2 ms·

Article touches on a lot of 19th century pragmatist discussions on truth. William James gives a succinct description of the relationship between reality and con

Article touches on a lot of 19th century pragmatist discussions on truth. William James gives a succinct description of the relationship between reality and consensus, and abstract/concrete ideas: "The popular notion is that a true idea must copy its reality. Like other popular views, this one follows the analogy of the most usual experience. Our true ideas of sensible things do indeed copy them. Shut your eyes and think of yonder clock on the wall, and you get just such a true picture or copy of its dial. But your idea of its 'works' (unless you are a clockmaker) is much less of a copy, yet it passes muster, for it in no way clashes with reality. Even though it should shrink to the mere word 'works', that word still serves you truly; and when you speak of the 'time-keeping function' of the clock, or of its spring's 'elasticity', it is hard to see exactly what your ideas can copy" So it is true that we 'make truth', but we do not make it as we please, as truth-making at some level is a discourse with physical reality and has to cohere.

fallat 5y ago
> [...] it is true that we 'make truth', but we do not make it as we please, as truth-making at some level is a discourse with physical reality and has to cohere. I love this. Thank you.
bobthechef 5y ago
> abstract/concrete ideas If by "idea" you mean "concept", then they can only be abstract. Images are of concrete things. "and when you speak of the 'time-keeping function' of the clock, or of its spring's 'elasticity', it is hard to see exactly what your ideas can copy" This sounds very imagist and Humean. Take any principle or any concept. Can you see the law of contradiction? The primality of numbers? That the sum of the angles of all triangles is 180 degrees? What about your concept of triangle? No, not the image in your mind right now. That's just one particular triangle with definite color and shape. I mean the concept of triangularity, that which is true of all triangles and that which makes the aforementioned law of triangles true. You can't imagine that either. Indeed, this is the basis for the Aristotelian proof of the immateriality of the intellect. If all material things are concrete (this or that triangle), and all concepts are universal (they apply to multiple things but do not exist on their own as such), then the intellect is not material. For if it was material, then it could not "contain" abstract concepts, only concrete images of particular triangles.
Nbox9 5y ago
This is William James’ pragmatism viewpoint of consciousness, which states that the mind optimizes it’s view of reality based on what it useful and not what is true.
- aeternum 5y ago
  What is useful usually correlates with truth though. The mind can be though of as a compressed predictor. Compression is important to save energy, there's no need to imagine all the gears of the watch if the goal is just to make a good guess as to when the hand will hit a certain number.
  - Nbox9 5y ago
    Sure, it’s a 150 year old theory of the mind, understanding it is mostly for historical and background purposes. My comment was mostly to give key search terms for anyone interested in diving deeper.

fallat 5y ago

> [...] it is true that we 'make truth', but we do not make it as we please, as truth-making at some level is a discourse with physical reality and has to cohere. I love this. Thank you.

bobthechef 5y ago

> abstract/concrete ideas If by "idea" you mean "concept", then they can only be abstract. Images are of concrete things. "and when you speak of the 'time-keeping function' of the clock, or of its spring's 'elasticity', it is hard to see exactly what your ideas can copy" This sounds very imagist and Humean. Take any principle or any concept. Can you see the law of contradiction? The primality of numbers? That the sum of the angles of all triangles is 180 degrees? What about your concept of triangle? No, not the image in your mind right now. That's just one particular triangle with definite color and shape. I mean the concept of triangularity, that which is true of all triangles and that which makes the aforementioned law of triangles true. You can't imagine that either. Indeed, this is the basis for the Aristotelian proof of the immateriality of the intellect. If all material things are concrete (this or that triangle), and all concepts are universal (they apply to multiple things but do not exist on their own as such), then the intellect is not material. For if it was material, then it could not "contain" abstract concepts, only concrete images of particular triangles.

Nbox9 5y ago

This is William James’ pragmatism viewpoint of consciousness, which states that the mind optimizes it’s view of reality based on what it useful and not what is true.

aeternum 5y ago
What is useful usually correlates with truth though. The mind can be though of as a compressed predictor. Compression is important to save energy, there's no need to imagine all the gears of the watch if the goal is just to make a good guess as to when the hand will hit a certain number.
- Nbox9 5y ago
  Sure, it’s a 150 year old theory of the mind, understanding it is mostly for historical and background purposes. My comment was mostly to give key search terms for anyone interested in diving deeper.