Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Rob Zook:
> If it sounds like I flew off the handle at you I apologize, mundane
> life stress was intruding when I wrote this, so it may have come off
> as more terse than I intended.

If that is a sin, none commits it more than I.

> At 03:11 PM 1/26/98 GMT+0, And Rosta wrote:
> >Rob Zook:
> >> >Presuppositions and the x4 place apart, "djuno" means "x1
> >> >believes x2 to be true about x3".
> >>
> >> Absolutely not. Krici means belief, djuno means know.
> >
> >The meaning of {krici} isn't relevant.
>
> In this case it thought so, because you seemed to want to gloss djuno as
> "x1 believes x2 is true...",

*having said "presuppositions and the x4 place apart"*

> and the baseline says to gloss krici that
> way.

That's right. It's the presupposition (& x4 place) that make djuno
different from krici.

> If one utters a djuno or a krici bridi but elipses all but the
> x1 and x2 place, by your gloss above they would seem interchangable.

Djuno wd still have the presupposition that x2 is true.

> >Djuno means "know". This is what I said from the start.
> >Presuppositions apart, "know" means "x1 believes x2 to be
> >true". (Or possibly "believes, with justification": that's
> >a separate issue.)
>
> Not accurately no, because using to close a gloss for both words
> seems to me to confuse the issue even further.

My intention was to clarify. We agree what believing is, and part
of knowing involves believing. So why not call that part of
knowing "believing", since that's what it is?

> >> krici:
> >> x1 believes [without evidence] that belief/creed x2 (du'u) is
> >> true/assumed about subject x3
> >>
> >> djuno:
> >> x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology x4
> >>
> >> You apparently want to re-write djuno.
> >
> >I don't know how you work that out.
>
> Because of the way you wanted to gloss djuno.
>
>
> >> >To me, an "epistemology" place would give "Because of x4, x1 believes
> >> >x2 to be true about x3", i.e. the reason for the believing,
> >>
> >> Believing does not mean the same thing as knowing. A person can
> >> "believe" any damn thing they want to. I can belief I can fly, or
> >> that the sky is purple, or that cows produce Guiness Extra Stout from
> >> their teats. A person can only "know" _facts_. I cannot "know" cows
> >> produce Guiness Extra Stout from their teats. For that does not
> >> represent a true fact in any system of knowing facts.
> >>
> >> One can only know justified true beliefs. Anything else distorts
> >> the meaning of "know". Regardles of the many ways one can use
> >> know in English. djuno means to know facts.
> >
> >"Knowing" is what we call believing when the belief is justified
> >and true. All knowing is believing.
>
> All knowing "is" believing. Sorry, I cannot see that, could you
> perhaps rephrase that for me? I have trouble seeing much in
> "is"ness statements.

 For every X & every Y, if X knows Y is true then X believes Y is
     true.

That's what I meant.

Furthermore,

 For every X & every Y, X knows Y is true iff (i) Y is true,
   (ii) X believes Y is true, & [arguably:] (iii) X is justified
   in believing Y to be true.

And, for the sake of completeness, *I think* x4 of djuno tells you
why X feels so sure that Y is true; x4 is what x1 would tell you
if you asked x1 why they were so sure.
On this last point I am in agreement with Lojbab (or rather, with
the baseline) rather than with John and Jorge, so that rather
suggests that my opinion is erroneous.

> I mean I realize one could call knowing a catagory of belief, but
> I don't think we should start glossing djuno that way. To do so
> would draw too much attention to their similarities, when drawing
> a distinction seems the whole point of having the two words.

Hopefully the definition I've given above brings out the
difference adequately.

> >This is perfectly compatible with what you say about the meaning
> >of "know".
>
> Then I must have confused your glosses with your intentions.

Quite so. You thought I was claiming that my glosses represented
the entire meaning of djuno, when in fact I was claiming that
they represented that part of the meaning of djuno that is left
over when certain bits of it are ignored.

> >> >while the intention for the x4 is that is be X in
> >> >"X1 believes that because of x4, x2 is true about x3", i.e.
> >> >x4 is the worldmodel according to which x2 is true.
> >>
> >> Rewrite both your statements as:
> >>
> >> In of system of knowledge x4, x1 knows true fact(s) x2, about x3.
> >> x1 knows true fact(s) x2 about subject x3 in system of knowing x4.
> >>
> >> and I would agree.
> >
> >I think you ignored the words "presuppositions and the x4 place
> >apart".
>
> I don't understand, that was the start of a different sentance. How is
> that sentance relavent to discussing your impression of the intention
> for the x4 place?
>
> That paragraph started with:
>
>         Presuppositions and the x4 place apart, "djuno" means "x1
>         believes x2 to be true about x3". To me, an "epistemology"
>         place would give "Because of x4, x1 believes
>         x2 to be true about x3", i.e. the reason for the believing,
>        ...
>
> So when you started with "To me, an "epistemology place..." I
> naturally, assumed you were now talking about the x4 place.
> Have I misunderstood what you wrote here?

No, I think you've understood correctly. Aha: I see what happened.
I said "presup & x4 apart" and then went on to talk about x4,
with the intention that x4 was therefore back in the picture
but the presup wasn;t, whereas you apparently assumed I was now
ignoring neither the x4 nor the presup.

> >> >To my mind, "metaphysics" is vague, but "epistemology" is
> >> >positively misleading.
> >>
> >> I must disagree most emphatically.
> >
> >But you do so without addressing my justification for claiming
> >"epistemology" to be misleading. Hence I am not sure whether we
> >disagree in our understanding of what "epistemology" means or in our
> >understanding of what the x4 of djuno means.
>
> Well, I did. But not, in this message. Sometimes I forget that a mailing
> list has more lag time than a real-time conversation. Let me restate it
> here:

Before I continue, let me note that I have come round to the view
that x4 should indeed be an epistemology place, mainly because
that's what the baseline says.

> djuno:
> x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology x4
>
> x1 - Who knows?
> x2 - Knows what?
> x3 - In what domain?
> x4 - By what does one know x2?

Your x4 gloss is not clear enough.

> Epistemology - "the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of
> knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity"
>
> That seems like exactly what the x4 represents, the grounds for
> someones claim of knowledge.

But that's not what John and Jorge thought the x4 was.

> Metaphysics means "the system of principles underlying a particular
> study or subject". More inclusive, while epistemology refers
> _specifically_ to that which underlies knowledge.

And this pretty much is what John and Jorge thought the x4 was.

> Furthermore, metaphysics in modern philosophy has much more to do
> with dicussing the ontology of things, than it does with the epistemology
> of things. Generally one studies them as two seperate, but interelated
> fields.

--And