You’re on the right track. It’s not like it’s an easy and clear-cut subject. Men have been pondering such issues for 2500 years, and if there was a magical answer, or a definite guide on the topic, we’d sure have found it by now. We can only try and find what seems to be the most coherent theory. And subject it to criticism nonetheless.
A great place to start is Francis Bacon.
Even at that early stage (1620c) in thinking about science, we see anticipated the Post-structuralist thinking.
Francis Bacon’s four “idols” describe systematic errors in human thinking: the Idols of the Tribe arise from innate human biases; the Idols of the Cave from individual background and perspective; the Idols of the Marketplace from the misleading use of language; and the Idols of the Theatre from blind adherence to dogmatic systems or outdated theories. Of these, the Idols of the Theatre most clearly reflect the persistence of reductionist scientific models that outlive their usefulness, maintained more by tradition than evidence. This critique aligns with post-structuralist thought, which challenges the idea of fixed meanings, grand narratives, and the authority of dominant discourses—emphasizing that knowledge is historically situated, contingent, and often shaped by power rather than objective truth.
1 Like
The only thing I can say here is that we cannot equate Truth with Belief ( Out goes the Paradox ). Knowledge is to know. Now you may know a truth ( contingent ) or you may hold a belief Psychological ). But a Truth and a belief are conjoined. There is no necessity of correspondence between the two. They may converge at some points, I believe the Earth is round. But they can be incompatible, I believe teh earth is Flat!
Should be are not cojoined
Hey John,
Philosophers classify knowledge as a particular type of true belief: a true belief that has the right kind of justification, or something like that (they do not have a consensus on the specifics, ever since Edmund Gettier’s 1963 paper made the definition of knowledge complicated).
You can have:
No belief
A true belief that is not justified (a lucky guess)
A true belief that is justified (knowledge, presumably)
A false belief that is not justified (you are wrong)
A false belief that is justified (you have good reason to believe it, but nevertheless it is not true)
I’m going to state what the OP is expressing in propositional logic.
(Every line that has no parentheses next to it is a premise/assumption, every line with parentheses next to it is a conclusion/inference.)
S = There are good reasons to make statements.
E = Something exists.
Se = Statements exist.
Th = Thoughts exist.
L = There is language.
M = Language has meaning.
N = Some statements have negations.
B = There are bad reasons to make statements.
V = There is valid logic and invalid logic.
T = Some statements are true and some are false.
1 .S
2. S => Se
3. ∴ Se (1, 2 modus ponens)
4. Se => E
5. ∴ E (3, 4 modus ponens)
6. Se => L
7. ∴ L (3, 6 modus ponens)
8. Se => M
9. ∴ M (3, 8 modus ponens)
10. Se => Th
11. ∴ Th (3, 10 modus ponens)
12. (S ^ N) => B
13. Se => N
14. ∴ N (3, 13 modus ponens)
15. S ^ N (1, 14 conjunction)
16. ∴ B (12, 15 modus ponens)
17. (S ^ B) => V
18. S ^ B (1, 16 conjunction)
19. ∴ V (17, 18 modus ponens)
20. V => T
21. ∴ T (19, 20 modus ponens)
Here are the premises, in English:
1 .There are good reasons to make statements.
2. If there are good reasons to make statements, then statements exist.
4. If statements exist, then something exists.
6. If statements exist, then there is language.
8. If statements exist, then language has meaning.
10. If statements exist, then thoughts exist.
12. If there are good reasons to make statements and some statements have negations, then there are bad reasons to make statements.
13. If statements exist, then some statements have negations.
17. If there are good reasons to make statements and there are bad reasons to make statements, then there is valid logic and invalid logic.
20. If there is valid logic and invalid logic, then some statements are true and some are false.
Here are the conclusions, in English:
3. Statements exist. (1, 2)
5. Something exists. (3, 4)
7. There is language. (3, 6)
9. Language has meaning. (3, 8)
11. Thoughts exist. (3, 10)
14. Some statements have negations. (3, 13)
(15. There are good reasons to make statements and some statements have negations. (1, 14))
16. There are bad reasons to make statements. (12, 15)
(18. There are good reasons to make statements and there are bad reasons to make statements. (1, 16))
19. There is valid logic and invalid logic. (17, 18)
21. Some statements are true and some are false. (19, 20)
Yes I follow you. I am just testing the water here. I am staring a course at Oxford University Online " Theory of Knowledge. Some i am looking for thoughts on the subject. As for your reply. yes you can have a justified belief ( truth ) all I was trying to say somewhat poorly was that Truth and belief need not be axiomatic to each other. In short a Truth is a Truth ,but a belief can be either?
John,
You need to exist to claim that you don’t exist so if you claim that you don’t exist then you are a liar.
Just remember that.
If the binary processing biological machine then goes on to claim that it does exist after all and is an illusion,then it still exists because it needs to exist to claim this as well, definitively confirming that this binary processing biological machine hasn’t shut down so has not cancelled out.This binary processing biological machine which doesn’t possess life is still functioning and processing binary logic.
This binary processing biological machine which exists and doesn’t exist because it doesn’t possess life claims that it’s a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) because this is the limit of its binary logic programming.
As it doesn’t know what life is,it doesn’t know what reality is.