Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

For materialists, do you believe that truth exists independent of mind? If so, how?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For materialists, do you believe that truth exists independent of mind? If so, how?

    As the title says. Also, any recommended reading on philosophy of truth to get a better picture of your perspective?
    -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
    Sir James Jeans

    -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
    Sir Isaac Newton

  • #2
    Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
    As the title says. Also, any recommended reading on philosophy of truth to get a better picture of your perspective?
    I always recommend the SEP or the IEP. They both have long articles with lots of references to get a good summary of things.

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

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/



    Interesting question. I hold to some concept of correspondence theory where truth is defined as matching reality. I don't see how it could be dependent on minds, but it would be pretty weird to ask if a statement is true when there's nothing that can make the statement. Truth doesn't cease to exist in that case; it just becomes irrelevant.

    Why limit it to materialists, though?
    I'm not here anymore.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
      As the title says. Also, any recommended reading on philosophy of truth to get a better picture of your perspective?
      The category ' Materialist' is not a good category to ask the question. I will go into it further in later posts, but . . .

      As a Theist I believe Truth is independent of the mind, and resides only with God. The 'Materialist'? (Metaphysical Naturalist) the Truth ultimately lies with Natural Laws and the inherent in the nature of our physical existence, as understood by science.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        The category ' Materialist' is not a good category to ask the question. I will go into it further in later posts, but . . .

        As a Theist I believe Truth is independent of the mind, and resides only with God. The 'Materialist'? (Metaphysical Naturalist) the Truth ultimately lies with Natural Laws and the inherent in the nature of our physical existence, as understood by science.
        Please define 'truth' as you understand it.
        I'm not here anymore.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
          I always recommend the SEP or the IEP. They both have long articles with lots of references to get a good summary of things.

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

          http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/



          Interesting question. I hold to some concept of correspondence theory where truth is defined as matching reality. I don't see how it could be dependent on minds, but it would be pretty weird to ask if a statement is true when there's nothing that can make the statement. Truth doesn't cease to exist in that case; it just becomes irrelevant.
          I think the correspondence theory is correct, as well. However if you define truth as "x"* that corresponds to reality, and state that truth exists without "x" necessarily existing, that would mean that "x" that corresponds to reality exists(i.e. there exists some "x") without "x" necessarily existing. This seems quite clearly to be a contradiction.

          To put it in premise form:

          P1: Truth is defined as "x"* that corresponds to reality.
          P2: Truth exists without "x" necessarily existing.
          C : "x"* that corresponds to reality exists without "x" necessarily existing. (Just replace truth by its definition).

          Are any of these premises to be rejected?

          *-"x" may be defined as statements, ideas, propositions etc.


          Why limit it to materialists, though?
          I think that platonists (small 'p') can account for truth existing independent of mind (by definition of platonism). Idealists and Substance dualists can account for the existence of truth by positing that mind (or a greater mind) is eternally existing. Materialists reject platonism, Idealism and Substance dualism, so I wonder about how they can account for it. That's why I'm mostly limiting it to them, to hear and discuss their views.
          -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
          Sir James Jeans

          -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
          Sir Isaac Newton

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
            Please define 'truth' as you understand it.
            Seconded.
            -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
            Sir James Jeans

            -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
            Sir Isaac Newton

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
              I think the correspondence theory is correct, as well. However if you define truth as "x"* that corresponds to reality, and state that truth exists without "x" necessarily existing, that would mean that "x" that corresponds to reality exists(i.e. there exists some "x") without "x" necessarily existing. This seems quite clearly to be a contradiction.

              To put it in premise form:

              P1: Truth is defined as "x"* that corresponds to reality.
              P2: Truth exists without "x" necessarily existing.
              C : "x"* that corresponds to reality exists without "x" necessarily existing. (Just replace truth by its definition).

              Are any of these premises to be rejected?
              Yeah, I think so. P2. Truth, doesn't necessarily exist without the existence of the corresponding reality.
              *-"x" may be defined as statements, ideas, propositions etc.
              Yeah, I think that P2 ergo C can be rejected. Truth, statements, ideas, propositions, don't necessarily exist sans the existence of the corresponding reality which they are founded upon.



              I think that platonists (small 'p') can account for truth existing independent of mind (by definition of platonism). Idealists and Substance dualists can account for the existence of truth by positing that mind (or a greater mind) is eternally existing. Materialists reject platonism, Idealism and Substance dualism, so I wonder about how they can account for it. That's why I'm mostly limiting it to them, to hear and discuss their views.
              I am of the opinion that mind evolves from out of the reality of existence, not the other way around.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                I think the correspondence theory is correct, as well. However if you define truth as "x"* that corresponds to reality, and state that truth exists without "x" necessarily existing, that would mean that "x" that corresponds to reality exists(i.e. there exists some "x") without "x" necessarily existing. This seems quite clearly to be a contradiction.

                To put it in premise form:

                P1: Truth is defined as "x"* that corresponds to reality.
                P2: Truth exists without "x" necessarily existing.
                C : "x"* that corresponds to reality exists without "x" necessarily existing. (Just replace truth by its definition).

                Are any of these premises to be rejected?

                *-"x" may be defined as statements, ideas, propositions etc.
                Hm. I would probably say that truth is the set of X that corresponds to reality. That's a reframing of P1 which, I think, eliminates the seeming contradiction. Without a mind, that set is empty.

                However, I probably wouldn't say 'truth' actually exists even with minds. That would seem to entail an application of realism that I don't accept. The question for me wouldn't be if it's dependent on a mind but if it exists at all.


                Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                I think that platonists (small 'p') can account for truth existing independent of mind (by definition of platonism). Idealists and Substance dualists can account for the existence of truth by positing that mind (or a greater mind) is eternally existing. Materialists reject platonism, Idealism and Substance dualism, so I wonder about how they can account for it. That's why I'm mostly limiting it to them, to hear and discuss their views.
                I'm not sure if I count or not, then. I'm a substance monist, but it's not technically a materialist view. Maybe that's close enough.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  Please define 'truth' as you understand it.
                  simply the ultimate absolute nature of reality. IF God exists the reality of Truth resides with God. IF God does not exist the ultimate absolute nature of reality 'Truth' are the Natural Laws and the physical nature of our existence.

                  The fallible human minds are are dependencies on whichever is true.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    The fallible human minds are are dependencies on whichever is true.
                    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Like the mind/brain itself, it evolves.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Like the mind/brain itself, it evolves.
                        And how would evolution of brain bring about evolution of mind and of adequation of mind to external thing?
                        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                          As the title says. Also, any recommended reading on philosophy of truth to get a better picture of your perspective?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                            And how would evolution of brain bring about evolution of mind and of adequation of mind to external thing?
                            How? The processes of adaption, adequation, and natural selection in our relationship to external things real and imagined are well documented. There exists in the animal kingdom significant evidence of progressive complexity of the brain and the resulting mind, consciousness, will and intellect. The other primates in our evolutionary family show many of our characteristics of the mind, but in a simpler form.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-25-2016, 07:28 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              How? The processes of adaption, adequation, and natural selection in our relationship to external things real and imagined are well documented.
                              O ... K ...

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              There exists in the animal kingdom significant evidence of progressive complexity of the brain and the resulting mind, consciousness, will and intellect.
                              And which of them can truly tell whether the square of the hypothenuse equals or doesn't equal the sum of squares of sides adjacent to right angle of a rectangular triangle?

                              Universal truthclaims and adaptation to surroundings are two different types of mental activity. The one doesn't follow from the other.

                              Even a very good philosopher can be rather ditzy about gestures in everyday life, trip on banana skins and so on. And even a very agile cat, with extremely good hunting skills, doesn't really reason.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              The other primates in our evolutionary family show many of our characteristics of the mind, but in a simpler form.
                              When did you last see an ape count to 100?
                              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              172 responses
                              606 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seer
                              by seer
                               
                              Working...
                              X