humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article 59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, rumin8@ix.netcom.com says...
> On Apr 3, 9:41 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > No. I told you why I do not want to call a perception true or false -
> > it is because only statements are true or false (and a perception is not
> > a statement).
>
> And I thought I told you that you are making this a definitional
> matter, rather than looking at what true is. I mean, eventually
> it comes to definition but they should be based on what the
> referent is imparting to us, yes?

I have long said that I adopt the correspondence theory of truth where,
e.g., the statement "The grass is green" is true if and only if the
grass is green. I try not to make an argument turn on a "definitional
matter", but that it my definition of "true", it applies only to
statements, and I plan to stick with it. It's just too confusing for me
otherwise.

Do you think that a perception is a statement? Or is it a fact about
which a statement could be made?

> You've got truth being grains of sand in a formation, and
> the literal formation of an orally-represented statement.

I don't think I follow you here. I do think that a statement could be
found written in sand, just as words pulled at random out of a hat can
make a statement.

I would like to return to an matter that seems to have gotten dropped
that I think is more important. You wrote:

> More commonly, we
> understand causative factors and we can understand ALL of
> the causative facts WITHIN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT, that are
> relevant to a subsumed fact.

How do we know we have ALL of them, if we do not know what we do not
know?

--
Gordon