside" of our perceptions to even see if they DO "align with reality"!

 

We are stuck in our perceptions and cannot escape, we cannot see "reality independent of our perceptions" in order to see if they "align" or not.

 

What you seem to be doing is just asserting the correspondence theory and indeed that is the whole problem in the first place.  This is an attempt to clarify the exact misunderstanding you are asserting is the case.

 

There is no way to know if a statement "aligns" with "reality" independent of our perceptions of reality.

 

Appearance IS reality, there is no separation or distinction against which we can measure anything.  That is the central point here, and I hope it is clear.

[tagriffy]

 

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

(Doctrine and Covenants 93:24-25)

 

There is not much room for philosophers discussing the nature of truth in the Kingdom of God.

 

So by God's standards even beautiful faith-affirming stories are not truth if they are not historically accurate. Thus ends the idea that the Book of Mormon can be historically false but "truth" in some sense that God would recognize.

 

 

And yet the Gospels portray Jesus telling all kinds of beautiful faith-affirming stories that are not historically accurate.

[The Nehor]

And yet the Gospels portray Jesus telling all kinds of beautiful faith-affirming stories that are not historically accurate.

 

Actually Jesus told his apostles that he told those stories to hide things from his listeners. It was a substandard form of teaching used because the listeners (and presumably us as well) had a problem with being able to take the undiluted truth.

 

Jack Nicholson explains our problem:

 

[tagriffy]

Just to clarify, this is the position I think that is the source of the confusion.

 

The problem is that one cannot get "outside" of our perceptions to even see if they DO "align with reality"!

 

We are stuck in our perceptions and cannot escape, we cannot see "reality independent of our perceptions" in order to see if they "align" or not.

 

What you seem to be doing is just asserting the correspondence theory and indeed that is the whole problem in the first place.  This is an attempt to clarify the exact misunderstanding you are asserting is the case.

 

There is no way to know if a statement "aligns" with "reality" independent of our perceptions of reality.

 

Appearance IS reality, there is no separation or distinction against which we can measure anything.  That is the central point here, and I hope it is clear.

 

It seems to me that taking this stance means there is no point in trying to get a better look. If appearance is reality, why bother with science and scholarship at all?

[Stroopwafel]

Remember the idea is that saying something is "true" adds nothing to a statement than the assertion itself.  "Snow is white"- yes, that is true.  But saying so adds nothing to the statement "the snow is white".

 

We know what justifies a belief, but saying it is "true" doesn't add anything to the discussion.

 

This is one point I wouldn't be led to agree with at first. However, before going any further, I'd like to ask, do pragmatists really believe that we cannot objectively know that snow is white? That the earth revolves around the sun? etc. How would the justification of these assertions be relative to an audience? to use Rorty's language.

[Ahab]

The problem is that one cannot get "outside" of our perceptions to even see if they DO "align with reality"!

We are stuck in our perceptions and cannot escape, we cannot see "reality independent of our perceptions" in order to see if they "align" or not.

We don't need to escape from our perceptions when what we know is really true. So there is no problem with our perceptions unless what we know is not true. That's why we need to be careful about making assumptions, or arriving at false conclusions.

There is no way to know if a statement "aligns" with "reality" independent of our perceptions of reality.

But the problem is not that our perceptions are not independent of reality. In reality we can be either right or wrong. We can know the truth, or we can be misled or come to some false conclusion on our own. What we need to be able to know what is true is a connection to truth. Like when we connect to what we call the Spirit of Truth. And we need to be aware that on our own our own perception of things can be wrong. Thus we need to be careful when thinking independently without a connection the the Spirit that can help us know what the Truth is and then at that point what we perceive is the Truth.

Appearance IS reality, there is no separation or distinction against which we can measure anything. That is the central point here, and I hope it is clear.

Appearances can be deceiving. What sometimes appears to be true is really not true. Still reality, yes, but not really true. Truth is what really is, while evil is the exact opposite. What really is not even though it may appear to be true. Our perceptions are a problem only when what appears to be true is really not true.

[Jeanne]

To me, the deflationary theory of truth (DTT) is simply emphasizing the idea that "truth" can only be meaningfully applied to statements, and then spending a lot of ink to explain the ramification of this, why this is important, etc. Yes, of course "true" can only be said of statements. The thing is, people too often use the concept to mean "real", as for instance when people say "the sun is true" when they really mean to say "the sun is real", so the deflationators (those who adheres to the tenets of the DTT, obviously) are led to argue that the concept of truth is meaningless, a tautology at best, etc.

 

The Ancient Greeks were fascinated by the world around them, a world which they saw as changing and in flux, while at the same time realizing it has permanent elements as well. So they were very much preoccupied with the distinction they saw between "appearances", "transitoriness", and "reality", "permanence". So they asked the question, "What is real?", or put otherwise, "What is the fabric of reality?" They tried to understand what the world is made of. To them, things that decay, thing that pass away are not what is most important. They were looking for the permanent. That is why they saw, and felt they could catch a glimpse of the divine with geometry and mathematics. This intuition of making distinctions between mere appearances and the "real" cause behind the phenomenons was unprecedented in the ancient world. This is the origin of our modern scientific mind. The Greeks found it was important to understand the world they were to live in while the great civilizations in the East were more concerned about the world they were to leave to (i.e., the after-life).

 

Why did I bother to write all this? you ask. Well, just to highlight that we are simply part of an old argument, and that through the power of the human mind, although they did get a lot of things wrong, the Ancients were nevertheless able to see further than the things our senses immediately experience, and they got closer to the truth (sorry using that word) about reality than any other people would in history for thousands of years after their time. Cheers!

Just trying to understand..I am so elementary at this.  But what is the difference between REAL and TRUTH?

[mfbukowski]

It seems to me that taking this stance means there is no point in trying to get a better look. If appearance is reality, why bother with science and scholarship at all?

I am always stunned at this kind of question- and let me assure you that this is a common question.

 

But it just shows how brainwashed we are in thinking about appearances vs reality.  I have been thinking this way now for 45 plus years and this question always still surprises me.

 

Science IS the rigorous categorization of appearances, with man made stories for interpretations.

 

Think back to the ancients, and put yourself in their place.

 

You crawl out of your hut and the sun is coming up over that mountain over there.  You chase game all day and try to catch something to eat.  At the end of the day the sun is on the opposite side of the valley, going down over a mountain on the opposite side of the world from which it came up.

 

Clearly the appearance is that the sun goes around your world.  Perhaps it is a god on a horse riding a chariot.

 

The stars do the same.  They come up on one side of the valley/world and go down on the other.   Clearly we must be at the center of a ball around which the gods fly.

 

Thousands of years later, that model based on appearances starts to break down.  Now there are telescopes.  We have extended our ability to get more appearances- we have changed our points of view and can see from different angles.

 

We are no longer assuming the puddle is a mirage, now we notice it smells funny.  Different senses, different points of view, different appearances.

 

We need a different story or "paradigm".   Someone postulates that indeed the earlier view was "wrong" PRECISELY BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE MORE APPEARANCES TO CATALOG and rationalize.  We have to make up a new story to account for different observations (appearances)

 

Well obviously I don't need to belabor paradigm shifts- perhaps I do , but I am assuming you understand that point.

 

Ptolemy gives way to Copernicus because of new (observations)

 

Newton gives way to Einstein because of new observations.

 

We can never get to "reality", all we have are better carefully cataloged observations of appearances!

 

But let's now take the other side of this from the religious point of view.

 

Let's take your position for a moment.  Appearances are NOT reality, appearances are the mirages and statements about reality are the source of "truth".  Many observations add up to linguistic statements that correspond to "reality" and there is no truth beyond getting those statements to correspond to reality.

 

Now let's look at the statement "Joseph Smith saw God".  What is the observable reality behind that?  Can such a statement be "true" for any rational person?

 

How could it possibly be "true"?   Where is the observable evidence that Joseph saw God?

 

Or what about the statement "It is wrong to kill babies for fun" .  Sorry- kinda gross, but I wanted to make it extreme to make a point.

 

In what sense can that statement possibly be "true"??   What is the "reality" behind that statement which is observable AND to which the statement "corresponds"??

 

There is no such reality.

 

Both statements must be false.   We have no "reality" to which they correspond, therefore they are false.

 

So how can subjective statements ever be "true" on YOUR logic here?  How can it be "true" that Joseph saw God, or that moral statements can be "true"???

 

ON THAT LOGIC THOSE STATEMENTS CAN NEVER BE TRUE.  There is no observable "reality" that shows us that it is wrong to kill babies.

 

On the other hand if "APPEARANCES" are "reality" then God's APPEARANCE to Joseph could be "real" AND statements about it could be "true".

 

But we cannot verify them to be true because WE did not have the experience of the appearance.

 

But wait.

 

Moroni 10:4-5 says that God can "manifest" the "truth" of these principles  to me!!   What the heck does that mean?  It means that I may not have a vision of God, but God can give me an "appearance"- a "feeling", a "sense" of some kind that indeed these things "actually happened" to Joseph.

 

It means God can, through a kind of 6th sense, give us our very own manifestation of the truth of these things.  Yes, they are subjective manifestations, but so is a pain in my chest, and a pain in my chest can kill me.

 

Subjective manifestations are indeed incredibly important in our lives.  We fall in love based on subjective manifestations, we know what is right and wrong based on subjective manifestations, and VIRTUALLY EVERY decision in life is based on subjective manifestations.  What college to attend, what job to get, what is important in our lives, etc, etc.

 

Where is the observable "reality" behind these feelings and manifestations and APPEARANCES?   NONE!   The appearance IS the reality.

 

I know I love my wife based totally on subjective manifestations- on "appearances".  I know God loves ME based on totally subjective appearances and manifestations and feelings

 

So at the bottom line, no one who alleges he has a testimony can reasonably assert that "God told me the truth" because it does not "correspond to reality" in a scientific sense.

 

That is why there are so many threads on people saying that we should stand in testimony meeting and say "I believe" the gospel rather than "I know".

 

If you have a pain in your chest, do you "know" it?  Of course!   Do you "KNOW" you love your wife?   Of course!   Do you know that because it corresponds to "reality" or because it is a subjective manifestation or "appearance"?

 

That is what Rorty means when he says "We know when a belief is justified".   You have a feeling of disgust and horror when you hear that someone murdered a child.  That is an "appearance" which does not correspond to any observable "reality" unless you include the feelings in your heart as an "observation"

 

THAT is the bottom line here.  We cannot get too hung up on the terminology!   Is a subjective manifestation an "appearance" or "reality"?  Does that make it "true" or "false"?

 

THAT IS THE STRENGTH OF THE DEFLATIONARY THEORY.

 

It drops the view that there is a rigorous way of showing that moral positions and religious positions are "true", and acknowledges that it becomes more of a semantic question than anything else.

 

On the other hand, you will find the correspondence theory used by atheists all the time.

 

Belief in God is an "illusion" caused by a "burning in the bosom" which might just be heartburn.  Following subjective feelings has absolutely no justification in understanding "reality"

 

It is folly for any believer to assert the correspondence theory unless they have refined it into a fine knife-edge, and I have never seen a philosopher do that.

 

One would have to be able to show that statements about God "correspond to reality".

 

I don't think that is even possible, but certainly no one likely to post on this board is in any position to think they can do that.

[mfbukowski]

This is one point I wouldn't be led to agree with at first. However, before going any further, I'd like to ask, do pragmatists really believe that we cannot objectively know that snow is white? That the earth revolves around the sun? etc. How would the justification of these assertions be relative to an audience? to use Rorty's language.

Of course they know these things.

 

Listen carefully.  The snow is white totally "objectively".  We "know" the snow is white.  We know the earth revolves around the sun.  Saying that these statements are "true" is superfluous.

 

 

These statements are relative to an audience and a context only when we are speaking about science.

 

"The sun rises and sets on my beloved".

 

"The Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings..."

 

"You are the sunshine of my life....."

 

"This galaxy contains many suns...."

 

"'Tis Juliette, and she is the sun...."

 

"I love to go to the beach and lie in the sun..."

 

"The sun is a manifestation of the Light of Christ...."

 

Are these statements "true"?  If not, are they then "false"?  Do these statements "correspond to reality"?  What difference does the audience and the intent of the speaker make to their "truth or falsity"?

[mfbukowski]

We don't need to escape from our perceptions when what we know is really true. So there is no problem with our perceptions unless what we know is not true. That's why we need to be careful about making assumptions, or arriving at false conclusions.

But the problem is not that our perceptions are not independent of reality. In reality we can be either right or wrong. We can know the truth, or we can be misled or come to some false conclusion on our own. What we need to be able to know what is true is a connection to truth. Like when we connect to what we call the Spirit of Truth. And we need to be aware that on our own our own perception of things can be wrong. Thus we need to be careful when thinking independently without a connection the the Spirit that can help us know what the Truth is and then at that point what we perceive is the Truth.

Appearances can be deceiving. What sometimes appears to be true is really not true. Still reality, yes, but not really true. Truth is what really is, while evil is the exact opposite. What really is not even though it may appear to be true. Our perceptions are a problem only when what appears to be true is really not true.

I am sorry- these are circular.  You are not addressing the problem- you repeatedly use "true" and "false" without any definition of what that could mean in your statements.

 

I like you, but if you keep doing this, I cannot respond every time.  Sorry bro!

[Mormonmaniac]

These words are true.

I hate these philosophical pointless duscussions. Do we all lack basic simple common sense?

[mfbukowski]

Just trying to understand..I am so elementary at this.  But what is the difference between REAL and TRUTH?

That is the problem.

 

No one else gets it either, yet we have been arguing over these terms for 2000 years.   My honest advice is don't worry about it.  It ultimately boils down to common sense.   We know what true and false means- the key is to not get hung up on it.

 

Everything you see and feel is real.  Simple enough.  Do your best to describe it and don't lie, and it is the "truth"

 

Yes you can say it in a lot of ways, and sometimes you have to say it in different ways because your audience changes.  You don't tell a 5 year old about sex when he asks where he came from.

 

Honestly, that's about it.

[Stroopwafel]

Of course they know these things.

 

Listen carefully.  The snow is white totally "objectively".  We "know" the snow is white.  We know the earth revolves around the sun.  Saying that these statements are "true" is superfluous.

 

 

These statements are relative to an audience and a context only when we are speaking about science.

 

"The sun rises and sets on my beloved".

 

"The Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings..."

 

"You are the sunshine of my life....."

 

"This galaxy contains many suns...."

 

"'Tis Juliette, and she is the sun...."

 

"I love to go to the beach and lie in the sun..."

 

"The sun is a manifestation of the Light of Christ...."

 

Are these statements "true"?  If not, are they then "false"?  Do these statements "correspond to reality"?  What difference does the audience and the intent of the speaker make to their "truth or falsity"?

 

We cannot apply truth/falsity to subjective statements such as "The Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings..." or "Tis Juliette, and she is the sun...." the same way we would to objective statements because saying that they true or false isn't superfluous at all. It is saying something. We say that the sentence "snow is white" is true because it corresponds to reality, and doing so distinguishes this particular proposition from all the others, such as "snow is yellow with green polka dots", etc. So in that sense, how is that superfluous?

 

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that you put objective and subjective statements on the same footing.

 

In the end, I mean, I get it that truth isn't a property of being per se, but "the sun revolves around the earth" is simply an assertion until we can add that it is "true". We then may say that this particular assertion does correspond to objective reality. Yes, it may just be another paradigm shift going from Newton to Einstein, but in this process, we are getting closer and closer to something. Through the application of its mind, human being is un-veiling appearances and acquires surer knowledge about reality.