Denyer Notes, Chapter 1

Truth and Falsehood
Problems with Truth

• Problem of the External World: I have beliefs about this external world, and each belief implies that something exists external to me. Could there be nothing than myself?

• Problem of Other Minds: I believe that there are other things out there that hold their own beliefs and have emotion responses and even rationality. Any of this TRUE? Other people could be sentient robots or a mere extension of myself.

• Problem of the Reality of the Past: I believe that the world has been going on for a while, but it is possible that the world could have been created five minutes ago, then there would be no truth in these beliefs of mine.

• Problem of Induction: I extrapolate about the future using my beliefs and knowledge of the past, yet these extrapolations could be completely false

• CONCLUSION: “Beliefs are guilty until proved innocent, untrue until proved true.”

-Many Ancient Philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato did not succumb to this prejudice that there are false beliefs. On the contrary, Plato spent much of his skill and energy illustrating how we make false statements and have false beliefs.

-Modern Philosophers on the other hand have spent so much time devising and developing a long and sophisticated argument that they are hesitant to give up their claims and accept that some beliefs are false.

Realism and Idealism

Idealism: doctrine that there is nothing but ideas (perceptions and thoughts), and possibly minds or spirits that have them.

• Ancient Philosophers do not even take it upon themselves to accept or even deny Idealism because it just does not fit into the belief system of ancient times to consider it. For them “planets are gods” and so such beliefs would be hard to defend under Idealist terms.

• This is definitely a more modern philosophical discussion because it is a real option. A common pattern is to accept an aspect of Idealism, but the Realism of ordinary life can't be false because the Idealism that is true is transcendental. This brings to mind Kant's distinction between Transcendental and Empirical truths.

-At this point I don't really agree because the Ancient Philosophers did believe that we have our own ideas and that they can be true with no empirical, objective evidence outside of ourselves. I don't think they were extreme Idealists, but Plato did believe in Forms that even our Ideas were trying to become (not to anthropomorphize them). Then again, they weren't complete Realists as he purports, and he may just be basing this on later Ancients like Aristotle. If he is then shame on him because there is a much wider scope.


A Difficulty

He asks, “If modern philosophical problems are typically problems of truth, how can I expect to interest modern readers in the problem of falsehood?”No problem here, Plato provides a solution to how we can provide without paradox a false belief. Worth it to examine to philosophies of those who felt that falsehood is still an issue.

• Falsehood unproblematic poses other problems: Why did Plato spend so much time proving falsehood?

• Once questions are answered they are no longer considered philosophical, but falsehood even though answered remains in the realm of philosophy

I say this is because even though falsehood is explained we are nowhere near understanding truth itself. Also, “How can one say something if it isn't true, and thus isn't there to be said?” Just because something is false doesn't deny its existence?

• Looking at the problem of falsehood, we might learn something from ancient views about thought and language that will help solve modern issues of truth.

• The reason being that some ancient philosophers incorporated falsehood into their theories of truth and thus helping us examine the modern issues of truth and our assumptions that made is so problematic.