Skip to main content

A possibly helpful definition of Truth/Knowledge

I think it worthwhile to point out that reason, as directed toward reality in all of its factors, in seeking to know reality in a more and more encompassing manner, naturally seeks to know truths that could be recognized as such by any other rational being.  So far, nothing new here.  But what would be interesting would be add that any rational creature no matter how evolved, created, constructed (i.e., granting the possibility of strong artificial intelligence for the sake of argument) or otherwise existing may reasonably think these truths false.

By construing truths in terms of how any rational agent should be able to recognize it, one highlights just how amazing they are.  They are not constructs, even though we must construct a path to them.  They are not merely part of a coherent system of thoughts or objects of thought -- even though the aspects of reality that they deliver do cohere with each other.  They are not private mental object but ways in which the world in which we live an act presents itself to us.

Note: multiplicity of possible instances of rationality (as openness to reality in all of its factors) evidences that reason is something more than any one instance thereof.

Another thought: human dignity.  Or to put it more abstractly, the objectivity of the beauty of the rational agent.  Think of this, to say that there's something good about yourself that others, insofar as they are reasonable (i.e., open to reality) should recognize is to claim that any rational being no matter how eveolved, created, constructed or otherwise continuing to be.... must appreciate etc.

I haven't worked this out all that adequately, but I think it's promising.
Labels:

Comments

Leo White said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
11:13 AM
Leo White said…
I'm reposting (but not riposte-ing) the comment with typo removed:
Reflecting on this much later on, it seems to me that the point is that anyone trying either to define truth or to give something like a definition must recognize the social dimension of truth and that there is something unbounded both in one's openness to society and possibly to the society to which one is open.
11:19 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more