On Banno's profile
Here is Banno's profile. I command you to read it.
Quoting Banno
I have many questions; but, first you have a read and then, I'll proceed with the disjoint continuity I percieve in saying that beliefs need justification. Meinong's jungle, empty names, Santa riding on Pegasus, and all those family resemblances...
Quoting Banno
Statements are combinations of nouns and verbs and such like; Some statements are either true or false, and we can call these propositions. So, "The present king of France is bald" is a statement, but not a proposition.
Beliefs range over propositions. (arguably, they might be made to range over statements: Fred believes the present king of France is bald.)
Beliefs set out a relation of a particular sort between an agent and a proposition.
This relation is such that if the agent acts in some way then there is a belief and a desire that together are sufficient to explain the agent's action. Banno wants water; he believes he can pour a glass from the tap; so he goes to the tap to pour a glass of water.
The logical problem here, the philosophical interesting side issue, is that beliefs overdetermine our actions. There are other beliefs and desires that could explain my going to the tap.
______________
We know some statement when at the least we believe it, it fits in with our other beliefs, and when it is true.
The "fits in with other beliefs" is a first approximation for a justification. Something stronger is needed, but material implication will not do.
Discard Gettier. The definition is not hard-and-fast.
It does not make sense to ask if we know X to be true; that's exactly the same as asking if we know X. The "we only know it if it is true" bit is only there because we can't know things that are false.
If you cannot provide a justification, that is, if you cannot provide other beliefs with which a given statement coheres, then you cannot be said to know it.
A belief that is not subject to doubt is a certainty.
Without a difference between belief and truth, we can't be wrong; if we can't be wrong, we can't fix our mistakes; without being able to fix our mistakes, we can't make things better.
I have many questions; but, first you have a read and then, I'll proceed with the disjoint continuity I percieve in saying that beliefs need justification. Meinong's jungle, empty names, Santa riding on Pegasus, and all those family resemblances...
Comments (48)
What are we to do about what goes on in Meinong's Jungle? Frege keeps on waking me up with nightmares and I have to soothe him by saying that he just needs to feed his beetle in his box.
I'm hurt.
Work out the non-sequitur there then get back to me with a better objection.
Help me out, teacher. At least make the effort as one that you are, I don't have all the answers.
A few questions:
1) Did you ask Banno if you could analyze his ideas on the front page?
2) What of substance did you contribute to your own OP?
3) What specific philosophical topic is the OP aimed at examining?
4) What's your thesis with regard to this topic and where is it?
5) Recall being asked not to make too many topics? How many have you made in the past 24 hours?
Yes.
Quoting Baden
It's an OP in Banno's name. And since, Banno isn't an imbecile as you think everyone else is, he would have enjoyed educating others about his feed on philosophy.
Quoting Baden
Go read it again.
Quoting Baden
Do beliefs require justification? Are facts mind-independent?
Quoting Baden
Yeah, that personalized attack again. It's 3:49 AM and I made two topics, one got moved to the lounge without any fucking justification (you treat lepers better in India), and the other disappeared.
You made at least 4 discussions in the past 24 hours. Stop making discussions for a while and when you do, please fulfil the elements of a decent OP as best you can as indicated by the questions. And calm down a bit. The lounge is not Calcutta or wherever you reckon all the lepers are. And I'm not oppressing you. We generally get on fine.
Is Banno's profile feed not good philosophy that I felt needed to be shared?
Take a while to answer that, as it's comparable to a criticizing a lifetime of work by a selfless comrade.
As I've tried to make clear, the move has nothing to do with the quality of @Banno's philosophy. I like the old goat.
BTW, Baden, I have nothing against you, I just think you're a really hypermasculine guy.
Lol. Not since I started on philosophy forums. :nerd:
I always assumed you were Nietzschean. But, you got a side that loves competition and duels. That's where we diverge, my two pennies.
Antigonish
Last night I saw upon the stair,
A little man who wasn’t there,
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away…
Words don't refer. Referring is something we do with words. So we can put words together that look just like they are referring; but don't.
But, descriptors, like Saint Nick is an old fat bloke that lives in the North Pole, refer to what exactly?
Sure, but didn't know you wanted the full celebrity treatment luvvie.
Quoting Wallows
Lol.
Quoting Wallows
Look at my questions above. There's no law against using Banno's ideas and crediting him. But you need to write a proper OP.
Suppose we like chess, and play regularly. One day you set the board up for Chess 960 - random starting positions.
"But that's not Chess" I complain. Well, yes it is. We've just modified some of the rules. It's fines o long as you keep track of whether you are playing standard chess or Chess 960.
So it's fine so long as you keep track of whether you are wandering in the Meinong's Jungle or just doing standard existential stuff.
It's a stream of consciousness type thing. Picking anything out would be like pizza without tomatoes.
Of courser I do. You know that.
So, the proposal is Banno celeb pizza for the front page. I suppose if you put a bit more effort in to the OP, I wouldn't object. PM me your best shot. And this is me trying to be helpful, believe me.
Here's my takeaway from the Naming and Necessity thread, that you managed. Descriptors can attain the status of rigid designators. Do you object to this?
And here's my takeaway from the local Banno Pizzeria.
Well, yes, after all, everything is a goat.
Does this need mentioning?
But I would side with Baden on this. (Not that it means much)
I do little topic starting because, as Baden says, it takes a little effort. And I don't always have the time to create and manage them. I have been working on one for the past year almost and I hope I might finish it in December, if I can remember where I put it and what it is about.
Wallows, do as Baden says and think some more about it. Not wallow in misery about it.
I have faith in your ability to produce something good from this. After all, I think you are the first to come up with this idea.
Not so much.
:up:
Statements are combinations of nouns and verbs and such as; Some statements are either true or false, and we can call these propositions. So, "The present king of France is bald" is a statement, but not a proposition.
--Please explain to us, what excludes “The present king of France is bald” from the qualifier of being a proposition?
Beliefs range over propositions. (arguably, they might be made to range over statements: Fred believes the present king of France is bald.)
--Yet, the domain or the domain of discourse (wiki it) of propositions that are sensical, as opposed to the nonsense Fred may belief, remains the same, so Fred doesn’t need to take his meds, or does he?
Beliefs set out a relation of a particular sort between an agent and a proposition.
--This isn’t clear. It seems your advocating either a correspondence theory between an agent and a proposition or rather a belief that obtains. Yet, Fred denies this by maintaining that the present King of France is bald. For all I know, this may be true in a possible world. Perhaps, you are implying a T-schema that obtains iff we compare it to our world.
This relation is such that if the agent acts in some way then there is a belief and a desire that together are sufficient to explain the agent's action. Banno wants water; he believes he can pour a glass from the tap; so he goes to the tap to pour a glass of water.
--This is very behaviorist and quite outdated. Rather, I posit that propositional attitudes, such as Banno wants water, are determined by not belief or desire, but a volition.
The logical problem here, the philosophical interesting side issue, is that beliefs overdetermine our actions. There are other beliefs and desires that could explain my going to the tap.
--No, disagreement; but, this is too simple. A volition is something that determines action, and beliefs need not even be mentioned here.
______________
We know some statements when at the least we believe it, it fits in with our other beliefs, and when it is true.
--This is too simple. Take your famous example of the Romantic that proclaims his love as being greater than words can say. How does this statement jive with truth aptness?
The "fits in with other beliefs" is the first approximation for a justification. Something stronger is needed, but material implication will not do.
--Please elaborate.
Discard Gettier. The definition is not hard-and-fast.
It does not make sense to ask if we know X to be true; that's exactly the same as asking if we know X. The "we only know it if it is true" bit is only there because we can't know things that are false.
--I beg to differ, the principle of bipolarity, assumes that every utterance that is truth-apt can be either true or false. Wittgenstein would know.
If you cannot provide a justification, that is, if you cannot provide other beliefs with which a given statement coheres, then you cannot be said to know it.
--This is not true or rather how can it be true. In other words, what kind of justification is required here? E.g. the Romantic, who professes his love, has overdetermined justification in his love towards his partner by encompassing the entire domain of discourse with his statement about his love towards her being greater than what words can say. Instead, I advocate a pragmatic account of a man who is acting, not following a pattern or set of rules. Again, volitions creep up here.
A belief that is not subject to doubt is a certainty.
--The solipsist of the Tractatus agrees.
Without a difference between belief and truth, we can't be wrong; if we can't be wrong, we can't fix our mistakes; without being able to fix our mistakes, we can't make things better
--Again, Banno, what theory of truth are you advocating here? I am quite interested in knowing this. It would seem to me that Davidson and Tarski were bedfellows.
Well, you did a better job. I'm not sure that will please @Wallows, but no doubt we'll find out.
Thank you.
I have never tried eggplant on pizza, but I did try pizza made from bread fruit plant once. I have been trying to find the time to try making it myself one day because it was good.
Lamb is a far more tasty meat than beef.
That is why I think that lamb does not need to be spiced up, accompanied by a few things to contrast and highlight the flavor yes, but not over spiced up so that the flavor is corrupted(maybe that should be perverted).