This could get rather interesting. Tell me Jb, how exactly do you suggest that we go about separating reality from language? What need is there to do such a thing?

Reality existed before language.


I am not confined to language.

You think you are, perhaps you believe you are. But you are not.

We do not actually perceive falsehoods. We can only perceive what is true. If we mistake a falsehood for the truth, it is because of our own lack of ability to see what is true or to see the truth.

Restated: We do not perceive what does not exist, we can only perceive what does exists. If we mistake an insect for a twig, it is because of our own inability to see the insect for what it is.


When we mistake a falsehood for the truth, this is what causes us to name something a "falsehood" because we compare it with the truth. But the falsehood is not real. (That is why we call it a falsehood!)


If we could see the truth of reality, and know the truth when we hear it (in statements) then there would be no confusion and eventually people would stop making false statements and they would stop lying, because to do so would be POINTLESS and meaningless.




Actually in order to recognize a falsehood, one need only to know and see the truth.




Knowing what it takes for a statement to be true does not guarantee that you have the actual ability to see or know what is true.

If you could ALWAYS KNOW what is true and see only what is truth, all else would be meaningless and eventually of no concern. There would no longer be any confusion, and no need to place any importance or name anything that does not exist or is not true.

"Lies are intentional" is a true statement. "Lies exist" is a true statement as well. Lying is a verbal act that requires a speaker to knowingly state something that s/he does not believe - in a manner as if they do. An utterer of a lie means to misrepresent what they, themselves, believe. So, a lie is constituted by statements that the speaker does not believe. The speaker does this intentionally, for the sole purpose of misrepresenting their own belief(s).



I agree with the sentiment here. Lies are meant to misrepresent things. Where we seem to be at odds is exactly what is being misrepresented. There is no such thing as unintentional lies, false states of affairs, or false reality. Facts are states of affairs. The overall state of affairs is reality. The two are irrevocably entwined. Reality being all that exists. Facts being specific states of affairs. Thus, there can be no false facts, nor false reality because there is no such thing as false existence. A thing either exists or it does not. It need not be true in order to exist, however, it must exist in order to be true or false.



If a liar succeeds, then the listener believes what the liar has claimed. The claim itself is a deliberate misrepresentation of what the liar believes. So, in that sense we are in agreement. I mean, the liar aims to mislead. However, the lie is not necessarily true - in the sense of being true - because of that, although lies can be true. By calling it "true", I do not think that you mean "true" as in being true, rather I strongly suspect that you mean "true", as in successful or accurate in it's aim, so to speak, like an arrow.

So, I'm fairly confident that I understand what you mean here, but when engaging in philosophical discourse which directly concerns what things can be true or false, which is not the same as being called "true" or "false", we must be very careful in how loosely we employ the term "true". I mean, following the usage above, it would make no sense to say that the accuracy of an arrow or the successfulness of the lie is "false" if it misses it's mark, would it? We are talking about things that can be true or false, not necessarily what "true" sometimes means.

Hopefully, you see what I mean here.



I almost agree with this part. True lies are an interesing notion, for they do not correspond to the speaker's belief(s), which is a part of reality. They do, however, correspond to fact/reality that is not the speaker's belief(s). They need not be successful in order to be lies, nor need they be believed by the listener in order to be lies. In order to be lies, they cannot be believed by the speaker. In order to be true, rather than just being called "true", they must correspond to fact/reality, despite what the speaker believes.

True lies seem paradoxical or nonsensical, however, there are such things. Because a lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of the liar's own belief, one can tell a lie, and that lie can be true. All it takes is for the liar to believe a falsehood to begin with, and during his/her lying, to make statements that are true, even though the liar does not believe that they are.



This does not do a very good job of explaining what constitutes being meaningless. Nor can a lie be rightfully called such. Lies are not meaningless at all. They are full of meaning, because they are made of statements and statements have meaning. In a strict sense, that which is meaningless has no referent, and/or is self-referencing. For example...

A=A is utterly meaningless because it is self-referencing. "I exist" is also utterly meaningless for the same reason. As is "This statement is false".



Well, a lie is either successful or not. Whether or not it is successful depends entirely upon the listener believing the speaker. The lie is true, in the most meaningful sense - as in being true - if, and only if, it corresponds to fact/reality. But the liar must believe otherwise, for it would not be a lie if the speaker believed it.





Correspondence with/to fact/reality is the only thing that is relevant when talking about what it takes for something to be true. Nothing else suffices.

Attaching the term "actual" to reality and coming up with "actual reality" is a redundant use of terms. "Reality" suffices, unless one conflates personal perception/interpretation of reality with reality. Unless one does not know the difference between the two. Even then, the invocation of "actual reality" just adds further confusion. The effects of personal perception and/or interpretation of the facts as they occur are real, because the effects/affects are real. However, it does not follow that personal perception and/or interpretation of the facts is reality. Rather, perception/interpretation is part of reality.

Does reality still exist without language? Can you imagine it?

What would it be like? What would be true then?

Thanks for the dialogue Jb. I've nothing further to add. I do not think that you understand the rules of language.

I am not talking about language.

I am talking about truth.

But the conversation has been very enlightening for me on another level.

It garauntees that you know it what it takes, which is much better than the alternative, because we can 'see it' sometimes. It also garuantees that you know a falsehood when you 'see it'. You're just being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. I'm not that interested in continuing to give adequate explanations that are not being given the attention required for comprehension.

Well good. At least something good came as a result of it. That's about all one can ask for.

I am not much interested in continuing the conversation either as you are wanting to talk about language and I would rather talk about truth.

As for who is being "pedantic" I believe it is clearly you.

(I'm not sure what pedantic even means.)

-- and I looked it up.--

Well, think about what you want to say and start a truth thread. I'll give it a look... surely. "Truth" is my favorite subject matter. I see no evidence that you understand how truth operates.

Actually I believe I have it completely figured out and I have no need to discuss it with people who can't see it. That just leads to frustration.

Fair enough.

Be well Jb.

feelings can also be true or false and they are not statements

Do you have an example of a false feeling?

Excellent question, Jb. Very good!



I'm interested in the answer as well. I mean, what in the world could a false feeling possibly be?

The existence of truth is contingent on language because there is no 'truth' outside of language, there are only facts. Language is the way in which we convey messages about the world as we perceive it.

For us to even have a language requires that we label everything. Every label is categorized and mental contructs are formed. As we gain knowledge and become more proficient in language, the constructs continue to develop and we are able to interchange, exchange, and borrow from the various contructs for the creation and application of new ideas.

Let me ask you - can you think of any statements which (properly structured) are not informative?

I think it a foolish question. you have never erred in your feeling about something

like a false impression - I fear then find there is nothing to fear - it was false

I loved and found it was lust or infatuation

I thought I found an intelligent man and he turned out to be nothing more than a blowhard who likes the sight of his own words

g'nite peeps

locked & loaded , as always and sweet as pie as always

love u2 - 2 of my favorites on here, but now I need to get some sleep

sweetestgirl11



You made the statement that feelings can also be true or false so why do you think that it is a foolish question?

You say you "loved" then found that it was just lust or infatuation. (Perhaps you just made an error in naming your feelings of attraction as love.)

If you "feared" then later found that there was nothing to fear, wasn't the fear real at the time?

***

Even feelings of sadness or joy in a dream are real feelings at the time.