tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post7372793883943536616..comments2023-08-27T12:35:12.308+02:00Comments on sanscrite cogitare, sanscrite loqui: In quest of a human truthelisa freschihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-32747654850873354872009-11-12T03:22:13.291+01:002009-11-12T03:22:13.291+01:00Just a quick note to let you know I've followe...Just a quick note to let you know I've followed this discussion up in a post on my own blog:<br /><br />http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/11/misperceiving-pain-and-god/Amodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15978621252917667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-67680934684498509882009-11-04T17:21:59.725+01:002009-11-04T17:21:59.725+01:00Truth is subjective, falsehood is subjective.Truth is subjective, falsehood is subjective.VShttp://freshvisionquest.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-34013679723726911272009-11-04T12:45:41.652+01:002009-11-04T12:45:41.652+01:00VS: you are right, the problem lies in our definit...VS: you are right, the problem lies in our definition of truth. Amod, if I am rightly understanding him, argues for a truth as correspondence with state of affairs independent of the subject, whereas I am sceptical about it. I am playing with the thought of just using a truth-as-consistency concept of truth. The problem with it is that it risks to invalidate the possiblity of dialogue among people bearing different world views. So, one should assume a consistency frame as wide as possible, probably identical with rationality itself.<br />As for the truth-falsity replacement, can you explain a little bit further? I am not following you.elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-21873601804741667922009-11-04T12:42:14.613+01:002009-11-04T12:42:14.613+01:00Amod, my problem is with the definition of truth a...Amod, my problem is with the definition of truth as correspondence with a state of affairs deemed to be independent of the subject. As for your points, I think that then physiotherapist's exasperation is understandable (too many people are inclined to think they are the unhappiest people on earth), but is epistemically wrong. It is not fair to ask someone who has only experience of a feeble pain to collocate it on a scale from 1 to 10. She would, rightly, collocate her present pain on the 10th level, because the '10' as a level of pain sensation can only make sense in regard to the pain we have actually experienced. A child will say that 10 is the pain one experiences after a minor fall, a woman who has just given birth will describe the 10-level-pain as something different, but they are right in maintaining that the pain they are presently experiencing is the highest they have ever experienced. The physiotherapist asks them to conform to an objective scale, valid for everyone, hence his disappointment.<br />I agree with you, one might be mistaken about oneself. Still, I guess that these mistakes cannot have to do with physical sensations. If I am deeply concentrated in writing, someone hurts my arm and I do not notice it, I am right in maintaining that it does not hurt, even if a neuroscientist would say that neurones have been affected by the event.<br />Turning to St. Teresa, I agree that she can be mistaken about the God she worships. The historicity of Christ, for instance, is a matter of debate. What she cannot be mistaken about, I argue, is that she is perceiving God sending an arrow towards her hearth, etc. The theological side of this God is, in fact, not part of her sensation.elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-31996965514367279722009-11-03T18:08:49.198+01:002009-11-03T18:08:49.198+01:00I would just wonder what is the definition of '...I would just wonder what is the definition of 'truth'? <br /><br />Its amusing that we talk about 'truth' because the word is appealing. Replace 'truth' with 'falsity' and the arguments would still hold.VShttp://paradoxical.rediffblogs.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-73915481298995539542009-11-03T16:07:57.978+01:002009-11-03T16:07:57.978+01:00Hi Elisa - basically I'll say the same thing h...Hi Elisa - basically I'll say the same thing here that I said on my blog before: correspondence does not necessarily mean correspondence to an <i>external</i> state of affairs. Statements about our internal human states can be false by virtue of inaccurately describing those states. On my blog I mentioned that it is entirely possible, and indeed frequent, to <a href="http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/08/do-we-know-whether-were-happy/" rel="nofollow">misjudge whether we are happy</a>. The same is true of pain. I know a physiotherapist whose job involves asking people to rate the pain they're currently experiencing on a painfulness scale of 1 to 10, and is exasperated when people describe the pain from a relatively minor injury as a 10 - he knows from experience that if they actually experienced a stronger pain they would know that this is not the highest pain they could perceive. These states are indeed partially subject-dependent - they exist within the subject experiencing them - but statements about them can still adequately or inadequately correspond to the facts of the case, even when the subject believes herself to be telling the truth. <br /><br />The point holds even more strongly in the case of God. The subject knows she has had an experience of something - but that does not mean that it was God. I can have an experience of perceiving a snake, but that doesn't mean there is actually a snake there - it could just be a rope. A statement about an experience of God (unlike a statement about pain) is <i>not</i> simply a statement about what is in one's individual mind; for the whole idea about God is that he has a larger existence than that. Even if one's conception of God is entirely mental, he is supposed to exist in everyone's mind, not merely one's own. A God who existed only in St. Teresa's mind is not the God that St. Teresa actually worshipped.Amodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15978621252917667363noreply@blogger.com