Judging Thoughts
Geplaatst: 14 jun 2009, 13:38
Judging Thoughts
Motivation
I am writing this document to point out what judgments like ‘true’, ‘untrue’ and ‘opinion’ are. The reason for me doing so is because when one does not have a clear understanding of what these things are one can be tricked to mistake ‘opinion’ for ‘truth’ by the thought: “One cannot know what is realâ€.
Ontology
Before I start I should explain the primary difficulty with knowing what is ‘true’. ‘Truth’ has a necessary connection to what is ‘real’. This naturally leads to the question what ‘real’ is. Well, ‘real’ is what is taking or has taken place. This may seem easy to most people, because what is taking or has taken place can be observed with our senses. While this is true we must also understand that what our senses are telling us is ‘deformed’ by what we understand of what we observe. Our brain ‘grasps’ some things out of the observations and this is what we call ‘understanding’. So, while the observation may be exactly what takes place people may understand things differently; native Americans understood a tool of the white settlers as a ‘thunderstick’, while we understand it as a rifle. Apart from this we must also separate the fact that our senses are not right for observing some phenomena. A stick placed in water seems to have a corner or at last to be bent, while we understand the stick to be a long erect whole. This, of course has to do with the refraction index of water being different from the refractive index of the compounded substance we know as air. If such trivial things are not even to be believed, we must ask ourselves how the process of perception takes place and if anything we see exists as such; including causality.
These thoughts lead to the question if anything we perceive actually exists. The main cause for this is causality. If cause and effect exist, then we must conclude that whatever it is that exists came into existence by some cause, than we must conclude that this cause was caused by something else, ad infinitum. Seeing as this causal chain regresses ad infinitum something else must be the case. Hence the philosopher Immanuel Kant concluded that what we perceive (phenomena) are not the same as what exists (noumena/noumenon). He also came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no way by which we can be certain that there even exists something outside of our thoughts. Kant did think so however, which is why he called himself a transcendental idealist. He described reality as some form of ‘vapor’ in which we can perceive all sorts of phenomena. Another example, Arthur Schopenhauer, for instance, was of the opinion that all perceptions only exist in the mind.
I, personally, am a transcendental idealist and I think that there is some noumenon upon which I base my phenomena. I will even go so far as to say that I think that I can prove Arthur Schopenhauer to be wrong. Arthur Schopenhauer was of the opinion that there exist will and representation. The imagination is Schopenhauers idea of Kant’s phenomena and the will is the noumenon (thing-in-itself). Within this universal will multiple individual wills exist (Had he not thought so he would have been called a solipsist). Because he understood this ‘will’ as being individual as well as omnipresent we must conclude that within this noumenon seperation exists. Because of this fact I must reject his idea because no thing-in-itself can be separate from another without space existing and therefore being, on that ontological level, not all-one.
The remainder of this document will be written in the spirit of transcendental idealism, leaving only the questions what thoughts are true, not true, opinions, objective and subjective.
Perception
That which is perceived is that which is understood of what is observed. That is why nothing could ever be perceived if there would not be some form of conditionality present a priori. This a priori conditionality combined with an observation (sensorial or memorial input) leads to an understanding of a transcendental thing-in-itself (or act(ion)-in-itself, I will, from now on, only mention the transcendental thing-in-itself in this document to keep things relatively easy to read). That is why the transcendental method is a combination of a major premise with a minor premise, leading to a conclusion. The major premise consists of a reasoning directly derived from that which is a priori, while the minor premise consists of information of the studied transcendental thing-in-itself: sensorial or memorial input. Even though anything the memory contains is gained by means of a reasoning (directly derived from that which is a priori) the content of out memory (thought-objects) contains no such reasonings, although such reasonings may be stored as thought-objects themselves (which is the cause of much confusion). Regardless of the case minor premises always refer (directly or indirectly) to that upon which it was based: a transcendental thing-in-itself, it just does not always corresponds with it (which is the cause of much misconceptions). By use of a major premise we can conclude to an objective perception concerning a minor premise. The word objective is used in the sense that it refers to that transcendental thing-in-itself, the object, upon which a minor premise was based.
Name Givings
In our society it has become common practice to use a certain language convention because we wish to communicate our thoughts to each other. One of the problems of communication is the question what one means with a particular sound. This is the reason for language conventions: an agreement upon certain sounds to reflect certain ideas. That is why, in order to understand what a person means, we try to fit the sound (or rather: word) with a certain thought. In order to understand if a certain expression is true or not (or maybe just an opinion) we compare the thought with what takes place: a sound refers to a thought and a thought in turn refers to a transcendental thing-in-itself.
A true representation necessarily corresponds with that which it represents.
~Baruch de Spinoza
Spinoza is saying that to judge whether or not some expression (or thought) is true the thought needs to be compared with what it refers to: the transcendental thing-in-itself. To do this a certain meta-language can be used to value the expressions or thoughts. Meta-languages are separate languages which contain words such as true, false or identity. One such a meta-language is logic. Alfred Tarsky uses logic to judge expressions, exactly as Spinoza meant, by comparing the expressions to what actually takes place. In his 'Convention T' he states that a thought-object 'A' is 'A' if and only if the thing-in-itself 'A' really is that 'A':
Grass is green if and only if grass is green, or:
A=A<==>A=A
~Alfred Tarski
Assuming the original expression was true the comparison would seem superfluous to such an extent that Türing exclaimed: "Triviality can go no further!" However, since the question is how to judge expressions or thoughts, this 'Convention T' is useful at this point. The convention T has the effect to check both the reasoning (major premise) and the observation (minor premise) so that what we understand of the transcendental thing-in-itself can be compared with the transcendental thing-in-itself to judge if it is true, an opinion or not true (for example).
Assuming the language convention is used which everybody is taught in school the following definitions are derived:
True is that thought which refers to a transcendental thing-in-itself and corresponds with it.
Untrue is that thought which refers to a transcendental thing-in-itself, while denying one or more specific details of this transcendental thing-in-itself. This may be done voluntarily or involuntarily.
Naturally every person has a specific stance towards any transcendental thing-in-itself and judges it accordingly. Such ‘distortions’ in thoughts do not necessarily make the thoughts in question untrue. As long as the thoughts still refer to that transcendental thing-in-itself without denying any part of it a judgment of that that transcendental thing-in-itself is called an opinion.
An opinion is a particular judgment (appreciation), referring to a transcendental thing-in-itself.
The word opinion is often misused for judgments concerning not the object of an observation, but the subject of an observation in the sense that an expression concerning the subject is mistakenly called an opinion of the object. This leads to the following conclusions:
Objective thoughts are thoughts that refer to the transcendental thing-in-itself that the thought referred to as well, these can be true, not true and opinions.
Subjective thoughts are untrue thoughts so far as they are taken to refer to the transcendental thing-in-itself the thought referred to, but they are true thoughts so far as they are taken to refer to the subject that is thinking. On the subject of the thought they can therefore also be an opinion.
The subjective principle of a thought always concerns how a thought is understood (the major premise). When it concerns an experience of the subject (and therefore is a minor premise) it creates a subjective thought concerning the thing-in-itself the thought was referring to. When such a subjective understanding is being presented as truth with a 'goal' in mind it is called sophistry.
Perception Management
Perception management is that which tries to shape a perception towards a certain ‘goal’. This is not a simple thing to do. When people indeed define things by the combination of a major premise and a minor premise this is impossible. Such persons construct things for themselves. There are times, however, that people try to explain what is taking place from their frame of reference. These conclusions do not hold a necessary relation though. Because what is taken to be their major premise is derived from a previous perception (and is, therefore, in fact a minor premise) it can only conclude to what has been 'experienced' before. These reasonings are, in fact, circulatory, or petitio principii's.
Within this method, however, it is possible to make people value certain experiences as ‘almost certain’ because it ‘always’ takes place in that manner, while in fact it has merely always (and sometimes not even that, but just often) taken place in that manner in the experience of that particular individual. The lamp turning on by pressing a button, money coming out of a machine because of inputting a PIN number, flowers and trees coming to life in spring and such. There are, however, different necessary workings which ensure that lamp turning on, money coming out of the machine, the flowers and trees coming to life in spring and such. As long as one manages someone’s perception in a way that this particular subject believes that the frame of reference can be relied upon one can determine this particular subjects thoughts of what takes place, if that particular subject uses experiences as major premises.
The most important question here is: “How do people come to trust their frame of reference more than their reason� The answer really is simple. By believing that it is impossible for them to determine what is taking place. Because if that is impossible people will turn to what they know has a good chance of taking place: their experience. In telling people that the only truth is skepticism they immediately turn to empiricism, hence using two minor premises instead of trying to gain true, objective knowledge by combining rationalism with empiricism (transcendental idealism), making oneself prone to petitio principii's (through the frame of reference, like authority, majority and such). One of the most horrific examples of this effect was Hitler Germany.
Glossary
A meta-language is a language which contains words with which to judge any 'normal' language. Meta-languages therefore contain words such as true, better, right, more, and such.
Logic is a word which has had many meanings throughout the ages. While it can mean (a priori) 'reasoning' or 'thought' in this document it is used as a system of judgment. It therefore is used to describe the sum of the reasoning (in the sense of a 'system' or meta-language).
A syllogism is a complete reasoning, in which two premises are used to lead to a conclusion.
A perception is a 'movement' in the mind, containing an image of what is 'grasped' of an observation.
A minor premise is a premise which is judged by a major premise. Minor premises always are thought-objects (or perceptions), derived from observation, or prior observation by use of the memory.
A major premise is a premise which is used to judge a minor premise and therefore contains a(n a priori) reasoning. Major premises often contain further minor premises mistakenly.
Transcendental idealism is the method which separates the thing-in-itself from what we perceive of it, but idealistically assumes that at least this thing-in-itself does exist.
Transcendental pessimism is the method which separates the thing-in-itself from what we perceive of it, but pessimistically assumes that this thing-in-itself does not exist.
Sources
Kritik der Reinen Vernunft – Immanuel Kant
Die falsche Spitzfindigkeit der Vier Syllogistischen Figuren – Immanuel Kant
Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung – Arthur Schopenhauer
Ethica – Baruch de Spinoza
Classes concerning the philosophy of language - Albert Visser
Motivation
I am writing this document to point out what judgments like ‘true’, ‘untrue’ and ‘opinion’ are. The reason for me doing so is because when one does not have a clear understanding of what these things are one can be tricked to mistake ‘opinion’ for ‘truth’ by the thought: “One cannot know what is realâ€.
Ontology
Before I start I should explain the primary difficulty with knowing what is ‘true’. ‘Truth’ has a necessary connection to what is ‘real’. This naturally leads to the question what ‘real’ is. Well, ‘real’ is what is taking or has taken place. This may seem easy to most people, because what is taking or has taken place can be observed with our senses. While this is true we must also understand that what our senses are telling us is ‘deformed’ by what we understand of what we observe. Our brain ‘grasps’ some things out of the observations and this is what we call ‘understanding’. So, while the observation may be exactly what takes place people may understand things differently; native Americans understood a tool of the white settlers as a ‘thunderstick’, while we understand it as a rifle. Apart from this we must also separate the fact that our senses are not right for observing some phenomena. A stick placed in water seems to have a corner or at last to be bent, while we understand the stick to be a long erect whole. This, of course has to do with the refraction index of water being different from the refractive index of the compounded substance we know as air. If such trivial things are not even to be believed, we must ask ourselves how the process of perception takes place and if anything we see exists as such; including causality.
These thoughts lead to the question if anything we perceive actually exists. The main cause for this is causality. If cause and effect exist, then we must conclude that whatever it is that exists came into existence by some cause, than we must conclude that this cause was caused by something else, ad infinitum. Seeing as this causal chain regresses ad infinitum something else must be the case. Hence the philosopher Immanuel Kant concluded that what we perceive (phenomena) are not the same as what exists (noumena/noumenon). He also came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no way by which we can be certain that there even exists something outside of our thoughts. Kant did think so however, which is why he called himself a transcendental idealist. He described reality as some form of ‘vapor’ in which we can perceive all sorts of phenomena. Another example, Arthur Schopenhauer, for instance, was of the opinion that all perceptions only exist in the mind.
I, personally, am a transcendental idealist and I think that there is some noumenon upon which I base my phenomena. I will even go so far as to say that I think that I can prove Arthur Schopenhauer to be wrong. Arthur Schopenhauer was of the opinion that there exist will and representation. The imagination is Schopenhauers idea of Kant’s phenomena and the will is the noumenon (thing-in-itself). Within this universal will multiple individual wills exist (Had he not thought so he would have been called a solipsist). Because he understood this ‘will’ as being individual as well as omnipresent we must conclude that within this noumenon seperation exists. Because of this fact I must reject his idea because no thing-in-itself can be separate from another without space existing and therefore being, on that ontological level, not all-one.
The remainder of this document will be written in the spirit of transcendental idealism, leaving only the questions what thoughts are true, not true, opinions, objective and subjective.
Perception
That which is perceived is that which is understood of what is observed. That is why nothing could ever be perceived if there would not be some form of conditionality present a priori. This a priori conditionality combined with an observation (sensorial or memorial input) leads to an understanding of a transcendental thing-in-itself (or act(ion)-in-itself, I will, from now on, only mention the transcendental thing-in-itself in this document to keep things relatively easy to read). That is why the transcendental method is a combination of a major premise with a minor premise, leading to a conclusion. The major premise consists of a reasoning directly derived from that which is a priori, while the minor premise consists of information of the studied transcendental thing-in-itself: sensorial or memorial input. Even though anything the memory contains is gained by means of a reasoning (directly derived from that which is a priori) the content of out memory (thought-objects) contains no such reasonings, although such reasonings may be stored as thought-objects themselves (which is the cause of much confusion). Regardless of the case minor premises always refer (directly or indirectly) to that upon which it was based: a transcendental thing-in-itself, it just does not always corresponds with it (which is the cause of much misconceptions). By use of a major premise we can conclude to an objective perception concerning a minor premise. The word objective is used in the sense that it refers to that transcendental thing-in-itself, the object, upon which a minor premise was based.
Name Givings
In our society it has become common practice to use a certain language convention because we wish to communicate our thoughts to each other. One of the problems of communication is the question what one means with a particular sound. This is the reason for language conventions: an agreement upon certain sounds to reflect certain ideas. That is why, in order to understand what a person means, we try to fit the sound (or rather: word) with a certain thought. In order to understand if a certain expression is true or not (or maybe just an opinion) we compare the thought with what takes place: a sound refers to a thought and a thought in turn refers to a transcendental thing-in-itself.
A true representation necessarily corresponds with that which it represents.
~Baruch de Spinoza
Spinoza is saying that to judge whether or not some expression (or thought) is true the thought needs to be compared with what it refers to: the transcendental thing-in-itself. To do this a certain meta-language can be used to value the expressions or thoughts. Meta-languages are separate languages which contain words such as true, false or identity. One such a meta-language is logic. Alfred Tarsky uses logic to judge expressions, exactly as Spinoza meant, by comparing the expressions to what actually takes place. In his 'Convention T' he states that a thought-object 'A' is 'A' if and only if the thing-in-itself 'A' really is that 'A':
Grass is green if and only if grass is green, or:
A=A<==>A=A
~Alfred Tarski
Assuming the original expression was true the comparison would seem superfluous to such an extent that Türing exclaimed: "Triviality can go no further!" However, since the question is how to judge expressions or thoughts, this 'Convention T' is useful at this point. The convention T has the effect to check both the reasoning (major premise) and the observation (minor premise) so that what we understand of the transcendental thing-in-itself can be compared with the transcendental thing-in-itself to judge if it is true, an opinion or not true (for example).
Assuming the language convention is used which everybody is taught in school the following definitions are derived:
True is that thought which refers to a transcendental thing-in-itself and corresponds with it.
Untrue is that thought which refers to a transcendental thing-in-itself, while denying one or more specific details of this transcendental thing-in-itself. This may be done voluntarily or involuntarily.
Naturally every person has a specific stance towards any transcendental thing-in-itself and judges it accordingly. Such ‘distortions’ in thoughts do not necessarily make the thoughts in question untrue. As long as the thoughts still refer to that transcendental thing-in-itself without denying any part of it a judgment of that that transcendental thing-in-itself is called an opinion.
An opinion is a particular judgment (appreciation), referring to a transcendental thing-in-itself.
The word opinion is often misused for judgments concerning not the object of an observation, but the subject of an observation in the sense that an expression concerning the subject is mistakenly called an opinion of the object. This leads to the following conclusions:
Objective thoughts are thoughts that refer to the transcendental thing-in-itself that the thought referred to as well, these can be true, not true and opinions.
Subjective thoughts are untrue thoughts so far as they are taken to refer to the transcendental thing-in-itself the thought referred to, but they are true thoughts so far as they are taken to refer to the subject that is thinking. On the subject of the thought they can therefore also be an opinion.
The subjective principle of a thought always concerns how a thought is understood (the major premise). When it concerns an experience of the subject (and therefore is a minor premise) it creates a subjective thought concerning the thing-in-itself the thought was referring to. When such a subjective understanding is being presented as truth with a 'goal' in mind it is called sophistry.
Perception Management
Perception management is that which tries to shape a perception towards a certain ‘goal’. This is not a simple thing to do. When people indeed define things by the combination of a major premise and a minor premise this is impossible. Such persons construct things for themselves. There are times, however, that people try to explain what is taking place from their frame of reference. These conclusions do not hold a necessary relation though. Because what is taken to be their major premise is derived from a previous perception (and is, therefore, in fact a minor premise) it can only conclude to what has been 'experienced' before. These reasonings are, in fact, circulatory, or petitio principii's.
Within this method, however, it is possible to make people value certain experiences as ‘almost certain’ because it ‘always’ takes place in that manner, while in fact it has merely always (and sometimes not even that, but just often) taken place in that manner in the experience of that particular individual. The lamp turning on by pressing a button, money coming out of a machine because of inputting a PIN number, flowers and trees coming to life in spring and such. There are, however, different necessary workings which ensure that lamp turning on, money coming out of the machine, the flowers and trees coming to life in spring and such. As long as one manages someone’s perception in a way that this particular subject believes that the frame of reference can be relied upon one can determine this particular subjects thoughts of what takes place, if that particular subject uses experiences as major premises.
The most important question here is: “How do people come to trust their frame of reference more than their reason� The answer really is simple. By believing that it is impossible for them to determine what is taking place. Because if that is impossible people will turn to what they know has a good chance of taking place: their experience. In telling people that the only truth is skepticism they immediately turn to empiricism, hence using two minor premises instead of trying to gain true, objective knowledge by combining rationalism with empiricism (transcendental idealism), making oneself prone to petitio principii's (through the frame of reference, like authority, majority and such). One of the most horrific examples of this effect was Hitler Germany.
Glossary
A meta-language is a language which contains words with which to judge any 'normal' language. Meta-languages therefore contain words such as true, better, right, more, and such.
Logic is a word which has had many meanings throughout the ages. While it can mean (a priori) 'reasoning' or 'thought' in this document it is used as a system of judgment. It therefore is used to describe the sum of the reasoning (in the sense of a 'system' or meta-language).
A syllogism is a complete reasoning, in which two premises are used to lead to a conclusion.
A perception is a 'movement' in the mind, containing an image of what is 'grasped' of an observation.
A minor premise is a premise which is judged by a major premise. Minor premises always are thought-objects (or perceptions), derived from observation, or prior observation by use of the memory.
A major premise is a premise which is used to judge a minor premise and therefore contains a(n a priori) reasoning. Major premises often contain further minor premises mistakenly.
Transcendental idealism is the method which separates the thing-in-itself from what we perceive of it, but idealistically assumes that at least this thing-in-itself does exist.
Transcendental pessimism is the method which separates the thing-in-itself from what we perceive of it, but pessimistically assumes that this thing-in-itself does not exist.
Sources
Kritik der Reinen Vernunft – Immanuel Kant
Die falsche Spitzfindigkeit der Vier Syllogistischen Figuren – Immanuel Kant
Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung – Arthur Schopenhauer
Ethica – Baruch de Spinoza
Classes concerning the philosophy of language - Albert Visser
