On The Deflationary Theory

[Ahab]

It's good and useful to disabuse us of the notion that there is unknowable truth.

Ah, yes. I like that notion.

If I can't know it then nobody can.

[Ahab]

Ahab

The theory does not say there is no truth or falsity it says that we cannot define it. That's all very simple. We cannot define truth and you have not done it, no one has doneh .

The best definition we can come up with is that the truth works. If you eat sand from a marrage you die. If its water you live. Yes sometimes our perceptions are wrong but those perceptions do not operate in reality they do not work.

Nature itself selects for what is true or false.

I'd rather you use some other words.

I don't like those.

How about: Truth is what is, or was, or will be.

Although I probably won't know what will be until it becomes what is, I like those words much better.

And there is also something about it I like regarding language, too. What makes sense in my language, using terms that I like, including what is unspeakable.

[mfbukowski]

I'd rather you use some other words.

I don't like those.

How about: Truth is what is, or was, or will be.

Although I probably won't know what will be until it becomes what is, I like those words much better.

And there is also something about it I like regarding language, too. What makes sense in my language, using terms that I like, including what is unspeakable.

OK truth is unspeakable.  It is direct experience but putting into words breaks the connection and makes it abstract,  There is nothing one can say about truth, it cannot be defined.

 

Reality is unspeakable and truth cannot be defined.  We know it when we see it, but can't tell what it is about it that makes it "right" or "true".  Reality is direct experience- the color red, the sound of a trumpet, the still small voice in your heart.  It is things as they are, not things as we can say them. It is life as lived, not life as spoken or described. As Jesus himself said, "I am the way (the path) the truth, and the life."

 

How can a man be "the truth"?  Because the only truth we can achieve is the reality of direct experience-  knowing that Jesus is the Christ.  Christ is "the truth" because we experience Him directly- not through words. He is the life because his way is the way of life.  It is the way that works and affirms life.  Following the commandments leads to a peaceful and long life.  This idea was very current in the 1st century- it is clear in the Didache, a first century work that was never canonized, but there it is as clear as can be.  It speaks of the commandments as the "way of life" and not following the commandments as "the way of death".

 

All this is saying is that truth, is undefinable- except as direct experience.  I think you are identifying truth with reality and cannot separate the two, so the best way I think for you to envision it is that reality or truth is direct experience.

 

You seem to want to believe that there are "true ideas" but the point of this whole way of seeing the world is that ideas are sentences.  They are descriptions, not direct experience.

 

We know what is right and wrong- it is wrong to hurt people, period end of story.  We know that directly- saying "it is true" says nothing.

 

On the other hand saying "I know the church is true" says tons.  It says that you know that the path the church prescribes is the right one and you know that because God has told you that- directly.  But even that sentence cannot be verified.  What it means for the church to be "true" is not clear to one who has not experienced it.  And the words cannot be defined.  They are ambiguous.  They could even mean that the walls of the building are not crooked but "true"!   That is the problem with language.

 

If ideas are sentences, they can be described as "true or false", but truth is not "reality"- reality is unspeakable.  As said many times, the experience of being in love is not the same as saying the words "I love you'.  The words are not the experience.  Saying "it's true that I love you" would be an odd thing to say unless there was some doubt about that on the part of the other person.  "Yes I love you!  It's true!" is only useful when there is some doubt.

 

It is an affirmation that "loving you" is something that is going on inside you- that is part of you which is not readily observable by the other person who may need reassurance.

 

But I won't rehash the thread farther.

 

The challenge is, if you accept another theory, how you can define what it means for statements about God being "true" and how you know them.  I think we have a responsibility to think that one through completely.

[tagriffy]

Sorry, I'll re-phrase that, are we saying religion/faith/truth is based on interpretations?  So truth is unknowable in regards to a God? 

 

To a certain extent, everything is based on interpretations. Some things are amendable to (more or less) direct observation, description, and manipulation. Other things are not, thought that doesn't make them any less real. We know they are "real" because we experience them and yet they have an ineffable quality that defies explanation the way, say, we could observe, describe, and explain that snow is white. Instead, we have to turn to poetry, metaphor, symbolism and stories. They communicate truth as well, just not the same sort of truth that we turn to science and scholarship for.

[tagriffy]

 

But I think this also speaks to tagriffy's question/idea.

 

It does to a very great extent. There is enough there to build on at least.

[Meadowchik]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#CorThe

See also post 1

 

So, by rejecting correspondence theory, we recognize that truth is not something we can agree upon with others.  The only reality anyone knows, including our perception of others' realities, is one's own reality. And each strand is truth?

 

We can engage in the exercise, like we're doing now, of attempting merging of understandings and definitions and such, but should always be able to caveat into "this is an approximation" or "this is a useful fiction" that we use in common in order to each travel. There must also be a kind of skeptical faith that our own words are limited and not final and by doing so we remain open to more.

 

This is what I seem to be getting from the links and from your saying that deflationary theory is most compatible with Mormonism.

 

Is that anywhere closer?

 

I hope so, but i like it either way!

 

By the way, why "deflationary?"

[Mars]

So, by rejecting correspondence theory, we recognize that truth is not something we can agree upon with others.  The only reality anyone knows, including our perception of others' realities, is one's own reality. And each strand is truth?

 

kinda

 

correspondence says that our statements must correspond accurately to the real world in order to be true.

 

deflationary says that our statements describe our experience with the real world and the experience is what we can determine to be true or false.  it means we get to define what we think is true or not.

 

it doesn't mean we get to arbitrarily invent our own rules and processes.  assuming people are honest and have integrity, and have a common set of terms and language, it is every bit as true to say "God lives, for I have interacted with Him!" as it is to say "water boils at sea level at 212F."

 

the real world exists out there.  we can experience it.  we can describe those experiences with words.  when you and i have established good communications and have understood one another, we can evaluate each other's experiences and accept or reject them as true or false by whatever means we agree upon

 

i think this relates to mormonism because it lends strength to the idea of a spiritual experience.  it puts it on the same plane as experiencing noise, hunger, etc...

 

critics and atheists have often asserted - to me personally, as it happens - that i can't know.  that because there is nothing there, what i did experience was probably something else other than God.  my assertion that God is there and is knowable and I know Him and you can to doesn't correspond accurately to what they have seen and heard and interacted with and therefore it is false. 

 

piff and twaddle.  i know what i experienced.  just because they lack the experience to judge it against doesn't falsify my experience.  if i'm trying to work with someone, and i am, i will readily admit it could just all be "the effects of a frenzied mind."  but i am the one who gets to make that decision.  i don't have to discard the experience because i don't have some real world observation, that other people can see and interact with, that i can correspond with, to match it up with.  it is sufficient to trust my experiences and say "it is true that God is there because He interacted with me."  it makes faith and belief more than just some immature childish dreaming.

 

at least, that's how all this makes sense to me so far.

[Meadowchik]

kinda

 

correspondence says that our statements must correspond accurately to the real world in order to be true.

 

deflationary says that our statements describe our experience with the real world and the experience is what we can determine to be true or false.  it means we get to define what we think is true or not.

 

it doesn't mean we get to arbitrarily invent our own rules and processes.  assuming people are honest and have integrity, and have a common set of terms and language, it is every bit as true to say "God lives, for I have interacted with Him!" as it is to say "water boils at sea level at 212F."

 

the real world exists out there.  we can experience it.  we can describe those experiences with words.  when you and i have established good communications and have understood one another, we can evaluate each other's experiences and accept or reject them as true or false by whatever means we agree upon

 

i think this relates to mormonism because it lends strength to the idea of a spiritual experience.  it puts it on the same plane as experiencing noise, hunger, etc...

 

critics and atheists have often asserted - to me personally, as it happens - that i can't know.  that because there is nothing there, what i did experience was probably something else other than God.  my assertion that God is there and is knowable and I know Him and you can to doesn't correspond accurately to what they have seen and heard and interacted with and therefore it is false. 

 

piff and twaddle.  i know what i experienced.  just because they lack the experience to judge it against doesn't falsify my experience.  if i'm trying to work with someone, and i am, i will readily admit it could just all be "the effects of a frenzied mind."  but i am the one who gets to make that decision.  i don't have to discard the experience because i don't have some real world observation, that other people can see and interact with, that i can correspond with, to match it up with.  it is sufficient to trust my experiences and say "it is true that God is there because He interacted with me."  it makes faith and belief more than just some immature childish dreaming.

 

at least, that's how all this makes sense to me so far.

 

Yes, the part about each one of us being able to decide for ourselves what is true or not, I think it still works without those assumptions listed.  Because, according to the reality we allow ourselves to see and base our conclusions, we build the world in which we live, each one of us, respectively.  The more we choose to share and are able to share with others, the more world we share. The less honest, for instance, we are about what we ourselves are perceiving, the less we'll be able to connect within ourselves and then with others in honesty.  Self-deception can also be shared within groups, too, but just as with individuals, it narrows and limits the experiences.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Meadowchik

[mfbukowski]

kinda

 

correspondence says that our statements must correspond accurately to the real world in order to be true.

 

deflationary says that our statements describe our experience with the real world and the experience is what we can determine to be true or false.  it means we get to define what we think is true or not.

 

it doesn't mean we get to arbitrarily invent our own rules and processes.  assuming people are honest and have integrity, and have a common set of terms and language, it is every bit as true to say "God lives, for I have interacted with Him!" as it is to say "water boils at sea level at 212F."

 

the real world exists out there.  we can experience it.  we can describe those experiences with words.  when you and i have established good communications and have understood one another, we can evaluate each other's experiences and accept or reject them as true or false by whatever means we agree upon

 

i think this relates to mormonism because it lends strength to the idea of a spiritual experience.  it puts it on the same plane as experiencing noise, hunger, etc...

 

critics and atheists have often asserted - to me personally, as it happens - that i can't know.  that because there is nothing there, what i did experience was probably something else other than God.  my assertion that God is there and is knowable and I know Him and you can to doesn't correspond accurately to what they have seen and heard and interacted with and therefore it is false. 

 

piff and twaddle.  i know what i experienced.  just because they lack the experience to judge it against doesn't falsify my experience.  if i'm trying to work with someone, and i am, i will readily admit it could just all be "the effects of a frenzied mind."  but i am the one who gets to make that decision.  i don't have to discard the experience because i don't have some real world observation, that other people can see and interact with, that i can correspond with, to match it up with.  it is sufficient to trust my experiences and say "it is true that God is there because He interacted with me."  it makes faith and belief more than just some immature childish dreaming.

 

at least, that's how all this makes sense to me so far.

Exactimundo!

Now what you have described is not all JUST the "Deflationary Theory"- it is a combination of Pragmatism ala Dewey and Rorty and James WITH the deflationary theory which presumes a similar position.

 

But those are all technicalities for the names of various theories cobbled together here.

 

Technically what the deflationary theory says is that one cannot define what "truth" is.  Truth says something about the way we speak- and not about the world or reality.

That is only part of the whole position Mars put forward in more detail.  Truth tells us nothing about the world- just about language and the way we speak.

 

It's not that we get to make up our own truth- because if we say the moon is made of green cheese is "true" we would be wrong BECAUSE no one has ever experienced the moon as being made of green cheese.  Our communal knowledge of the moon - the combined experience of mankind rules out the definition of "moon=green cheese"

 

Truth is a word which doesn't mean much because it is undefinable.  It doesn't add anything to a proposition unless the proposition is being disputed, and what it adds is equivalent to "I agree with you".  It doesn't speak about the world but about the fact that we agree on something.  Others may dispute that.  We argue all the time around here about what is true or false- but all we are saying is that we agree with those who's words we call "true" and disagree with those we say are speaking incorrectly or "falsely".

 

We say they have "true ideas" because they utter propositions with which we agree, and that's about all it means.

 

So that is where the "Deflationary Theory" gets its name.  The importance of the word "truth" is deflated from the way it has been seen in the past.

 

 

According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’.

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.

The deflationary theory has gone by many different names, including at least the following: the redundancy theory, the disappearance theory, the no-truth theory, the disquotational theory, and the minimalist theory. There is no terminological consensus about how to use these labels: sometimes they are used interchangeably; sometimes they are used to mark distinctions between different versions of the same general view.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

This is all the theory is- all the other stuff is various interpretations of Pragmatism.

[mfbukowski]

So, by rejecting correspondence theory, we recognize that truth is not something we can agree upon with others.  The only reality anyone knows, including our perception of others' realities, is one's own reality. And each strand is truth?

 

We can engage in the exercise, like we're doing now, of attempting merging of understandings and definitions and such, but should always be able to caveat into "this is an approximation" or "this is a useful fiction" that we use in common in order to each travel. There must also be a kind of skeptical faith that our own words are limited and not final and by doing so we remain open to more.

 

This is what I seem to be getting from the links and from your saying that deflationary theory is most compatible with Mormonism.

 

Is that anywhere closer?

 

I hope so, but i like it either way!

way to s

By the way, why "deflationary?"

Notice that Mars responded "kinda" and that was the perfect response.

 

Also notice that I tried to show how your video illustrated exactly the WRONG way to see it all as "useful fictions".  If you think the guy in the video got it right, God becomes a "fiction" and not "real".  That is not my view

[Tacenda]

Notice that Mars responded "kinda" and that was the perfect response.

 

Also notice that I tried to show how your video illustrated exactly the WRONG way to see it all as "useful fictions".  If you think the guy in the video got it right, God becomes a "fiction" and not "real".  That is not my view

That's good, then there is some black and white going on.  Not that I think that's a good way to look at most things.  Like I mentioned in a post before, I think proof of God, is in the pudding....the earth and it's inhabitants.  It's creatures, it's landscapes, it's resources, it's humans, it's..... 

 

I believe I know what you see in the LDS church.  I see it all the time, or feel it.  I just wonder if it's because that's what I'm use to.  But you have proven this isn't the case where you came from another faith and even no faith. 

 

I know I'm not really good at reading the wealth of info you've provided on this thread and haven't listened to all the videos about it.  But think I know where you're coming from.  There is something so finite in the air about it sometimes.  I guess that's what the spirit is.   

[Ahab]

OK truth is unspeakable. It is direct experience but putting into words breaks the connection and makes it abstract, There is nothing one can say about truth, it cannot be defined.

Here's where your language is getting in my way, again. First you say truth is unspeakabe and then you say it can't be defined. That's contradictory in my perspective. And for me it is unspeakable only sometimes, not all of the time. When it isn't unspeakable it is simply what is, no more and no less. Like a true statement is only a statement about something that is what it is, not the thing itself or every other true statement that could be made about that something. Like the true statement that red is red, rather than red itself or a false statement about what red is.

Reality is unspeakable and truth cannot be defined.

False statement. Why can't you see that?

We know it when we see it, but can't tell what it is about it that makes it "right" or "true".

It is right or true when it is what it is, rather than something it isn't.

Reality is direct experience- the color red, the sound of a trumpet, the still small voice in your heart. It is things as they are, not things as we can say them.

That is a very good and true statement, with the exception of true statements. A true statement about something is a thing as it is (one of the things as they are) about something (either itself or something else) as it is. That's what makes the statement true, rather than a false statement stating that something is what it isn't.

It is life as lived, not life as spoken or described. As Jesus himself said, "I am the way (the path) the truth, and the life."

No need to exclude statements. Include those too and your statement will still be true. Just get rid of the word "not".

How can a man be "the truth"? Because the only truth we can achieve is the reality of direct experience- knowing that Jesus is the Christ. Christ is "the truth" because we experience Him directly- not through words.

We can experience him through words, too, though. And what are you doing if not defining what truth is?

He is the life because his way is the way of life. It is the way that works and affirms life. Following the commandments leads to a peaceful and long life. This idea was very current in the 1st century- it is clear in the Didache, a first century work that was never canonized, but there it is as clear as can be. It speaks of the commandments as the "way of life" and not following the commandments as "the way of death".

And the "true" way of life and the "true" way of death, at that.

All this is saying is that truth, is undefinable- except as direct experience.

Now that I agree with. The addition of your except clause makes that a true statement. And I hope you mean anything that can be experienced directly which we can talk or think about even if an individual one of us hasn't experienced it yet or can't remember experiencing it other than to hear about it. Our life before we were mortal, for example.

I think you are identifying truth with reality and cannot separate the two, so the best way I think for you to envision it is that reality

or truth is direct experience.

Yes, or what can be experienced directly.

You seem to want to believe that there are "true ideas" but the point of this whole way of seeing the world is that ideas are sentences. They are descriptions, not direct experience.

I'm directly experiencing some true ideas here. And some false ones too. And so are you.

We know what is right and wrong- it is wrong to hurt people, period end of story. We know that directly- saying "it is true" says nothing.

No. Saying it is true is saying it is wrong to hurt people. It is confiration of the idea that it is wrong, rather than a denial.

On the other hand saying "I know the church is true" says tons. It says that you know that the path the church prescribes is the right one and you know that because God has told you that- directly. But even that sentence cannot be verified. What it means for the church to be "true" is not clear to one who has not experienced it. And the words cannot be defined. They are ambiguous. They could even mean that the walls of the building are not crooked but "true"! That is the problem with language.

Words still mean what they mean. They are still useful as symbols. We just need to find out what was meant by the use of those words.

If ideas are sentences, they can be described as "true or false", but truth is not "reality"- reality is unspeakable. As said many times, the experience of being in love is not the same as saying the words "I love you'. The words are not the experience. Saying "it's true that I love you" would be an odd thing to say unless there was some doubt about that on the part of the other person. "Yes I love you! It's true!" is only useful when there is some doubt.

It is an affirmation that "loving you" is something that is going on inside you- that is part of you which is not readily observable by the other person who may need reassurance.

But I won't rehash the thread farther.

The challenge is, if you accept another theory, how you can define what it means for statements about God being "true" and how you know them. I think we have a responsibility to think that one through completely.

I'll cobtinue to think about what you meant when you said these things. So far I think we only partially agree with each other, whatever that means.

[mfbukowski]

Here's where your language is getting in my way, again. First you say truth is unspeakabe and then you say it can't be defined. That's contradictory in my perspective. And for me it is unspeakable only sometimes, not all of the time. When it isn't unspeakable it is simply what is, no more and no less. Like a true statement is only a statement about something that is what it is, not the thing itself or every other true statement that could be made about that something. Like the true statement that red is red, rather than red itself or a false statement about what red is.

False statement. Why can't you see that?

It is right or true when it is what it is, rather than something it isn't.

That is a very good and true statement, with the exception of true statements. A true statement about something is a thing as it is (one of the things as they are) about something (either itself or something else) as it is. That's what makes the statement true, rather than a false statement stating that something is what it isn't.

No need to exclude statements. Include those too and your statement will still be true. Just get rid of the word "not".

We can experience him through words, too, though. And what are you doing if not defining what truth is?

And the "true" way of life and the "true" way of death, at that.

Now that I agree with. The addition of your except clause makes that a true statement. And I hope you mean anything that can be experienced directly which we can talk or think about even if an individual one of us hasn't experienced it yet or can't remember experiencing it other than to hear about it. Our life before we were mortal, for example.

Yes, or what can be experienced directly.

I'm directly experiencing some true ideas here. And some false ones too. And so are you.

No. Saying it is true is saying it is wrong to hurt people. It is confiration of the idea that it is wrong, rather than a denial.

Words still mean what they mean. They are still useful as symbols. We just need to find out what was meant by the use of those words.

I'll cobtinue to think about what you meant when you said these things. So far I think we only partially agree with each other, whatever that means.

Sorry, I tried to use the words you suggested.  I guess you will figure it out for yourself as everyone else has to or not.  Read the original sources or don't- I don't care.  I have no responsibility make you understand.  I did the best I could.

 

It's all in the Rorty quotes and the Stanford article. If you do not believe or understand it, such is life.  You are free to justify belief in an invisible God any way you like or not at all.

Edited July 28, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Mars]

if truth is unspeakable, it is precisely undefined.

 

you can't speak what you can't define.

 

you can't define what you can't speak.

 

absolutely NOT a contradiction.  it's the same dang thing.

[Mars]

unless you meant "too holy to speak of" in which case i withdraw my previous comment.

[Ahab]

Sorry, I tried to use the words you suggested. I guess you will figure it out for yourself as everyone else has to or not. Read the original sources or don't- I don't care. I have no responsibility make you understand. I did the best I could.

It's all in the Rorty quotes and the Stanford article. If you do not believe or understand it, such is life. You are free to justify belief in an invisible God any way you like or not at all.

I already acknowledged that if I can't know something or someone then nobody can.

Don't be snarky.

[mfbukowski]

Please cure cancer.

[Ahab]

Please cure cancer.

I'd rather we just get to a point where we won't have ANY health problems anymore.

[Meadowchik]

Notice that Mars responded "kinda" and that was the perfect response.

 

Also notice that I tried to show how your video illustrated exactly the WRONG way to see it all as "useful fictions".  If you think the guy in the video got it right, God becomes a "fiction" and not "real".  That is not my view

 

Given the whole of the talk, I don't think Yuval Harari's talk requires God to be only a useful fiction. Indeed, God can be a central element to many a person's religious fictions, this is not even counting what we would call people's experiences which they genuinely believe to be God encounters.

 

So, it doesn't bother me.  He is addressing a secular audience, pulling them in with the not-so-trendy religion to demonstrate the imaginative worlds flooding human experience.

 

[mfbukowski]

As I see it those worlds, like God, are real.

[mfbukowski]

Maybe a better analogy would be that these are parts of the human operating system. They are as real as software as necessary to make us human. I would also put logic and mathematics in tht category if there is such a category

[Meadowchik]

As I see it those worlds, like God, are real.

 

I don't see him as saying that they aren't real.  They, however--we're talking the stories and human creations and systems--are different from the raw world.

 

He wasn't trying to build an epistemology or talk about language and philosophy, but rather the historical arch achieved because of the nature of human imagination and cooperation.  He was talking about where our artificial creations will take us from here, not theism.  Just the same, his reference to "fictions" was still applicable to our conversation, not because they are or aren't "real," but because they're ours and they still shape us.

[mfbukowski]

The question becomes where the raw world ends and the artificial world begins. Everything we see is created by our brains, by our perceptions. We cannot think or talk about what we see except by using our human perceptions. Is the color blue artificial or is it real? Is what we call a chair or table or sofa artificial or real? Where does it stop? Are houses cars and the Empire State Building real or artificial? is science itself real or artificial?

[mfbukowski]

My point is that at some point these distinctions become so blurry that there are no distinctions at all. I have come to see all that I see and know as part of human creation including God, as the creator of language as the creator

Edited July 29, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

How we speak about these things is important because that is the way we think about them. I really like the videos understanding of the humanly created world in which we live but by calling these fictions I think that commits a serious error. By speaking in that way we think that way, and that is how God became a fiction to the western world.

Edited July 29, 2015 by mfbukowski