On The Deflationary Theory

[Mormonmaniac]

I can see why philosophers philosophize about things like this. It's because they don't agree because they don't see things in the same way.

But to answer your question, well, how do YOU define what stupid is? Lacking intelligence, maybe? All or just some? Would having more intelligence solve the problem, here, now, do you think? Like maybe if we all knew and agreed on what the truth is?

I think it would be nice if we all agreed on what is good, too.

Truth is not a complicated thing. My 7 year old knows what truth means. We shouldn't have to have any greater capacity for defining it beyond that level.

[Stroopwafel]

So much to be said, and so little time! I don't know if it's you guys who have too much spare time, or it's me who's just having issues. Expressing my thought, that is. Haha!

 

In any case, I'll just use parts of mfbukowski's latest post to comment and make some points.
 

I don't know what reality IS or how squggles on a page of grunts in my ears could "correspond" to a chair.  I cannot explain what that means and no one else can also.  Obviously I know what the word means and overall I get the concept obviously but I cannot define how it works. No one can and that's the problem.  What does the grunt have to do with a piece of wood?  Does the grunt draw a picture?  And why is a piece of wood "real" when all I know is what wood looks like and feels like?  All I know are the sights and sounds- appearances if you want to use that word.

 

How can we not explain how "reality" works? Reality is always experienced first; we account for it after. Humans apply reason to find causality between events. We have our cognitive biases which lead us on wrong paths, and people have believed all sorts of things to explain the phenomenons of reality, but as we apply reason, we are able to sift the true from the false, and through this process, get a better grasp on the causes of our experiences, i.e., on reality. Not perfect, yet, but always more refined because what is false is eventually made manifest and discarded. (Humorism anyone?)

 

Although very advanced, our current attempts at explaining reality in physics still lack a unified theory (for quantum mechanics and relativity). So yes, it is just another paradigm that's "true" now but will be "false" in the future, when a theory accounting better for reality is discovered. But there is no way we can believe in all intellectual honesty that our current paradigm isn't a better account for reality than, for instance, Thales' hypothesis on the nature of matter, which he believed was made of water. And by the way, since we're talking about physics, the "correspondence principle" you're referring to in one of your posts, from what I understand, has nothing to do with the philosophical correspondence theory of truth. It's about whether it is possible or not to have a correspondence (an explanation) of quantum phenomenons using newtonian physics. Not sure how that relates. Anyways, moving on.

 

Correspondence tells of a relationship between two things. A signifier and a signified. Whatever the means of communication we use (be it a sound, a word, a sign), it refers to a reality which is experienced collectively, which in turn is the condition for meaningful communication in the first place, i.e., that it be shared. Of course you know what a chair is. You've sat on it, you've hit your toes on it. So when you read the word "chair", you understand the reality it refers to.

 

We experience reality, whether we can communicate it adequately or not. There are things affecting us, whether we can justify it or not with an ontological or scientific theory. So in the end, the confusion about "reality" apparently arises from our inadequacy of using the right language, the right combination of referents, to express the content of our experience of it. I would agree that there are some experiences in life that cannot be adequately expressed using mere words. However, the fact that language, as it is, can't be use to express ALL experiences doesn't mean it isn't adequate to express some. The problem isn't so much in the medium as it is in its individual users.

 

 

We both want the deer because we are hungry.  The word "real" is irrelevant just as "truth" is irrelevant.  We are going after what we want and will fill our bellies and we use the tools at our disposal to get it.

 

What is real is the ache in our bellies.  We cooperate to fix that.  The word or idea "real" isn't even relevant.   It is only sitting around the fire after some roast venison that we might (probably not) talk about it.   It is abstract.  "Reality" is unreal.  We never worry about it, we just do things.  We are manufacturing an artificial problem to discuss.

 

When, in hunger, you come to me and ask where to find a deer, and I tell you "there is one behind that rock over there", and you discover it is only a drawing of said deer, wouldn't you think then that the word "real" isn't all that irrelevant after all? Of course we don't have to use "real" and "true" each sentence we utter, but to say that these words are meaningless is just false. (See? you understand what I mean by false here.)

 

 

Some of those comments on this thread show that perfectly, and they are not wrong or stupid.  They have a good point, they just do not understand the discussion or its worth.  They do not realize that these issues lead to errors of major importance that have poisoned Western culture, but they are right in that these are not "real" issues that get something in your stomach.

 

Actually, I would really like to read your take on these errors, and how you'd say they poisoned Western culture. In following nietzschean critic, I understand that metaphysics was the poison that eventually bred nihilism in the West. But I fail to see how the idea that we can express our experience of reality--albeit not all experiences--through propositions either true or false (logic, or correspondence theory) would lead to the errors you refer to.

 

If you do that, I think it could help show what is actually wrong with the correspondence theory of truth (which hasn't been clearly shown yet despite all that writing and link sharing), of which it would be nice to give a definition, to see what you mean when you're referring to it.

 

 

I am a simple guy- I want simple definitions for everything.  I can sling the B.ovine S.hovelables with the best of them but in the final analysis, I just want peace and a simple way to explain it.  If you want to say that "truth corresponds to reality" and do all the mental gymnastics attached to that, that's fine with me.

 

I don't mean this to come out as confrontational, but I'm probably not the only here who would say you are the one who seems to be getting your mind the most exercise.

 

 

But for now, I need some AC and Mo Tabs while I rescue my wife. 

 

What wouldn't we do for them? Hope everything went well.

[Stroopwafel]

Something to give perspective on the issues at hand regarding reality and truth.

 

The issue, raised since Antiquity, is trying to understand what has more reality in the world. In a world of appearances and transitoriness, what is permanent, what is fundamental, what is real? You say a chair is real? Fine, so I'll take your chair and chuck it into a fire, and we'll see if it's still real or not!! And your chair, it could have been otherwise than it is. There is nothing necessary about your chair being the way it is. So, what is the true reality behind this?

 

This is what led philosophers such as Plato to affirm that what is real is the form, the idea that we have of the chair. Real here is understood as what is permanent, what is unchanging. So it doesn't matter if I burn all your chairs and you don't have anything to sit on except the ground, the idea of the chair is still there. Thus it it "more real", since it is "more permanent".

 

If you've never done so, read Plato's (beautiful) Allegory of the Cave from book VII of The Republic. Here's a link, and here's another. You may actually end up surprised at how familiar this all sounds.

 

Idealism asserts that "reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial." For those interested in understanding, the wiki article has more details (obviously).

 

Pragmatism is fundamentally influenced by idealism, which is the position held by mfbukowski. And although it is apparent that some readers are repelled by his remarks and explanations (no offense ), I strongly suggest that you familiariize yourself with idealism. It is far from stupid and a waste of time. It had tremendous influence (Christianity for one, Hegel, marxism, etc.), and if anything, it would enrich your understanding on mankind's history of thought.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Stroopwafel

[Okrahomer]

OK we are getting somewhere I think

I have no argument with what you are saying it's just words getting in the way.

 

But for now, I need some AC and Mo Tabs while I rescue my wife. 

I really appreciate your deep understanding and professorial command of the problem of language. The "reality" of the problem is nowhere more apparent than in our closest relationships, where someone's hurt feelings can so easily be caused by the discrepancy between "words" and "intent." I think this problem is worse at the beginning of a marriage for example, but somehow becomes less so as time, experience and deeper love intervene to add new layers of understanding that go beyond language. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's a kind of emergent telepathy, or maybe it's just a whole lot charitable listening.

[mfbukowski]

I really appreciate your deep understanding and professorial command of the problem of language. The "reality" of the problem is nowhere more apparent than in our closest relationships, where someone's hurt feelings can so easily be caused by the discrepancy between "words" and "intent." I think this problem is worse at the beginning of a marriage for example, but somehow becomes less so as time, experience and deeper love intervene to add new layers of understanding that go beyond language. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's a kind of emergent telepathy, or maybe it's just a whole lot charitable listening.

Well thanks for the kind words!

 

No question that that is a problem in marriage- I think that the closeness brings with it an expectation of perfect unity of thought at all times, which of course is very difficult in practice to achieve.  So the expectation is that no one that close could possibly say anything offending, and so when it happens, since after all we are two independent people in process of becoming one and not one yet, when it happens it can be extremely hurtful.

 

But yes I think in time one becomes aware of where the sensitive areas are and how to work within the constraints they bring.  I have been married now 35 years and it still happens, but less and less, thank goodness.

 

But there is no question you are right. A glance across the room in a given situation can speak paragraphs, with a response with the flick of an eyelash.

 

I have had many experiences with "telepathy" or whatever you want to call it,  Perhaps it is the Spirit, perhaps it is more a natural phenomenon than we know now.

 

I am convinced that in the past people were more receptive to that sort of thing- there are many stories of my ancestors "knowing" about remote events long before it would have been possible for any direct communication. 

 

I enjoy a tv show showing various situations encountered by Cesar Millan who is known as the "dog whisperer".  His ability to communicate with dogs is positively eerie, and obviously it is all wordless.

 

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/quickquotes/quickquotehamletdreamt.html

[mfbukowski]

So much to be said, and so little time! I don't know if it's you guys who have too much spare time, or it's me who's just having issues. Expressing my thought, that is. Haha!

 

In any case, I'll just use parts of mfbukowski's latest post to comment and make some points.

 

 

How can we not explain how "reality" works? Reality is always experienced first; we account for it after. Humans apply reason to find causality between events. We have our cognitive biases which lead us on wrong paths, and people have believed all sorts of things to explain the phenomenons of reality, but as we apply reason, we are able to sift the true from the false, and through this process, get a better grasp on the causes of our experiences, i.e., on reality. Not perfect, yet, but always more refined because what is false is eventually made manifest and discarded. (Humorism anyone?)

 

Although very advanced, our current attempts at explaining reality in physics still lack a unified theory (for quantum mechanics and relativity). So yes, it is just another paradigm that's "true" now but will be "false" in the future, when a theory accounting better for reality is discovered. But there is no way we can believe in all intellectual honesty that our current paradigm isn't a better account for reality than, for instance, Thales' hypothesis on the nature of matter, which he believed was made of water. And by the way, since we're talking about physics, the "correspondence principle" you're referring to in one of your posts, from what I understand, has nothing to do with the philosophical correspondence theory of truth. It's about whether it is possible or not to have a correspondence (an explanation) of quantum phenomenons using newtonian physics. Not sure how that relates. Anyways, moving on.

 

Correspondence tells of a relationship between two things. A signifier and a signified. Whatever the means of communication we use (be it a sound, a word, a sign), it refers to a reality which is experienced collectively, which in turn is the condition for meaningful communication in the first place, i.e., that it be shared. Of course you know what a chair is. You've sat on it, you've hit your toes on it. So when you read the word "chair", you understand the reality it refers to.

 

We experience reality, whether we can communicate it adequately or not. There are things affecting us, whether we can justify it or not with an ontological or scientific theory. So in the end, the confusion about "reality" apparently arises from our inadequacy of using the right language, the right combination of referents, to express the content of our experience of it. I would agree that there are some experiences in life that cannot be adequately expressed using mere words. However, the fact that language, as it is, can't be use to express ALL experiences doesn't mean it isn't adequate to express some. The problem isn't so much in the medium as it is in its individual users.

 

 

When, in hunger, you come to me and ask where to find a deer, and I tell you "there is one behind that rock over there", and you discover it is only a drawing of said deer, wouldn't you think then that the word "real" isn't all that irrelevant after all? Of course we don't have to use "real" and "true" each sentence we utter, but to say that these words are meaningless is just false. (See? you understand what I mean by false here.)

 

 

Actually, I would really like to read your take on these errors, and how you'd say they poisoned Western culture. In following nietzschean critic, I understand that metaphysics was the poison that eventually bred nihilism in the West. But I fail to see how the idea that we can express our experience of reality--albeit not all experiences--through propositions either true or false (logic, or correspondence theory) would lead to the errors you refer to.

 

If you do that, I think it could help show what is actually wrong with the correspondence theory of truth (which hasn't been clearly shown yet despite all that writing and link sharing), of which it would be nice to give a definition, to see what you mean when you're referring to it.

 

 

I don't mean this to come out as confrontational, but I'm probably not the only here who would say you are the one who seems to be getting your mind the most exercise.

 

 

What wouldn't we do for them? Hope everything went well.

I am presuming you read the entire Stanford article on the strengths and weakness of correspondence and why most philosophers today to not subscribe to that view.

 

If you are not familiar with the arguments in the article, I think it is a waste of time to summarize them here.

 

The errors generated are Cartesian Dualism, and in a religious context, the view that there is a realm of "truth' and or "reality" independent of what we can perceive.  Scholasticism is based on Aristotelian correspondence and the trinity is based on Neoplatonism, both views which rely on forms of the correspondence theory.  If you defend correspondence you defend sectarian thinking.

 

That is necessary to the whole idea of correspondence.  The problem is an epistemological one.  It presumes that one knows what "reality" is so that one can compare one's already perfected knowledge of reality to the statement in question.

 

That is the major criticism of correspondence.

 

Look I am not making this up.  The most important BYU philosophers who hold variations of this view.  Look at Paulsen https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_speculative_philosophy/v013/13.2paulsen.html

 

Look at this- http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/ 

and look at Faulconer who is a Heideggerian.   One of the major publishers contemporary Mormon theology- whom I will not name- is thoroughly familiar with Rorty and in fact told me that Rorty had a home teacher, and directed me to his site  http://works.bepress.com/scott_abbott/58/

 

Google "william james mormon" and see what you get.  Like it or not, we ARE "Pragmatists".  Did you read the post on Alma 32?   It is a treatise in Pragmatic theory written at least 50 years before anyone else was thinking that way.

 

This is pretty darn mainstream Mormon theology insofar as we have any.  It is not my fault you apparently are not familiar with the issues.  My intent is to skip as much philosophical jargon as possible and explain all this in real language for real members who are not familiar with it.  If you want to start with "isms" we can go that way, but you do not have a sufficient understanding to go there.   I am thoroughly familiar with Saussure's semiotics and it does not work, so I do not need your help with that.

 

And you do not have to explain idealism to me, thank you very much for the effort.  I had philosophy 101  45 years ago and have been studying ever since.

 

Read the article and get back to me with a substantive objection to what is in the article and we will have something to talk about.

 

Here is another link- I will make it easy for you to find. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

Since you are obviously schooled in philosophy, I will expect substantive objections to the theory based on actual arguments which are not refuted in the article already.

[mfbukowski]

Actually, I would really like to read your take on these errors, and how you'd say they poisoned Western culture. In following nietzschean critic, I understand that metaphysics was the poison that eventually bred nihilism in the West. But I fail to see how the idea that we can express our experience of reality--albeit not all experiences--through propositions either true or false (logic, or correspondence theory) would lead to the errors you refer to.

 

 

Most of Nietzsche's writing answers your questions.  That is what he wrote about- the errors of Western culture.  I suggest you read some Nietzsche.

[mfbukowski]

Stroop

This is how Rorty answers your questions.

 

REMEMBER Rorty is criticizing the sectarian god who is transcendent and NOT "Human".  He is not attacking our LDS conception of God.  In fact elsewhere he has affirmed positions which are quite sympathetic to a God similar to our conception of God.

Rorty, Contingency Irony and Solidarity, page 5.

 

 

We need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there and the claim that the truth is out there.  To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages and that human languages are human creations.

Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot.

 

 

[tagriffy]

 

How far should we take this "reality" thing before it becomes totally meaningless?  For me it is meaningless from the beginning.  It's all myths and interpretations and what works to express the job at hand.

 

Ultimately what is reality?  How do you know what is "real"??   I can debate that as far as anyone wants to take it.

 

I am a total skeptic.  Pragmatism is all that works for real skeptics.  If you think you know what reality is, correspondence is for you.  It is hard and fast and gives easy answers.

 

Unfortunately in my opinion those answers are far too easy and don't really answer anything.

 

 

Reality is a myth, or rather, the myth. As such, it never becomes totally meaningless. It's what drives to get out of the car and take a closer look at the puddle. To ask questions and seek answers. To dig, to look at things from another point of view. To find better ways of doing things. To strive to be gods.

 

But I never said anything about it being easy, and you never will hear me say that.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-boy-of-physics-extreme-physics-special/

 

And he isn't the only one.

 

The old way of speaking about reality just doesn't work any more.  Philosophers know that, physicists know that.   This board serves its purpose but it is hardly on the cutting edge of anything, much less "reality".

 

 

I agree with Susskind, though perhaps for a different reason. Physics works when it comes to its bit of reality, but physics is far too small to ever really capture, let alone understand reality.

[Stroopwafel]

My post about idealism wasn't so much for you, since I know you've studied philosophy, as it was meant for those who seem to find this thread pointless.

As for Nietzsche, I've actually read most of his work already, from Untimely Meditations to Genealogy of Morals, and literature about him. However, since my mother-tongue is French, I've been exposed mostly to a European reading of him (although I'm not European), which I've come to realize is different from the reading done of his work in America. So we may differ on what Nietzsche mean on some things. But you know, this is absolutely fine; that's always been the issue with him.

As for providing substantive objections to the theory, yea, I'll see if I can turn contemporary philosophy upside down. In all seriousness, I doubt that I could provide much insight here, and even if I could, I'm not sure if you can actually be convinced of anything out of the thought you developed and matured over the years, and which works for you. That's fine really. Being at least twice younger than you I'm sure, I'm more likely to be the one to "refine" his thought.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Stroopwafel

[Mormonmaniac]

My post about idealism wasn't so much for you, since I know you've studied philosophy, as it was meant for those who seem to find this thread pointless.

As for Nietzsche, I've actually read most of his work already, from Untimely Meditations to Genealogy of Morals, and literature about him. However, since my mother-tongue is French, I've been exposed mostly to a European reading of him (although I'm not European), which I've come to realize is different from the reading done of his work in America. So we may differ on what Nietzsche mean on some things. But you know, this is absolutely fine; that's always been the issue with him.

As for providing substantive objections to the theory, yea, I'll see if I can turn contemporary philosophy upside down. In all seriousness, I doubt that I could provide much insight here, and even if I could, I'm not sure if you can actually be convinced of anything out of the thought you developed and matured over the years, and which works for you. That's fine really. Being at least twice younger than you I'm sure, I'm more likely to be the one to "refine" his thought.

Hum...

this thread really, truly, (pun I tended) is pointless.

If one simply cannot defi e truth then he or she will simply go mad. Truth and reality is simple. It's not complex and certainly not really a philisophical debate.

[Stroopwafel]

You know, I've read again the Stanford article, and I am still not convinced of deflationary theory's appeal. As for me bringing objections, I won't go further than those given in section 7; I find them convincing enough.

Stroop

This is how Rorty answers your questions.

 

REMEMBER Rorty is criticizing the sectarian god who is transcendent and NOT "Human".  He is not attacking our LDS conception of God.  In fact elsewhere he has affirmed positions which are quite sympathetic to a God similar to our conception of God.

Rorty, Contingency Irony and Solidarity, page 5.

I'd like to clarify, I'm LDS only by baptism. The church was a good influence in my life, and I still abide by much of its precepts, but that's about it. So the things you share giving a Mormon perspective don't resonate so much with me now, although they certainly would have in the past.

Anyways, I'm glad you shared Rorty's quote. I whole heartedly agree with it. Truth is a human construct in that you can only apply it to sentences, representations. But it is a necessary product of our interaction with reality. It's out there with justice, friendship, and love of hamburgers. If humans would disappear from the universe, these concepts would be meaningless. However, and that's fascinating, if humans would then reappear, these concepts would still come back, and find a place. I guess it's their inescapability that makes them seem "out there", "eternal", "more real".

[mfbukowski]

As for providing substantive objections to the theory, yea, I'll see if I can turn contemporary philosophy upside down. In all seriousness, I doubt that I could provide much insight here, ...

Indeed that is the problem.

 

I am just the messenger trying to teach some folks here that the views they hold are ancient history and have been supplanted by other views that are very much in favor of Mormonism, and that we need to quit arguing with the sectarians about substance and Being and ineffable "TRUTH" and start thinking in terms which are compatible with the Restoration, with a capital R instead of Truth with a capital T.

 

This is a new age.  A theism that works for our time has been revealed!

 

Sectarian thought is dead, and much of what is on the horizon intellectually seems to be in our favor.

 

This is not the time to cower in a corner blindly chanting "But we are Christians.... But we are Christians...." but to boldly take on the challenges of creating Restoration paradigms to take secularism by the horns and show others how what we have can change the world.

 

We are supposed to be the rock cut without hands rolling forth to fill the earth, not an eroded crumbling boulder on the beach proclaiming itself to be to be the Rock of Ages.

 

We could lose the restoration if we don't change the way we think about it.

Edited July 8, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

You know, I've read again the Stanford article, and I am still not convinced of deflationary theory's appeal. As for me bringing objections, I won't go further than those given in section 7; I find them convincing enough.

I'd like to clarify, I'm LDS only by baptism. The church was a good influence in my life, and I still abide by much of its precepts, but that's about it. So the things you share giving a Mormon perspective don't resonate so much with me now, although they certainly would have in the past.

Anyways, I'm glad you shared Rorty's quote. I whole heartedly agree with it. Truth is a human construct in that you can only apply it to sentences, representations. But it is a necessary product of our interaction with reality. It's out there with justice, friendship, and love of hamburgers. If humans would disappear from the universe, these concepts would be meaningless. However, and that's fascinating, if humans would then reappear, these concepts would still come back, and find a place. I guess it's their inescapability that makes them seem "out there", "eternal", "more real".

So reality is real but if humans disappeared, reality would disappear and then return when humans returned.

 

OK.

 

Here's what Rorty said about that.

 

Now remember that the god he speaks of here is the transcendent god of the sectarians who is NOT human, but an ineffable three "Persons" in one "Substance"- a concept without meaning.  That is not our Father in Heaven in his heavenly council, the Godhead.  Our model is fully human, though exalted.  The sectarian God finds human nature fallen with no inherent spark of divinity.   So yes, this sounds atheistic, but for our God it is not.  In fact it affirms that a God like the one we worship would be "rational" to Rorty.

 

This is from p 20 of Contingency Irony and Solidarity

 

 

To drop the idea of languages as representations, and to be thoroughly

Wittgensteinian in our approach to language, would be to de-divinize the

world. Only if we do that can we fully accept the argument I offered

earlier - the argument that since truth is a property of sentences, since

sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since

vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths. For as long as we

think that "the world" names something we ought to respect as well as

cope with, something personlike in that it has a preferred description of

itself, we shall insist that any philosophical account of truth save the

"intuition" that truth is "out there." This institution amounts to the

vague sense that it would be hybris on our part to abandon the traditional

language of "respect for fact" and "objectivity" - that it would be risky,

and blasphemous, not to see the scientist (or the philosopher, or the

poet, or somebody) as having a priestly function, as putting us in touch

with a realm which transcends the human.

 

So this describes the problem and takes issue with your point that there is an ineffable "reality" out there somewhere that pops in and out of existence with humans, AND connects the idea of "reality" with the ineffable "god" who is neither human nor able to be directly experienced by paltry humans.

 

Indeed we know that God can be experienced directly, and anyone who has a testimony of the gospel knows that.

 

The god who is out there and not able to be experienced is just like the alleged "reality" out there which cannot be experienced.  If it could be experienced we would just call "experience" "reality".  There would be no need for the word "reality" as opposed to experience.

 

In other words, the reality/appearance distinction would disappear.

 

And oddly Mormonmaniac would be right- that there is no purpose whatsoever to this discussion.

 

And all discussions about "truth" and "correspondence to reality" would go with it.

 

What you see is what you get.  Yep sometimes it is ambiguous but guess what- we live with mirages and deal with them daily and somehow life goes on.  We make mistakes.

 

is that really a surprise to anyone?  

 

Did we really invent "reality" out there, inaccessible and perfected and a god to go with it as a huge error?

 

That's what I think.  What you see is reality.  Pretty obvious.  Some of it we can talk about, but language is a layer of symbolism that often confuses us.

 

That's it.  "Truth" as ineffable correspondence to ineffable reality is useless once you see that.  It doesn't add anything to the discussion.  "Telling it like it is" is still important.  The world that doesn't always deliver what we want is a fact of life. 

 

Yes there are causes of effects that we did not invent.  Yes we fall off cliffs not seeing them.  That makes for a very bad day.  But that does not mean that there exists "truth" beyond language or human experience.

 

We make the world as we see it.  To me that is a tautology.  It is indisputable.  I cannot know anything I cannot know.  Pefectly obvious.   Humans cannot see what humans cannot see (including all our fancy machines)

 

All that has ever been known or said has come through a human brain and human perceptions in a humanly created bubble of human consciousness.

 

And guess what?  God is human!!   So for us that is pretty indisputable, or should be.  So that idea includes God.   Can you think of anything God does not know???

 

How is that idea even controversial?

 

So a human God gives us back what Rorty thinks he takes away above, but the reality we get back is a thoroughly humanized reality, and we become creators.

 

We are co-organizers of reality with God!  All that we know goes into the "pool" of human knowledge, all we create goes into the pool of what the gods (Big and little g) have created or organized.

 

THAT is what a Mormon pragmatism is about.  We are co-organizers with God.  We are organizing our own worlds without number as we speak.

 

This is the version of Mormonism which I think must go forward.

Edited July 8, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Indeed that is the problem.

I am just the messenger trying to teach some folks here that the views they hold are ancient history and have been supplanted by other views that are very much in favor of Mormonism, and that we need to quit arguing with the sectarians about substance and Being and ineffable "TRUTH" and start thinking in terms which are compatible with the Restoration, with a capital R instead of Truth with a capital T.

This is a new age. A theism that works for our time has been revealed!

Sectarian thought is dead, and much of what is on the horizon intellectually seems to be in our favor.

This is not the time to cower in a corner blindly chanting "But we are Christians.... But we are Christians...." but to boldly take on the challenges of creating Restoration paradigms to take secularism by the horns and show others how what we have can change the world.

We are supposed to be the rock cut without hands rolling forth to fill the earth, not an eroded crumbling boulder on the beach proclaiming itself to be to be the Rock of Ages.

We could lose the restoration if we don't change the way we think about it.

I think that some of the thoughts that you are expressing in this post are inspiring, and I'm willing to learn to do all I can do to improve things, but when reading some of your other comments I'm not totally clear on the message that you are trying to convey. What is it that you would like to accomplish? What is your point here?

I see sharing things that I know are true and good as a way to improve the world that is "out there". And I mean 'out there" from my point of view. There is no doubt in my mind that the things that I know are true and good are actually true and good, intrinsically, even though I know that some other people don't necessarily see these things as true and good now. But I know they are, and if at first I don't succeed in conveying to others that these things are true and good, then I try again to convey what I know, either in a continuing discussion or in some other time and place. And sometimes I also try to correct false ideas and concepts that other people cling to because they believe those things are true and good although they really are not.

So how does your philosophy tie into that? What point would you like me to realize or consider?

[mfbukowski]

 
To drop the idea of languages as representations, and to be thoroughly
Wittgensteinian in our approach to language, would be to de-divinize the
world. Only if we do that can we fully accept the argument I offered
earlier - the argument that since truth is a property of sentences, since
sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since
vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths. For as long as we
think that "the world" names something we ought to respect as well as
cope with, something personlike in that it has a preferred description of
itself, we shall insist that any philosophical account of truth save the
"intuition" that truth is "out there." This institution amounts to the
vague sense that it would be hybris on our part to abandon the traditional
language of "respect for fact" and "objectivity" - that it would be risky,
and blasphemous, not to see the scientist (or the philosopher, or the
poet, or somebody) as having a priestly function, as putting us in touch
with a realm which transcends the human.

So lets look at that quote more.
 
The sectarian god "created" ex nihilo- poof, out of nothing.  This is not the way humans create- we organize raw materials, taking at first reeds and then steel girders which are manufactured, to make a house.
 
An ineffable transcendent god who cannot be a fallen human cannot create a human reality, only a perfect, complete, ineffable world which is like himself, not reachable by ordinary mortals, but only those like Plato Parmenides and Pythagoras who have a higher consciousness who can see the ineffable "truth" floating out there.
 
Today, these are scientists who perform the priestly function to tell us what "reality" "really" is.  Things are not as they appear, but that is ok because we have scientists to tell us about what is real.  Breathe easy, they will take care of us even though we are simpletons who cannot direct our own affairs.
 
The high priest, Steven Hawking is practically disembodied himself and tells us there is no god.   He is right because there IS no god where he is looking for him, in the ineffable reality known only to scientists, not those uninitiated into the mysteries of reality.
 
That scientific mythical world has "true" descriptions of itself waiting to be discovered, but only the scientists can find them out.  They seek the secret truths of how the world names itself, what words the world would reveal to describe itself.  There can be only one true description of how things work which corresponds perfectly to the words the world prefers.
 
Because it was created ex nihilo, it has its own nature that god gave it, and it is simply fulfilling its nature which cannot be changed.  Truth cannot be changed because truth IS the nature of the world.
 
But how does a human God organize?  He organizes pre existent matter which has its own nature.  He works with intelligences which have co-existed with Him forever.  Each of them have agency and do things their own way.  Yes they are in harmony, but it is a harmony freely given.  It is a covenant relationship- a contract, an agreement to work together.
 
It is in effect a family.
 
They organize a humanized reality that exists and is created for humans.  Reality itself is organized by all of us together socially and cooperatively.  Reality like truth is not fixed and ineffable but unfolds before us as we mentally make observations and organize those interpretations into paradigms that may work for a while but then need to be improved.

 

One should expect that religious truth changes along with how we organize truth, in response to needs that arise.   We have prophets so that God can reveal his ongoing will as situations change.

 

What they preach today need not be in perfect harmony in particulars with the past because creation is on-going and situational.

 

We cannot know much about "history" and there is no need to learn much from it because the way we see it is constantly changing.  History itself is the story of our UNDERSTANDING of what has gone before, as modified by our present perceptions.  The idea of "presentism" captures this perfectly- as creation itself changes and our perceptions of creation and the past change, we can never go "back".

 

Issues about the historicity of the scriptures become religious beliefs based on our need for consistency, but we recognize interpretation as changing paradigms that must be adjusted as the world BECOMES.  The importance of paradigms is that they work for us, both as religious models to give our lives meaning and scientific paradigms which show us how things work.  We strive for advancement in both areas.

 

We ourselves are in a state of becoming and of self-creation and pefection, along with everything else we know.  We try to become better human beings more in harmony with the changing environment- the changing world around us.  We are in a state of constant evolution, adapting and adopting to change, embracing what we find good and avoiding what we consider bad.  We realize that this is a cooperative venture with those with whom we disagree and seek peaceful persuasion over violence, but recognize there is a time and place for using all the tools we have available as needed.

 

So in short, hard and fast unchanging fixed truth goes out the window, and we see religion and life as a cooperative venture in which we present our ideas in the pool of human creation and the idea that works best survives.

 

Truth is ongoing and developmental and based on what is right for a situation rather than fixed and immovable, corresponding to a fixed and immovable reality created at once and programmed by an ineffable unknowable divinity.

 

The Real God is our father, the father of humanity and one who loves us and hears and answers prayers, has emotion and can change in order to teach us better as needed.  He speaks our language and though he is infinitely above us, he can explain himself in terms even we can understand- as our Father who is a loving "Human" exalted Being.

 

He is not an ineffable substance or a Mystery.  He is our Father.

 

I hope that better explains why it is clear to me that the "deflationary theory" is what Mormonism needs to progress, and that we must lose the idea of "correspondence" to an ineffable god and reality that no one understands.

 

It is clear that since the Nicene Creed at least, Christianity lost its roots by going down the wrong path with ineffable "one-substance" idea of god and reality.  Scholasticism and Cartesian Dualism reinforced that view and made it part and parcel of western civilization.

 

The true gospel has been restored and its time to get back to where we should be, and with it we need to realize that humans including God organize all we know as we know it.

 

It cannot be otherwise and that idea IS Mormonism.  We are co-creators with God.  We are saviors on Mt. Zion.  We must liken Adam and Eve to ourselves as well as all the other characters found in scripture.

 

THAT is what this thread is about and why I am spending so much time on it that should probably be spent elsewhere.

 

Oddly perhaps I actually think this is an important activity.

[Ahab]

...

The true gospel has been restored and its time to get back to where we should be, and with it we need to realize that humans including God organize all we know as we know it.

It cannot be otherwise and that idea IS Mormonism. We are co-creators with God. We are saviors on Mt. Zion. We must liken Adam and Eve to ourselves as well as all the other characters found in scripture.

THAT is what this thread is about and why I am spending so much time on it that should probably be spent elsewhere.

Oddly perhaps I actually think this is an important activity.

Correcting false perceptions. Yep, I agrer that it is an important activity. Helping other people to know what really is true. Not the stuff that gets accepted as truth, sometimes, by some people who are deluded or deceived or just interpreting reality incorrectly, but the stuff that really is true

Good luck with that. Whatever you call it it is a worthwhile endeavor.

[mfbukowski]

Correcting false perceptions. Yep, I agrer that it is an important activity. Helping other people to know what really is true. Not the stuff that gets accepted as truth, sometimes, by some people who are deluded or deceived or just interpreting reality incorrectly, but the stuff that really is true

Good luck with that. Whatever you call it it is a worthwhile endeavor.

I would say that the best thing we all need to do - not just you but everyone, is get comfortable with this way of thinking.

 

Understand what is wrong with Trinitarian thinking about abstract "substance" which is undefinable.  Understand that word are all we have, and that "undefinable" is not acceptable as an explanation.

 

But the other side of that is that there IS what is "unspeakable"- literally.   Direct experience is unspeakable.  You can try to explain color to a blind person but until they have experienced it- words do not do it.

 

Is red like a trumpet blast, or like feeling the sun?   Obviously there are no words you can describe to describe red.   On the same note, what does it feel like to talk to God?  What is a testimony?   Unspeakable and indescribable.

 

Remember direct reality is direct experience and words do not "correspond" to direct experience- so you can only speak about what the other has already experienced.  

 

Wittgenstein himself was a mystic kind of in a Catholic direction, and was a believer but never talked about it.  He did not have the words or language games to do so because he did not conceive God as a human. 

 

We have those terms.  We think of God as "Our Father" or "Our Lord", and those are accurate.  THAT is what I feel out there- a Person who knows me and loves me like my earthly father did, and so calling him My Father with a capital F seems just fine.

 

Know that we are all speaking in parables about God and the scriptures, AND EVERYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER.   Know that it is not wrong to say that "Adam evolved" or that "Adam did not evolve" or that the earth is 6000 years old or older or blinked into existence 5 minutes ago.  We simply don't know and we are all wrong and all right at the same time.

 

The mere fact that we have no clear doctrinal pronouncements on all this shows us that we are free to have our own interpretations and that the other guy is not stupid for having an interpretation different than ours.

 

And guess what?  Even General Authorities and prophets make mistakes.  So what- they are humans just was we are, but are our ordained leaders.  God chose men like Peter to lead his church, not glowing ineffable beings straight from heaven.  Sometimes they get it wrong- get over it!  We need to have our own personal testimonies of everything anyway!   No one is insisting on infallibility or blind obedience- that is not part of the program.

 

I am personally opposed to gay marriage, for example.  I am positive it is wrong.  But like Bro McConkie with blacks and the priesthood, should a prophet ever say gay marriage is ok, I would have to take a hard look at where I stood.  I know I would have to follow my own conscience.  Right now it is not a problem, but it is a decision we all have to make.  I agree with the church completely on this- but again this is just an example.   We have to be willing to look at each teaching and decide how we want to organize our own worlds right here and now.

 

So these are some of the considerations in going in this direction.  Everyone has to decide for themselves and know that whatever they choose, they may have brothers and sisters who oppose their views.  But that is OK because each of us is putting together our own worlds - our own world view if you prefer that terminology.

 

The attitude has to be that it is all parables, all models of what is right that we use our own knowledge and instincts to put into our own soup pot to create the best soup we can create.

 

And that goes for our sectarian brethren as well.  They believe the old model.  We can be as convincing as possible in showing them the problems with it, and they need to be able to defend their positions.  But in the final analysis we all have our own agency.

 

So I would say learn to think differently- learn to think in parables, as Jesus taught.  Do not throw out what seem to be odd interpretations but consider them carefully and learn what you can from them and then incorporate them or not.   You are building your own universe here and those decisions are yours.   Just know that you are a god in embryo subservient to the Most High God who can and will correct you as you toddle toward the street and perhaps need a swat on the bum.

 

Be open to His teaching, rule nothing out until you have gone to Him to see if it is right, and He will tell you.  But by all means do not think that there is something "out there" hard and fast in the realm of ideas.  Cliffs, yes, deer waiting to be clobbered, yes, but nothing in the realm of ideas.  

 

Ideas are words- just do your best to say it the best way you can and know that others will say it better. and don't think they are wrong because they said something "stupid".   They are just fumbling for words like you are. 

[mfbukowski]

One more thing and then I think I will be done.  Incidentally since I have put so much into this, I will have to turn it into an article or something at least

 

I pick this out because it is a real issue in dealing with this kind of thought, and has been used by anti-theists and anti-Mormons to attack this idea, that truth is "relative" to different models and their use and that Pragmatic truth is no truth at all for that reason.

 

There is a book out called "Fear of Knowledge" in which the author, Boghossian attacks relativism.   http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Knowledge-Against-Relativism-Constructivism/dp/0199230412

 

Ultimately his argument boils down to this rough characterization:  Relativism cannot be "true" because it denies the very existence of truth itself.

 

Now that might be an effective position for someone who believes Boghossian in the first place.  Believers in truth as ineffable correspondence to facts sit back and clap their hands at the brilliant tour de force of the argument.

 

On the other hand, relativists sit back and say "Yep that's right!" rather smugly.   Relativists START with the idea that there is nothing much to be said about truth, so the conclusion that their position cannot be proven "true" is hardly an issue.

 

For some odd reason, Boghossian does not understand this.  In fact members of his own NYU philosophy department handed him his head on a platter (figuratively) and there is evidence he ended up apologizing for the book's publication.  I cannot find that evidence right now but here is an excellent refutation of his arguments  http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr/A%20Very%20Bad%20Argument.pdf

 

The same sort of argument was put forth by Riskas in his book "Deconstructing Mormonism" http://www.amazon.com/Deconstructing-Mormonism-Analysis-Assessment-Mormon/dp/1578840074and has led many members of the church away.  One well known person was Kerry Shirts who used to post here and used to be a quite effective apologist for the church.   He read this book and fell away because of the "facts" contained in the book.  The "facts" included ideas like "Belief in God is irrational because there is no data to show God exists".   Really? that's the best you can do?

 

Yawn.   Why Kerry bought this argument hook line and sinker is a mystery to me, and I have attempted to show him that in threads long past.

 

Our own Kevin Christensen demolished Riskas in this essay/review: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/which I highly recommend.

 

Kevin's argument is detailed and persuasive, but essentially it follows along  the kind of Pragmatist and Kuhnian lines discussed here.

 

So do not be deluded by these kind of arguments.  Indeed the belief in "ineffable truth" which "corresponds to facts" which have been proven "indisputably true" is one reason this kind of belief can be misleading.   These arguments are based on old paradigms

 

So again, these points detail the problems with correspondence and why I believe that it is an erroneous way of understanding truth.

[Ahab]

I would say that the best thing we all need to do - not just you but everyone, is get comfortable with this idea.

Of course I agree. Receiving correction when we say or think something that is not right should be seen as a good thing, and I think usually is when we know the correction is truly correction and not just somebody else's false idea.

...

Be open to His teaching, rule nothing out until you have gone to Him to see if it is right, and He will tell you.

Right again. The way to know correction is correction.

But by all means do not think that there is something "out there" hard and fast in the realm of ideas. Cliffs, yes, deer waiting to be clobbered, yes, but nothing in the realm of ideas.

You might want to think about that some more, or use some other words, because there are some things "out there" that some people do not accept as part of reality, yet, that I will say are hard and fast in the realm of ideas. Like the idea that our Father loves all of us, and how someday we will all be judged by all of our works.

Ideas are words- just do your best to say it the best way you can and know that others will say it better. and don't think they are wrong because they said something "stupid". They are just fumbling for words like you are.

Oh, well, okay. That makes me feel better.

[mfbukowski]

You might want to think about that some more, or use some other words, because there are some things "out there" that some people do not accept as part of reality, yet, that I will say are hard and fast in the realm of ideas. Like the idea that our Father loves all of us, and how someday we will all be judged by all of our works.

Again the goal is to separate what YOU know to be true by testimony from what you can PROVE "corresponds with reality" because that is the sort of question you will be asked from someone who doubts that.

There is no such standard to prove that position, but that does not mean that you do not have a testimony of the truth of the position- that knowing that makes all your ideas about God coherent and ties it all up as an essential belief for you, as confirmed by your testimony.

 

Yes you can "prove" that from your interpretation of scriptures, yes you can prove that by your testimony and have absolute certainty in your mind- psychologically- that it is true, just as you can know that "the church is true".

 

But the point is, don't expect your assertion of those "truths" (for you) to be accepted by anyone else from your verbal arguments which are just words to them.  These things cannot be proven by argumentation verbally and unfortunately words are the only tools available to you.

 

So you assert your position in a logical way, admit that you know this by testimony and hold firm in that certainty.   That is also my belief, and how I would handle it.  No one has any grounds whatsoever for disputing that.

 

They might say something like "But you don't have any evidence for that belief......" at which time you just turn around and show them that they also have no "evidence" for religious matters whatsoever.   God cannot be proven scientifically- and once you understand why that is and how arguments work, you become invincible because you understand the philosophy behind it better than your opponent.

 

The have no leg to stand on.   And if you do  it peacefully (which I seldom do- grrr.  gotta work on that) you might actually be able to convince them of their error.

 

Common sense is your friend and abstractions and jargon are easily demolished when you ask them to define their terms and keep going after their definitions.  So it is essential to understand both the strengths and weaknesses of your position and turn the perceived weakness into strength.

 

No, you cannot prove your position "true" but since truth doesn't correspond to anything, they can't either.   That is the way it works.

 

All we have is interpretations and descriptions- words attempting to convey meaning.  Abstract jibberish is useless and you just need to home in on how ridiculous it is.  If its not practical and real and commonsensical, you can show that it is jibberish.   We do not worship substances and essences and Being.  Yes we know how to use those words, but we don't worship them.

 

We worship Our Father who can speak to our hearts and tell us he is "real".  There is nothing anyone can do to describe the color red, nor can you describe how you know that your Father has spoken to you.  It is beyond words.

 

And more useless words are the idea that "truth corresponds to reality".  Those are three words that are so incredibly vague they have no meaning and now you have strung them together into a meaningless phrase.

 

No one can define "truth", no one can define how words are supposed to "correspond" to anything and no one knows what "reality" is in a definable way.

 

You know it when you see it, and that's that.  In thousands of years no one has been able to define it in a way that stands up to scrutiny.  That should tell you something right there! 

 

In court we swear to "tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but" and we know what that means.  Were you there at that time or not?  Yes or no?

 

We know how to use the word but defining it for all possible uses of the word in one definition is impossible.   I mean look it up in the dictionary- there are meanings which actually contradict each other!  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

 

So if no one can define "truth" in a consistent technical way, we are just left with the ordinary meaning.  Were you there or not?  Yes or no.  THAT is the conventional meaning of truth.  If you want to say that "corresponds with reality" in a non-technical way, I have no problem with that.

 

But again that is what Rorty says in that video I post all the time.   "We know what truth means, we know how to use the word, but there isn't much to say about it beyond that".

 

So in ordinary language sure we know what it means.  But that is not the problem in religious discourse about ideas which cannot be "proven".

 

[Ahab]

Okay, I think I see what you mean now and I've operated on that level for quite a while now, I think. The basic idea is that we can't prove what we know to other people by just using only words. And for that matter not by our works, acts other than using words, either. There could always be ulterior motives or many reasons to explain what we do and why we do what we do. Nobody else knows us, individually, as well as we know ourselves, except possibly God our Father, and maybe Jesus too, and maybe, just maybe, some other people.

That's why I pretty much just focus on telling people how they can know what is true, which is by going directly to God. I mean when I'm trying to help other people know what the truth is, in reality. I know what is true on some issues too, and so do some other people, but the best person to rely on is God. To others I could just appear to be someone else in the world who is wrong even when I really know what is true.

[Stroopwafel]

So reality is real but if humans disappeared, reality would disappear and then return when humans returned.

 

OK.

 

... (Rorty's quote) ...

 

So this describes the problem and takes issue with your point that there is an ineffable "reality" out there somewhere that pops in and out of existence with humans, AND connects the idea of "reality" with the ineffable "god" who is neither human nor able to be directly experienced by paltry humans.

 

I'm not sure what to think here. Did you really understood from what I wrote that I meant reality depends on humans existing? Am I such a bad writer? I was talking about how justice, friendship, and love are like truth -- in the sense that those are concepts that make sense only as human beings exist -- and they arise only because of our interection with reality. If you're not confortable with that last word, then let's replace it with "the world". Used as Rorty did in one of the quotes you provided, it means the same to me. I'm basically saying I agree with that quote:

 

Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot.

 

Now, regarding this other quote:

 

 

To drop the idea of languages as representations, and to be thoroughly

Wittgensteinian in our approach to language, would be to de-divinize the

world. Only if we do that can we fully accept the argument I offered

earlier - the argument that since truth is a property of sentences, since

sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since

vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths. For as long as we

think that "the world" names something we ought to respect as well as

cope with, something personlike in that it has a preferred description of

itself, we shall insist that any philosophical account of truth save the

"intuition" that truth is "out there." This institution amounts to the

vague sense that it would be hybris on our part to abandon the traditional

language of "respect for fact" and "objectivity" - that it would be risky,

and blasphemous, not to see the scientist (or the philosopher, or the

poet, or somebody) as having a priestly function, as putting us in touch

with a realm which transcends the human.

 

We experience reality (the world), and we are then led to communicate, i.e., give representation of, the content of this experience. Since we share enough common experiences, communication is possible. Language is communication, hence it cannot be anything but representation. It is then absolutely impossible for language not to be communication. So, Rorty's suggestion "to drop the idea of languages as representations" makes no sense. How can it be anything else? He should ask us to jump up to the moon, it'd be easier. If we are to drop language, we have to drop any means communication as well.

 

Also, as we argue the issue, the very idea of trying to convince presupposes that there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" of looking at it. Right? I mean, you're essentially arguing that correspondence theory is false, or worded differently, that it "doesn't work". No one can escape this.

 

Let's set aside for a moment whether the predicate "true" is meaningless or not. As we make distinctions between propositions, the concept of truth is ineluctable. We then necessarily need to have some notion of what "truth" is. So it doesn't matter if one holds that the proposition "it is true that water is H2O" really adds nothing to the content of "water is H2O". We know that "water is CO2" is false. The very fact that we can make distinctions shows that truth and falsity are meaningful concepts.

 

Again, I am still not convinced of the appeal of your approach, or that of Rorty's. And contemptuous analogies between scientists and the priestly class isn't persuasive. Well, I understand the point he was making, and I'm no fan of certain attitudes observed in some of those who practice modern science. But aren't we always changing a bauble for another? Beheading a king only to replace him later with an emperor?

 

Despite all I've read from what was shared so far, I'm still not persuaded to embrace wholeheartedly this view. So I guess you can consider what follows to be my "substantive objections" which I believe have not been adequately addressed. To be convinced, considering what I brought up in this post, I would at least have to be shown:

 

- How language can be anything but representation;

 

- How we can escape the notion of truth; and

 

- How deflationary theory can effectively deal with falsity.

 

That's pretty much it. Unless these concerns are clearly addressed, I don't think I'll be able to contribute much more. Anyhow, that's been very interesting, to say the least.

[mfbukowski]

 

I'm not sure what to think here. Did you really understood from what I wrote that I meant reality depends on humans existing? Am I such a bad writer? I was talking about how justice, friendship, and love are like truth -- in the sense that those are concepts that make sense only as human beings exist -- and they arise only because of our interection with reality. If you're not confortable with that last word, then let's replace it with "the world". Used as Rorty did in one of the quotes you provided, it means the same to me. I'm basically saying I agree with that quote:

 

 

Now, regarding this other quote:

 

 

We experience reality (the world), and we are then led to communicate, i.e., give representation of, the content of this experience. Since we share enough common experiences, communication is possible. Language is communication, hence it cannot be anything but representation. It is then absolutely impossible for language not to be communication. So, Rorty's suggestion "to drop the idea of languages as representations" makes no sense. How can it be anything else? He should ask us to jump up to the moon, it'd be easier. If we are to drop language, we have to drop any means communication as well.

 

Also, as we argue the issue, the very idea of trying to convince presupposes that there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" of looking at it. Right? I mean, you're essentially arguing that correspondence theory is false, or worded differently, that it "doesn't work". No one can escape this.

 

Let's set aside for a moment whether the predicate "true" is meaningless or not. As we make distinctions between propositions, the concept of truth is ineluctable. We then necessarily need to have some notion of what "truth" is. So it doesn't matter if one holds that the proposition "it is true that water is H2O" really adds nothing to the content of "water is H2O". We know that "water is CO2" is false. The very fact that we can make distinctions shows that truth and falsity are meaningful concepts.

 

Again, I am still not convinced of the appeal of your approach, or that of Rorty's. And contemptuous analogies between scientists and the priestly class isn't persuasive. Well, I understand the point he was making, and I'm no fan of certain attitudes observed in some of those who practice modern science. But aren't we always changing a bauble for another? Beheading a king only to replace him later with an emperor?

 

Despite all I've read from what was shared so far, I'm still not persuaded to embrace wholeheartedly this view. So I guess you can consider what follows to be my "substantive objections" which I believe have not been adequately addressed. To be convinced, considering what I brought up in this post, I would at least have to be shown:

 

- How language can be anything but representation;

 

- How we can escape the notion of truth; and

 

- How deflationary theory can effectively deal with falsity.

 

That's pretty much it. Unless these concerns are clearly addressed, I don't think I'll be able to contribute much more. Anyhow, that's been very interesting, to say the least.

Well I appreciate the reply.

Indeed since reality is a word and words are human creations it is not out of the realm of possibility that the concept of "reality" does not exist without the word reality.

 

So the short answer is Yes.  For me the phrase "no death before the fall" means just that.  No concept of death, no death.  I literally cannot say anything about what happened before language, as I cannot describe reality without words.

 

Clearly "something was happening".   I am not a solipsist, but can we SAY these things with accuracy?  Of course not.  Read Rorty again.

 

 

The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.....

 

"Death" is a description and so is "reality"

But anyway back to the question at hand.

 

I want to ask everyone reading this to predict how I will handle this objection because I think it is perfectly predictable.  My answer is, predictably, "It all depends on how you define "represent"".

 

Did you expect anything else?

 

And what's the next thing I will say, class?  That's right!

 

"The definition always depends on the context"

 

Context 1: simple tautology: 

 

25x=100

x=4

 

Does 4 "represent" x?  Absolutely.  All of the meaning and significance of x is "represented" in the number 4.   There is nothing outside of that representation that does not include the number 4.  What I mean by "X" IS 4.  There is nothing more to it.

 

So far you are all right.

 

Context 2.  A tad more complex.

 

"H2O Represents 'water'"  Does it?

Let's look at your own definition

 

 

We experience reality (the world), and we are then led to communicate, i.e., give representation of, the content of this experience. Since we share enough common experiences, communication is possible. Language is communication, hence it cannot be anything but representation. It is then absolutely impossible for language not to be communication.

Using your words is "The content of the experience of 'water' perfectly communicated" in the symbol" H2O"

 

No, it is not "perfectly communicated".   Water is a liquid, H2O can be a gas or a liquid or a solid.   Big difference.  Does the symbol capture every nuance of the experience of "water"?

Water

By Ralph Waldo Emerson

The water understands

Civilization well;

It wets my foot, but prettily,

It chills my life, but wittily,

It is not disconcerted,

It is not broken-hearted:

Well used, it decketh joy,

Adorneth, doubleth joy:

Ill used, it will destroy,

In perfect time and measure

With a face of golden pleasure

Elegantly destroy.

 

 

Can we substitute the symbol H2O and get the same feeling?   I think not.

 

Have you ever translated a nuanced sentence from one language to another?  Are they ever "equivalent"?  Have you ever translated poetry literally, word for word?

 

But so far we have used pretty simple examples of objects and mathematical equivalencies

 

Do the letters "R-E-D" re- present (present again) the "content of the experience"?

 

Clearly not.  Again, do those letters convey the "content of the experience" to a blind person?  Absolutely not.

 

And that is a simple experience.

 

Does the word "truth" convey all that we have discussed?  Does the word "reality" convey the full meaning of all the nuances of what that can mean?  Absolutely not.

 

And of course you misquoted Rorty as well.  Notice he said that we needed to drop language as REPRESENTATIONS.  He did not say to drop language

 

Language CANNOT fully capture any experience, all the nuances and feelings involved.  It cannot RE-PRESENT the experience in it's entirety.

 

In simple cases as shown, yes.   In complex nuanced words and experiences, never.

 

I hope I do not get thrown off the board for this but if you think the three letters s-e-x re-presents in the sense of 'presents again" or even "communicates" the fullness of the experience, I do not know what to say, but to disagree and leave it at that.

 

There is absolutely no "correspondence" between the three letters and the experience.  In fact to put something into words generalizes and objectifies, it strips away all the particulars and makes subjectives disappear. 

 

A testimony cannot be confused with heartburn though both may be called a "burning in the bosom".  That is precisely the issue here.  Words simply do not do it.

[Mars]

Language is a tool, but it must be remembered tools are used for something, they don't exist independent of the task it was designed to deal with. In this case, language is a tool designed to deal with reality. (In this sense, one can inquire whether language is an adequate tool for achieving our purposes.

 

extremely late to the discussion - my apologies

 

i think it's more fair to say that language is a tool designed to deal with what are able to perceive.  perception delivery method can be anything - eyes, ears, taste, emotional response, spectroscopy, voltmeters, geiger counters, etc...

 

i don't think that what we are seeing is less real vs more real.  i just think there's the infinite repository of stuff we can perceive.  each perception tool tells us something and we deem it useful or not useful.  "the forest for the trees" comes to mind here...

Edited July 9, 2015 by Mars