Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>Hmm...  "To consider" does not have presupposition of truth. I could say:
>"Yahoo press releases are considered defacto truth, but they are not."
>But I can't say: "Yahoo press releases are known defacto truth, but they
>are not." So I would keep {jinvi} for "consider".


I think that this example says more about the use of the word "truth"
than the word "know": in the absence of  specifically contradictory information
we presume that "truth" is a universal truth in English, whereas there are
(rather more rare) meanings of English "truth" that allow for relative truth.
The USAn Dewclaration of Independence"  We hold these truths to be self-evident
that all men are created equal, and that each is endowed with certain
inalienable rights, and that among these rights are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness."

Now clearly there are some societies and cultures tthat do not recognize
those statements as "true", so are they "truths"?  Can it be said that
USAns don't really "know" these to be true, but merely "opine" them or
"believe" them simply be4cause someone else choses NOT to accept them as truth?

What ends up happening is that, in English at least, some schools of
thought come to believe that nothing is "knowable" unless it is "objectively"
verifiable" - subjectigve truths like those I mention inherently cannot be
"known".  Others, who do not place suich a hig vlaue on objective reality as
being superior to subjective reality, would claim that as nonsense, and
assert that subjective truths can be know fully as much as objective ones.
Indeed they wouyld say, "objective reality" is a myth because our definitions
of what is objective are themselves subjective.

When you start arguing in this way, you not only get to the point that
there are no fatci (facts-in-the-absolute) but that there are no truths
and there is no knowledge that is unioversally accepted as such.

The statement "la djan djuno X" must have the same truth value regardless of
what speaker says it, provided that the referents of the two sumti remain
cvonstant.  This is not true for English "know" as you have argued.

lojbab
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.