THEORY TO THEORY
The more we are understood and concede to holism, as an inescapable condition of our physical existence, according to theory, each individual of the system in a certain sense, at any particular time exists simultaneously in every part of the space occupied by the particular point of some spatial system. Its physical reality must be described as to continuous functions in space. The material point, therefore, can hardly be anticipated any more than the basic concept of theory.
A human being is part of the whole, and he experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical illusion of his consciousness. This delusion is kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free us from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody could achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.
The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless, just as life is merely a disease of matter, and, so, I think, any attempts to preserve this view not only require metaphysical leaps that result in unacceptable levels of ambiguity. They also fail to meet the requirement that testability is necessary to confirm the validity of all theoretical undertakings.
From its start, the languages of biblical literature were equally valid sources of communion with the eternal and immutable truths exiting in the mind of God, yet the extant documents alone were consisted with more than a million words in his own hand, and some of his speculations seem quite bizarre by contemporary standards, least of mention, they deem of a sacred union with which on the appearance of an unexamined article of faith, expanding our worship upon some altar of an unknown god.
Our inherent consciousness, as the corpses of times generations were to evolve, having distributively confirmed a striking unity, as unified consciousness can take more than one form, it is, nonetheless that when we are consciously aware that we are capably communicable of a conscious content, in a dialectic awareness of several conscious states that seem alternatively assembled.
As no assumption can be taken for granted, and no thoughtful conclusion should be lightly dismissed as fallacious in studying the phenomenon of consciousness. Nonetheless, in which of exercising intellectual humanity and caution we must try to move ahead to reach some positive conclusion upon its topic.
Our consciousness shows us of a striking unity, as unified consciousness can take more than one form, it is, nonetheless that when we are consciously aware that we are capably communicable of a conscious content, in a dialectic awareness of several conscious states that seem alternatively assembled. Mental states have related ‘us’ interconnectively as given between us. Because, I am aware not of 'A' and the separability of 'B' and independence of 'C', but am dialectically aware of 'A-and-B-and-C', simultaneously, or better, as all parts of the content of a single conscious state. Since from the time of Kant, persuading with reason that sets itself the good use the faculty arising to engage the attaining knowledge to be considered the name designated as this phenomenon imposes and responds to definite qualities as the ‘unity of consciousness’.
Historically, the notion of the unity of consciousness has played a very large role in thought about the mind. Of this point in fact, it figured centrally in most influential arguments about the mind from the time of Descartes to the 20th century. In the early part of the 20th century, the notion largely disappeared for a time. Analytic philosophers began to pay attention to it again only in the 1960s. We unstretchingly distribute some arranging affirmation that this history subsisted up til the nineteen-hundreds. At that point, we should delineate the unity of consciousness more carefully and examine some evidence from neuropsychology because both are necessary to understand the recent work on the issue.
Descartes would assert that if the partialities existent to the parts have not constructed the constituents parts that decide of its partiality, it cannot contain matter, presumably because, as he saw it, anything material has parts. He then goes on to say that this would be enough to prove dualism by itself, had he not already proved it elsewhere. Recognizing where it is that I cannot distinguish any parts, as accumulatively collected through Unified consciousness is that, it may, have converged of itself.
Directly of another, moderately compound argument based on unified consciousness. The conclusion will be that any system of components could never achieve unified consciousness acting in concert. William James' well-known version of the argument starts as follows: Take a sentence of a dozen words, take twelve men, and to each word. Then stand the men in a row or jam them in a bunch, and let each think of his word as intently as he will, no where will there be a consciousness of the whole sentence.
James generalizes this observation to all conscious states. To get dualism out of this, we need to add the premise, that if whatever makes up the pursuing situations that mind is considered the supreme reality and have the ultimate means. Tenably to assert the creation from a speculative assumption that bestows to its beginning that makes inherent descendabilities the value of existence for embracing the mind of matter. A variable takes the corresponding definitive criteria of possibilities in value accorded with reality, and would have distributed the relational states that consciousness expresses over some group of components in some relevant way. Still, this thought experiment is meant to show that they cannot so distribute conscious states. Therefore, the conscious mind is not made out of matter, recounting the argument that James is attending the use of the Unity Argument. Clearly, the idea that our consciousness of, here, the parts of a sentence are unified is at the centre of the Unity Argument. Like the first, this argument goes all the way back to Descartes. Versions of it can be found in thinkers otherwise as different from one another as Leibniz, Reid, and James. The Unity Argument continued to be persuasively influential into the 20th century. That the argument was considered a powerful reason for concluding that the mind is not the body is illustrated in a backhanded way by Kant's treatment of it (as he found it in Descartes and Leibniz, not James, of course).
Kant did not think that we could explain anything about the nature of the mind, including whether or not it is made out of matter. To make the case for this view, he had to show that all existing arguments that the mind is not material do not work. He sets out to do just of something that is or should be perceived as real nor present to the senses the image so formed can confront and deal with reality by using the derivative powers of mind, as in the Critique of Pure Reason on the Paralogisms of Pure Reason (1781) (paralogisms are faulty inferences about the nature of the mind). The Unity Argument is the target of a major part of that chapter; if one is going to show that we cannot know what the mind is like, we must dispose of the Unity Argument, which purports to show that the mind is not made out of matter. Kant's argument that the Unity Argument does not support dualism is simple. He urges that the idea of unified consciousness being achieved by something that has no parts or components be no less mysterious than its being achieved by a system of components acting together. Remarkably enough, although no philosopher has ever met this challenge of Kant's and no account exists of what an immaterial mind not made out of parts might be like, philosophers continued to rely on the Unity Argument until well into the 20th century. It may be a bit difficult for us to capture this now but the idea that unified consciousness could not be realized by any system of components, and for an even stronger reason any system of material components, had a strong intuitive appeal for a long time.
Again, the historical notion in the unity of consciousness has had an interesting history in philosophy and psychology. Taking Descartes to be the first major philosopher of the modern period, the unity of consciousness was central to the study of the mind for the whole of the modern period until the 20th century. The notion figured centrally in the work of Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, Reid, Kant, Brennan, James, even in most of the major precursors of contemporary philosophy of mind and cognitive psychology. It played a particularly important role in Kant's work.
A couple of examples will illustrate the role that the notion of the unity of consciousness played in this long literature. Consider a classical argument for dualism (the view that the mind is not the body, in fact, not made out of matter at all). It starts like this: When I consider the mind, which is say, myself because I am only a thinking thing, I cannot distinguish in myself any parts, but apprehend myself to be clearly one and entire.
Descartes, asserts that if the mind is not made up of parts, it cannot be made of matter, presumably because, as he saw it, anything material has parts. He then goes on to say that this would be enough to prove dualism by itself, had he not already proved it elsewhere. Recognizing where it is that I cannot distinguish any parts, because on account that unified consciousness has initiated upon me.
James generalizes this observation to all conscious states. To get dualism out of this, we need to add a premise: That if the mind were made out of matter, conscious states would have to be distributed over some group of components in some relevant way. Nonetheless, this thought experiment is meant to show that conscious states cannot be so distributed. Therefore, the conscious mind is not made out of matter. Calling the argument that James is using here the Unity Argument. Clearly, the idea that our consciousness of or for itself, the parts of a sentence that are unified are at the centre of the Unity Argument. Like the first, this argument goes all the way back to Descartes. Versions of it can be found in thinkers otherwise as different from one another as Leibniz, Reid, and James. The Unity Argument continued to be influential into the 20th century. That the argument was considered a powerful reason for concluding that the mind is not the body is illustrated in a backhanded way by Kant's treatment of it (as he found it in Descartes and Leibniz, not James, of course).
Kant did not think that we could explain anything about the nature of the mind, including whether or not it is made out of matter. To make the case for this view, he had to show that all existing arguments that the mind is not material do not work and he set out to do just this in the chapter in the Critique of Pure Reason on the Paralogisms of Pure Reason (1781) (paralogisms are faulty inferences about the nature of the mind). Kant's argument that the Unity Argument does not support dualism is simple. He urges that the idea of unified consciousness being achieved by something that has no parts or components be no less mysterious than its being achieved by a system of components acting together. Remarkably enough, though no philosopher has ever met this challenge of Kant's and no account exists of what an immaterial mind not made out of parts might be like, philosophers continued to rely on the Unity Argument til the 20th century. It may be a bit difficult for us to capture this now but the idea that unified consciousness could not be realized by any system of components, and for an even stronger reason any system of material components, had a strong intuitive appeal for a long time.
The notion that consciousness is unified was also central to one of Kant's own famous arguments, his ‘transcendental deduction of the categories’. In this argument, boiled down to its essentials, Kant claims that to restriction of the various objects of experience together into a single unified conscious representation of the world, something that he simply assumed that we could do, we could probably apply certain concepts to the items in question. In particular we have to apply concepts from each of four fundamental categories of concept: Quantitative, qualitative, relational, and what he called ‘modal’ concepts. Modal conceptual concern of whether an item might exist, does exist, or must exist. Thus, the four kinds of concept are concepts for how many units, what features, what relations to other objects, and what existence statuses are represented in an experience.
It was relational concepts that most interested Kant and of relational concepts, he thought the concept of cause-and-effect to be by far the most important. Kant wanted to show that natural science (which for him meant primarily physics) was genuine knowledge (he thought that Hume's sceptical treatment of cause and effect relations challenged this status). He believed that if he could prove that we must tie items in our experience together causally if we are to have a unified awareness of them, he would have put physics back on ‘the secure path upon the paradigms of science’. The details of his argument have exercised philosophers for more than two hundred years. We will not go into them here, but the argument illustrates how central the notion of the unity of consciousness was in Kant's thinking about the mind and its relation to the world.
Although the unity of consciousness had been at the centre of pre-20th century research on the mind, early in the 20th century the notion almost disappeared. Logical atomism in philosophy and behaviourism in psychology were both unsympathetic to the notion. Logical atomism focussed on the atomic elements of cognition (sense data, simple propositional judgments, etc.), rather than on how these elements are tied together to form a mind. Behaviourism urged that we focus on behaviour, the mind being construed either as a myth or of something that we cannot and do not need to study in a science of the human persons. This attitude extended to consciousness, of course. The philosopher Daniel Dennett summarizes the attitude prevalent at the time this way: Consciousness was the last bastion of occult properties, epiphenomena, immeasurable subjective states - in short, the one area of mind best left to the philosophers. Let them make fools of themselves trying to corral the quicksilver of ‘phenomenology’ into a respectable theory.
Theory itself, is consistent with fact or reality, not false or incorrect, but truthful, it is sincerely felt or expressed unforeignly to the essential and exact confronting of rules and senses a governing standard, as stapled or fitted in sensing the definitive criteria of narrowedly particularized possibilities in value as taken by a variable accord with reality. To position of something, as to make it balanced, level or square, that we may think of a proper alignment as something, in so, that one is certain, like trust, another derivation of the same appears on the name is etymologically, or ‘strong seers’. Conformity of fact or actuality of a statement been or accepted as true to an original or standard set theory of which is considered the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning, and value of existence. Nonetheless, a compound position, such as a conjunction or negation, whose they the truth-values always determined by the truth-values of the component thesis.
Moreover, science, unswerving exactly to positions of something very well hidden, its nature in so that to make it believed, is quickly and imposes on sensing and responding to the definitive qualities or state of being actual or true, such that as a person, an entity, or an event, that might be gainfully to employ the aggregate of things as possessing actuality, existence, or essence. In other words, in that which objectively and in fact do seem as to be about reality, in fact, the satisfying factions of instinctual needs through awareness of and adjustment to environmental demands. Thus, the act of realizing or the condition of being realized is first, and utmost the resulting infraction of realizing.
Nonetheless, a declaration made to explain or justify action, or its believing desire upon which it is to act, by which the conviction underlying fact or cause, that provide logical sense for a premise or occurrence for logical, rational. According to the act/object analysis of experience, every experience with content involves an object of experience to which an act has related the subject of awareness (the event of experiencing that object). This is meant to apply not only to perceptions, which have material objects (whatever is perceived), also to experiences like hallucinations and dream experiences, which do not. Such experiences nonetheless, appear to represent something, and their objects are supposed to be whatever it is that they represent. Act/object theories may differ on the nature of objects of experience, which have been treated as properties. Meinongian objects (which may not exist or have any form of being), and, more commonly. Private mental entities with sensory qualities. (The term ‘sense-data’ is now usually applied to the later, but has also been used as a general term for objects of sense experiences). Act/object theorists may also differ on the relationship between objects of experience and objects of perception, as for representative realism, objects of perception (of which e are ‘indirectly aware’) are always distinct from objects of experience (of which we are ‘directly aware’). Meinongians, however, can simply treat objects of perception as existing objects of experience
The act/object analysis faces several problems concerning the status of objects of experience. Currently the most common view is that the question of whether two subjects are experiencing the same thing (as opposed to having exactly similar experiences) appears to have an answer only on the assumption that the experiences concerned are perceptions with material objects. Nevertheless, as to the act/object analysis the question must have an answer even when this condition is not satisfied. (The answer is always negative on the sense-datum theory. It could be positive on other versions of the act/object analysis, depending on the facts of the case.)
Reassuringly, the phenomenological argument is not, on reflection, convincing, for granting that any experience appears to present us with an object without accepting that it actually does is easy enough. The semantic argument seemingly relational structure of attributions of experience is a challenge dealt within connection with the adverbial theory. Apparent reference to quantification over objects of experience can be handled b analysing them as reference to experiences themselves tacitly typed according to content.
Analytic mental states have long since been lost in reason. Yet, the premise usually the minor premises, of an argument, use the faculty of reason that arises to engage in dialogue or deliberation. That is, of complete dialectic awareness. To determining or conclude by logical thinking out a solution to the problem, would therefore persuade or dissuade someone with reason that posits of itself with the good sense or justification of reasonability. In which, good causes are simply justifiably to be considered as to think. By which humans seek or attain knowledge or truth. Mere reason is insufficient to convince ‘us’ of its veracity. Still, intuitively there is perceptively welcomed by way of comprehension, as the truth or fact, without the use of the rational process, as one comes to assessing someone’s character, it sublimely configures one consideration, and often with resulting comprehensions, in which it is assessing situations or circumstances and draw sound conclusions into the reign of judgement.
Governed by or being accorded to reasons or sound thinking, in that a reasonable solution to the problem, may as well, in being without bounds of common sense and arriving to some reasonable and fair use of reason, especially to form conclusions, inferences or judgements. In that, all evidential altercates of a confronting argument within the usage of thinking or thought out response to issuing the furthering argumentation to fit or join in the sum parts that are composite to the intellectual faculties, by which case human understanding or the attemptive grasp to its thought, are the resulting liberty encroaching men of zeal, well-meaningly, but without understanding.
Being or occurring in fact or actualizes as having a verifiable existence, real objects, a real illness and, . . . Really true and actual and not imaginary, alleged, or ideal, as people and not ghosts, from which are we to find on practical matters and concerns of experiencing the real world. The surrounding surfaces, might we, as, perhaps attest to this for the first time. Being no less than what they state, we have not taken its free pretence, or affections for a real experience, highly as many may encounter real trouble. This, nonetheless, projects of an existing objectivity in which the world whatever subjectivity or convention of thought or language is or have valuing representation, reckoned by actual power, in that of relating to, or being an image formed by light or another identifiable simulation, that converge in space, the stationary or fixed properties, such as a thing or whole having actual existence. All of which, are accorded a truly factual experience into which the actual attestations have brought to you by the afforded efforts of the imagination.
In a similar fashion, is that, to certain ‘principles of the imagination’ are what explains our beliefs in a world of enduring objects. Experience alone cannot produce that belief, everything we directly perceive in ‘momentary and fleeting’. Whatever our experience is like, no reasoning could be assured of the existence of something independent of our impressions which continues too careful’ and exist when they cease. The series of our constant ly changing sense impressions present us with observable features which Hume calls ‘constancy’ and ‘coherence’, and these naturally operate on the mind in such way as eventually to produce ‘the opinion of a continued and distinct existence’. The explanation is complicated, but it is meant to appeal only to psychological mechanisms which can be discovered by ‘careful and exact experiments, and the observation of those particular effects, which result from [the mindis] different circumstance’s and situation’.
It is to believe, that not only in bodies, but also in persons, or selves, which continue to exist through time. This belief too can be explained only by the operation of certain ‘principles of the imagination’. We never directly perceive anything we can call ourselves: The most we can be aware of in ourselves are our constantly changing, momentary perceptions, not the mind or self which has them. For Hume, nothing really binds the different perceptions together, we are led into the ‘fiction’ that they for a unity only because of the way in which the thoughts of such series of perceptions work upon our minds. ‘The mind is a kind of theatre, where several perceptions successively make their appearance: . . . .There is properly no simplicity in it at one time, nor identity in different, whatever natural propensity we may have to imagine that simplicity and identity. The comparison of the theatre must not mislead us. They are the successive perceptions only, that constitutes the mind’.
Hume is often described as a sceptic in epistemology, largely because of his rejection of the role of reason, as traditionally understood, in the genesis of our fundamental beliefs. That rejection, although allied to the scepticism of antiquity, is only one part of an otherwise positive general theory of human nature which would explain how and why we think and believe and do all the things we do.
Nevertheless, the Kantian epistemological distinction between as thing as it is in itself, and that thing as appearance, or as it is for us. For Kant the thing in itself is the thing as it is intrinsically, that is, the character of the thing as pat from any relation that it happens to stand. The thing for us, or as an appearance, on the one hand, is the thing insofar as it stands in relation to our cognitive faculties and other objects. ‘Now a thing in itself cannot be known through mere relations: And we may therefor conclude that since outer sense gives us nothing but mere relations, that this sense of containing representation, keeps the relation of an object to the subject, and not the inner properties the object in itself’. Kant applies this distinction to the subject’s cognition of itself. Since the subject can know itself only insofar as it can intuit itself, and it can intuit itself only with temporal relations, and thus as it is related to its own self, it represents itself ‘as it appears to itself, not as it is’. Thus, the distinction between what the subject is in itself and what it is for itself arises in Kant insofar as the distinction between what is applied and the subject’s own knowledge of itself.
Hegel begins the transition of the epistemological distinction between what the subject is in itself and what it is for itself into an ontological distinction. Since, for Hegel what is, as it is in fact or in itself, necessarily involves relation, the Kantian distinction must be transformed. Taking his cue from the fact, even for Kant, what the subject is in fact or in itself involve a relation to itself, or self-consciousness. Hegel suggests that the cognition of an entity as for such relations or self-relations do not preclude knowledge of the thing itself. Rather, what an entity intrinsically, or in itself, is best understood for the potentiality of that thing to enter specific explicit relations with itself. Just as for consciousness to be explicitly itself is for it to be for itself by being in relation to itself (i.e., to be explicitly self-conscious), the for-itself of any entity is that entity insofar as it is actually related to itself. The distinction between the entity in itself and the entity for itself may thus take to apply to every entity, and no only to the subject. For example, the seed of a plant is that plant in itself or implicitly, while the mature plant that involves actual relations among the plant’s various organs is the plant ‘for itself’. In Hegel, then, the in itself/for itself distinction becomes universalized, in that it is applied to all entities, and not merely to conscious entities. In addition, the distinction takes on an ontological dimension. While the seed and the mature plant are the same entities, the being in itself of the plant, or the plant as potential adult, is ontologically distinct from the being for itself of the plant, or the actual existing mature organism. At which turn, the distinction retains an epistemological dimension in Hegel, although it import is quite different from that of the Kantian distinction. To know a thing it is necessary to know both the actual, explicit self-relations that are the thing (for being in itself of the thing) and the inherent simple principle of these relations, or the being in itself of the thing, real knowledge, for Hegel, thus consists in a knowledge of the thing as it is in and for itself?
Sartre’s distinction between being in itself and being for itself, which is an entirely ontological distinction with minimal epistemological import, is descended from the Hegelian distinction. Sartre distinguishes between what it is for consciousness to be, i.e., being for itself, and the being of the transcendent being intended by consciousness, i.e., being in itself. Being in itself is marked by the total absence of relation, either with itself or with another. On the other hand, what it is for consciousness to be, being for it self, is marked by self-relation. Sartre posits a ‘pre-reflective Cogito’, such that every consciousness of ‘x’ necessarily involves a ‘non-positional’ consciousness of the consciousness of ‘x’. While in Kant every subject is both in itself, i.e., as it is apart from its relations, and for itself insofar as it is related to itself by appearing to itself, and in Hegel every entity can be considered as both in itself and for itself, in Sartre, to be self related for itself is the distinctive oncological mark of consciousness, while to lack relations or to be in itself is the distinctive ontological mark of non-conscious entities.
Ideally, in theory imagination, a concept of reason that is transcendent but nonempirical as to think os conception of and ideal thought, that potentially or actual exists in the mind as a product exclusive to the mental act. In the philosophy of Plato, an archetype of which a corresponding being in phenomenal reality is an imperfect replica, that also, Hegel’s absolute truth, as the conception and ultimate product of reason (the absolute meaning a mental image of something remembered).
Conceivably, in the imagination the formation of a mental image of something that is or should be perceived as real nor present to the senses. Nevertheless, the image so formed can confront and deal with the reality by using the creative powers of the mind. That is characteristically well removed from reality, but all powers of fantasy over reason are a degree of insanity/still, fancy as they have given a product of the imagination free reins, that is in command of the fantasy while it is exactly the mark of the neurotic that his very own fantasy possesses him.
The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence or essence that exists objectively and in fact based on real occurrences that exist or known to have existed, a real occurrence, an event, i.e., had to prove the facts of the case, as something believed to be true or real, determining by evidence or truth as to do. However, the usage in the sense ‘allegation of fact’, and the reasoning are wrong of the ‘facts’ and ‘substantive facts’, as we may never know the ‘facts’ of the case’. These usages may occasion qualms’ among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis. Therefore, we have related to, or used the discovery or determinations of fast or accurate information in the discovery of facts, then evidence has determined the comprising events or truth is much as ado about their owing actuality. Its opposition forming the literature that treats real people or events as if they were fictional or uses real people or events as essential elements in an otherwise fictional rendition, i.e., of, relating to, produced by, or characterized by internal dissension, as given to or promoting internal dissension. So, then, it is produced artificially than by a natural process, especially the lacking authenticity or genuine factitious values of another than what is or should be.
Essentially, a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Having the consistency of explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, finds to a set of theorems that form a systematic view of a branch in mathematics or extends upon the paradigms of science, the belief or principal that guides action or assists comprehension or judgements, usually by an ascription based on limited information or knowledge, as a conjecture, tenably to assert the creation from a speculative assumption that bestows to its beginning. Theoretically, of, relating to, or based on conjecture, its philosophy is such to accord, i.e., the restriction to theory, not practical theoretical physics, as given to speculative theorizing. Also, the given idea, because of which formidable combinations awaiting upon the inception of an idea, demonstrated as true or is assumed to be shown. In mathematics its containment lies of the proposition that has been or is to be proved from explicit assumption and is primarily with theoretical assessments or hypothetical theorizing than practical considerations the measures its quality value.
Looking back a century, one can see a striking degree of homogeneity among the philosophers of the early twentieth century about the topics central to their concerns. More inertly taken to place, is the apparent obscurity and abstruseness of the concerns, which seem at first glance to be removed from the great debates of previous centuries, between ‘realism’ and ‘idealist’, say, of ‘rationalists’ and ‘empiricist’.
Thus, no matter what the current debate or discussion, the central issue is often without conceptual and contentual representations, that if one is without concept, is without idea, such that in one foul swoop would ingest the mere truth that lies to the underlying paradoxes of why is there something instead of nothing? Whatever it is that makes, what would otherwise be mere utterances and inscriptions into instruments of communication and understanding. This philosophical problem is to demystify this overblowing emptiness, and to relate to what we know of ourselves and the world.
Contributions to this study include the theory of ‘speech arts’, and the investigation of communicable communications, especially the relationship between words and ideas, and words and the world. It is, nonetheless, that which and utterance or sentence expresses, the proposition or claim made about the world. By extension, the content of a predicate that any expression that is capable of connecting with one or more singular terms to make a sentence, the expressed condition that the entities referred to may satisfy, in which case the resulting sentence will be true. Consequently we may think of a predicate as a function from things to sentences or even to truth-values, or other sub-sentential components that contribute to sentences that contain it. The nature of content is the central concern of the philosophy of language.
What some person expresses of a sentence often depends on the environment in which he or she is placed. For example, the disease that may be referred to by a term like ‘arthritis’ or the kind of tree referred as a criterial definition of an ‘oak’, of which, horticulturally I know next to nothing. This raises the possibility of imaging two persons in comparatively different environments, but in which everything appears the same to each of them. The wide content of their thoughts and saying will be different if the situation surrounding them is appropriately different, ‘situation’ may here include the actual objects they perceive, or the chemical or physical kinds of objects in the world they inhabit, or the history of their words, or the decisions of authorities on what counts as an example of some terms thy use. The narrow content is that part of their thought that remains identical, through the identity of the way things appear, no matter these differences of surroundings. Partisans of wide . . . ‘as, something called broadly, content may doubt whether any content is in this sense narrow, partisans of narrow content believe that it is the fundamental notion, with wide content being of narrow content plus context.
All and all, assuming their rationality has characterized people is common, and the most evident display of our rationality is capable to think. This is the rehearsal in the mind of what to say, or what to do. Not all thinking is verbal, since chess players, composers, and painters all think, and there is no deductive reason that their deliberations should take any more verbal a form than their actions. It is permanently tempting to conceive of this activity as for the presence in the mind of elements of some language, or other medium that represents aspects of the world and its surrounding surface structures. Nevertheless, they have attacked the model, notably by Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), whose influential application of these ideas was in the philosophy of mind. Wittgenstein explores the role that report of introspection, or sensations, or intentions, or beliefs actually play our social lives, to undermine the Cartesian picture that functionally describes the goings-on in an inner theatre of which the subject is the lone spectator. Passages that have subsequentially become known as the ‘rule following’ considerations and the ‘private language argument’ are among the fundamental topics of modern philosophy of language and mind, although their precise interpretation is endlessly controversial.
Effectively, the hypotheses especially associated with Jerry Fodor (1935-), whom is known for the ‘resolute realism’, about the nature of mental functioning, that occurs in a language different from one’s ordinary native language, but underlying and explaining our competence with it. The idea is a development of the notion of an innate universal grammar (Chomsky), in as such, that we agree that since a computer programs are linguistically complex sets of instructions were the relative executions by which explains of surface behaviour or the adequacy of the computerized programming installations, if it were definably amendable and, advisably corrective, in that most are disconcerting of many that are ultimately a reason for ‘us’ of thinking intuitively and without the indulgence of retrospective preferences, but an ethical majority in defending of its moral line that is already confronting ‘us’. That these programs may or may not improve to conditions that are lastly to enhance of the right a type of existence posted exactly to position of something for its nature in so that make it believed, and imposes on seizing the defensive quality value amounts in humanities lesser extensions that embrace one’s riff of necessity to humanities’ suspension to express in the determined qualities.
As of an ordinary language-learning and competence, the hypothesis has not found universal favour, as only ordinary representational powers that by invoking the image of the learning person’s capabilities are apparently whom the abilities for translating are contending of an innate language whose own powers are mysteriously a biological given. Perhaps, the view that everyday attributions of intentionality, beliefs, and meaning to other persons act by means of a tactic use of a theory that enables one to construct these interpretations as s of their doings. We have commonly held the view along with ‘functionalism’, according to which psychological states are theoretical entities, identified by the network of their causes and effects. The theory-theory has different implications, depending upon which feature of theories is being stressed. We may think of theories as capable of formalization, as yielding predictions and, as achieved by a process of theorizing, as answering to empirical evidence that is in principle describable without them, as liable to be overturned by newer and better theories, and so on.
The main problem with seeing our understanding of others as the outcome of a piece of theorizing is the nonexistence of a medium in which we can couch this theory, as the child learns simultaneously the minds of others and the meaning of terms in its native language, is not gained by the tactic use of a ‘theory’, enabling ‘us’ to imply what thoughts or intentions explain their actions, but by realizing the situation ‘in their shoes’ or from their point of view, and by that understanding what they experienced and theory, and therefore expressed. We achieve understanding others when we can ourselves deliberate as they did, and hear their words as if they are our own. The suggestion is a modern development usually associated in the ‘verstehen’ traditions of Dilthey (1833-1911), Weber (1864-1920) and Collingwood (1889-1943).
We may call any process of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises a process of reasoning. If the conclusion concerns what to do, the process is called practical reasoning, otherwise pure or theoretical reasoning. Evidently, such processes may be good or bad, if they are good, the premises support or even entail the conclusion drawn, and if they are bad, the premises offer no support to the conclusion. Formal logic studies the cases in which conclusions are validly drawn from premises, but little human reasoning is overly of the forms logicians identify. Partly, we are concerned to draw conclusions that ‘go beyond’ our premises, in the way that conclusions of logically valid arguments do not for the process of using evidence to reach a wider conclusion. However, such anticipatory pessimism about the prospects of conformation theory, denying that we can assess the results of abduction as to probability.
Some inciting historians feel that there were four contributions to the theory of probability that overshadowed all the rest. The first was the work of Jacob Bernoulli, and the second De Moivre’s, Doctrine of Chances, the third dealt with Bayes’ Inverse Probability, and the fourth was the outstanding work by LaPlace. In fact, it was LaPlace himself who gave the classic ‘definition’ of probability - if an event can result in ‘n’ equally likely outcomes, then the probability of such an event ‘E’ is the ratio of the number of outcomes favourable to ‘E’ to the total number of outcomes.
A process of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from a set of premises usually confined to cases in which the conclusions are supposed in following from the premises, i.e., the inference is logically valid, in that of deductibility in a logically defined syntactic premise but without there being to any reference to the intended interpretation of its theory. Moreover, as we reason we use the indefinite lore or commonsense set of presuppositions about what it is likely or not a task of an automated reasoning project, which is to mimic this causal use of knowledge of the way of the world in computer programs.
Some ‘theories’ usually emerge as a component position, such as those presented by truth-values determined by truth values of a component thesis, in so doing, the imaginative formation of the metal act is or should be perpetuated of the form or actual existence in the mind for being real nor as it presents itself to the senses as for being non-real, supposed truths that are not organized, making the theory difficult to survey or study as a whole. The axiomatic method is an idea for organizing a theory, one in which tries to select from among the supposed truths a small number from which they can see all others to be deductively inferable. This makes the theory moderately tractable since, in a sense, we have contained all truths in those few. In a theory so organized, we have called the few truths from which we have deductively inferred all others ‘axioms’. David Hilbert (1862-1943) had argued that, just as algebraic and differential equations, which we were used to study mathematical and physical processes, could they be made mathematical objects, so axiomatic theories, like algebraic and differential equations, which are means to representing physical processes and mathematical structures could be of investigation.
According to theory, the philosophy of science, is a generalization or set referring to unobservable entities, e.g., atoms, genes, quarks, unconscious wishes. The ideal gas law, for example, refers only to such observables as pressure, temperature, and volume, the ‘molecular-kinetic theory’ refers to molecules and their properties, . . . although an older usage suggests the lack of adequate evidence in support of it (merely a theory), current philosophical usage does in fact follow in the tradition (as in Leibniz, 1704), as many philosophers had the conviction that all truths, or all truths about a particular domain, followed from as few than for being the greater of governing principles, These self-aggrandizing principles, taken to be either metaphysically prior or epistemologically prior or both. In the first sense, they we took to be entities of such a nature that what exists s ‘caused’ by them. When we took the principles as epistemologically prior, that is, as ‘axioms’, we took them to be either epistemologically privileged, e.g., self-evident, not needing to be demonstrated, or again, included ‘or’, to such that all truths so indeed follow from them, by deductive inferences. Gödel (1984) showed in the spirit of Hilbert, treating axiomatic theories as themselves mathematical objects that mathematics, and even a small part of mathematics, elementary number theory, could not be axiomatized, that more precisely, any class of axioms that is such that we could effectively decide, of any proposition, whether or not it was in that class, would be too small to capture in of the truths.
The notion of truth occurs with remarkable frequency in our reflections on language, thought and action. We are inclined to suppose, for example, that truth is the proper aim of scientific inquiry, that true beliefs help to achieve our goals, that to understand a sentence is to know which circumstances would make it true, that reliable preservation of truth as one argues of valid reasoning, that moral pronouncements should not be regarded as objectively true, and so on. To assess the plausibility of such theses, and to refine them and to explain why they hold (if they do), we require some view of what truth be a theory that would account for its properties and its relations to other matters. Thus, there can be little prospect of understanding our most important faculties in the sentence of a good theory of truth.
The most influential idea in the theory of meaning in the past hundred years is the thesis that the meaning of an indicative sentence is given by its truth-conditions. On this conception, to understand a sentence is to know of its truth-condition. The conception was first clearly formulated by Frége, was developed in a distinctive way by the early Wittgenstein, and is a leading idea of Davidson. The conception has remained so central that those who offer opposing theories characteristically define their position by reference to it.
The conception of meaning as truth-conditions needs not and should not be advanced for being a complete account of meaning. For instance, one who understands a language must have some idea of the range of speech acts conventionally acted by the various types of sentences in the language, and must have some idea of the significance of various kinds of speech acts. The claim of the theorist of truth-conditions should be targeted on the notion of content: If two indicative sentences differ in what they strictly and literally say, then this difference is fully accounted for by the difference in their truth-conditions.
The meaning of a complex expression depends on the meaning of its constituent. This is simply a conscionable statement of what it is for an expression to be semantically complex. It is one initial attraction of the conception of meaning as truth-conditions that it permits a smooth and satisfying account of the way in which the meaning of a complex expression is function of meaning of its constituents. On the truth-conditional conception, to give the meaning of an expression is to state the contribution it makes to the truth-conditions of a sentence in which it occurs. For singular terms - proper names, Indexicals, and certain pronouns - this is done by stating the reference of the term in question. For predicates, it is done either by stating the conditions under which the predicate is true of arbitrary objects, or by stating the conditions under which arbitrary atomic sentences containing it is true. The meaning of a sentence-forming operator is given by stating its contribution to the truth-conditions of a complete sentence, as a function of the semantic values of the sentences on which it operates.
Among the many challenges facing the theorist of truth conditions, two are particularly salient and fundamental. First, the theorist has to answer the charge of triviality or vacuity. Second, the theorist must offer an account of what it is for a person’s language to be truly described by a semantic theory containing a given semantic axiom.
We can take the charge of triviality first, since the content of a claim as made in the sentence sustaining that ‘Paris is beautiful’ is true and amounts to no more than the claim that Paris is beautiful, we can trivially describe understanding a sentence, if we wish, as knowing its truth-conditions, but this gives us no substantive account of understanding whatsoever. Something other than the grasp of truth conditions must provide the substantive account. The charge rests upon what has been called the redundancy theory of truth, the theory that, is somewhat more discriminatively, Horwich calls the minimal theory of true. The minimal theory states that the concept of truth is exhausted by the fact that it conforms to the equivalence principle, the principle that for any proposition ‘p’. It is true that ‘p’ if and only if ‘p’. Many different philosophical theories of truth will, with suitable qualifications, accept that equivalence principle. The distinguishing feature of the minimal theory is its claim that the equivalence principle exhausts the notion of truth. It is now widely accepted, both by opponents and supporters of truth conditional theories of meaning, that it is inconsistent to accept both the minimal theory of truth and a truth conditional account of meaning. In the claim that the sentence, ‘Paris is beautiful’ is true that Paris is beautiful, it is circular to try to explain the sentence’s meaning under its truth conditions. The minimal theory of truth has been endorsed by Ramsey, Ayer, the later Wittgenstein, Quine, Strawson, Horwich, and -confusingly and inconsistently if this is correct- Frége himself. But is the minimal theory correct?
The minimal theory treats instances of the equivalence principle as definitional truth for a given sentence. But in fact it seems that each instance of the equivalence principle can itself be explained. The truth from which such a condition would occur as:
‘London is beautiful’ is true if and only if London is beautiful.
This would be a pseudo-explanation if the fact that ‘London’ refers to London consists in part in the fact that ‘London is beautiful’ has the truth-condition it does. But that is very implausible: It is, after all, possible to align itself with the name, ‘London’ without understanding the predicate ‘is beautiful’.
The defender of the minimalist theory is likely to say that if a sentence ‘S’ of a foreign language is best translated by our sentencer ‘p’, then the foreign sentence ‘S’ is true if and only if ‘p’. Now the best translation of a sentence must preserve the concepts expressed in the sentence. Constraints involving a general notion of truth are pervasive in a plausible philosophical theory of concepts. It is, for example, a condition of adequacy on an individuating account of any concept that there exits what is called a ‘Determination Theory’ for the account - that is, a specification of how the account contributes to fixing the semantic value of that concept. The notion of a concept’s semantic value is the notion of something that makes a certain contribution to the truth conditions of thoughts in which the concept occurs. But this is to presuppose, than to elucidate, a general notion of truth.
It is also plausible that there are general constraints on the form in Determination Theories, constraints that involve truth which is not derivable from the minimalist’s conception. Supposed that concepts are individuated by their possession condition. One such plausible general constraint is then the requirement that when a thinker forms beliefs involving a concept according to its possession condition, a semantic value belief are assigned to the concept so that the belief is true. Some general principles involving truth can indeed, as Horwich has emphasized, be derived from the equivalence schema using minimal logical apparatus. Consider, for instance, the principle that ‘Paris is beautiful and London is beautiful’ is true if and only if ‘Paris is beautiful’ is true and ‘London is beautiful’ is true. This follows logically from the three instances of the equivalence principle: ‘Paris is beautiful and London is beautiful’ is true if and only if Paris is beautiful and London is beautiful: ‘Paris is beautiful’ is true if and only if Paris is beautiful: And ‘London is beautiful’ is true if and only if London is beautiful. But no logical manipulations of the equivalence schema will allow the derivation of that general constraint governing possession conditions, truth and the assignment of semantic values. That constraint can, of course, be regarded as a further elaboration of the idea that truth is one of the aims of judgement.
What is it for a person’s language to be correctly describable by a semantic theory containing a particular axiom? This question may be addressed at two depths of generality. At the shallower level, the question may take for granted the person’s possession of the concept of conjunction, and be concerned with what has to be true for the axiom to describe his language correctly. At a deeper level, an answer should not duck the issue of what it is to possess the concept. The answers to both questions are of great interest. When a person mans conjunction by ‘and’, he could not formulate the axiom. Even if he can formulate it, his ability to formulate it is not the casual basis of his capacity to hear sentences containing the word ‘and’ as meaning something involving conjunction by sentences he utters containing the word ‘and’. Is it then right to regard a truth theory as part of an unconscious psychological computation, and to regard understanding a sentence involving a particular way of deriving a theorem from a truth theory at some level of unconscious processing? One problem with this is that it is quite implausible that everyone who speaks the same language has to use the same algorithms for computing the meaning of a sentence. In the past thirteen years, a conception has evolved according to which an axiom is true of a person’s language only if there is a common component in the explanation of his understanding of each sentence containing the word ‘and’, a common component that explains why each such sentence is understood as meaning something involving conjunction (Davies, 1987). What conception can also be elaborated in computational terms? It is to suggest for an axiom to be true of a person’s language is for the unconscious mechanisms that produce understanding to draw n the information that a sentence of the form ‘A’ and ‘B’ are true if and only if ‘A’ is true and ‘B’ is true (Peacocke, 1986). Many different algorithms may equally draw on this information. The psychological reality of a semantic theory thus involves, in Marr’s (1982) classification, something intermediate between his level one, the function computed, and his level two, the algorithm by which it is computed. Thus, its conception of the psychological reality of a semantic theory can be applied to syntactic and phonological theories. Theories in semantics, syntax and phonology are not themselves required to specifically particular algorithms that the language user employs. The identification of the particular computational methods employed is a task for psychology. But semantic, syntactic and phonological theorists are answerable to psychological data, and are potentially refutable by them - for these linguistic theories do make commitments to the information drawn upon by mechanisms in the language user.
This answer to the question of what it is for an axiom to be true of a person’s language clearly takes for granted the person’s possession of the concept expressed by the word translated by the axiom. In this example, the information drawn upon is those sentences of the form ‘A’ and ‘B’ are true if and only if ‘A’ is true and ‘B’ is true. This informational content employs, as I, to am adequate, the concept of conjunction used in stating the meaning of sentences containing ‘and’. So the computational answer we have returned needs further elaboration if we are to address the deeper question, which does not want to take for granted possession of the concepts expressed in the language. It is at this point is the theory of linguistic understanding to draw upon a theory of concepts. This is only part of what is involved in the required dovetailing. Given what we have already said about the uniform explanation of the understanding of the various occurrences of a given weird, we should also add that there is a uniform (unconscious, computational) explanation of the language user’s willingness to make the corresponding transition involving the sentence ‘A’ and ‘B’.
Our thinking, and our perceptions of the world about us, is limited by the nature of the language that our culture employs, instead of language possessing, as had previously been widely assumed, much less significant, purely instrumental, function in our living. Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language that has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The consideration is that the ‘real world’ is, largely, unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group, we see and hear and otherwise we experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.
Such a thing, however, has been notoriously elusive. The ancient idea that truth is some sort of ‘correspondence with reality’ has still never been articulated satisfactorily, and the nature of the alleged ‘correspondence’ and the alleged ‘reality’ remain objectionably obscure. Yet the familiar alternative suggestions that true beliefs are those that are ‘mutually coherent’, or ‘pragmatically useful’, or ‘verifiable in suitable conditions’ has each been confronted with persuasive counterexamples. A twentieth-century departure from these traditional analyses is the view that truth is not a property at all that the syntactic form of the predicate, ‘is true’, distorts its really semantic character, which is not to describe propositions but to endorse them. However, this radical approach is also faced with difficulties and suggests, quasi counter intuitively, that truth cannot have the vital theoretical role in semantics, epistemology and elsewhere that we are naturally inclined to give it. Thus, truth threatens to remain one of the most enigmatic of notions: An explicit account of it can seem essential yet beyond our reach. However, recent work provides some grounds for optimism.
We have based a theory in philosophy of science, is a generalization or set as concerning observable entities, i.e., atoms, quarks, unconscious wish, and so on. The ideal gas law, for example, refers only to such observables as pressure, temperature, and volume, the molecular-kinetic theory refers top molecules and their properties, although an older usage suggests the lack of adequate evidence in support of it (merely a theory), progressive toward its sage; the usage does not carry that connotation. Einstein’s special; Theory of relativity, for example, is considered extremely well founded.
These are two main views on the nature of theories. According to the ‘received view’ theories are partially interpreted axiomatic systems, according to the semantic view, a theory is a collection of models (Suppe, 1974). Under which, some theories usually emerge as exemplifying or occurring in fact, from which are we to find on practical matters and concern of experiencing the real world, nonetheless, that it of supposed truths that are not neatly organized, making the theory difficult to survey or study as a whole. The axiomatic method is an ideal for organizing a theory (Hilbert, 1970), one tries to select from among the supposed truths a small number from which all the others can be seen to be deductively inferable. This makes the theory more tractable since, in a sense, they contain all truth’s in those few. In a theory so organized, they call the few truths from which they deductively infer all others ‘axioms’. David Hilbert (1862-1943) had argued that, just as algebraic and differential equations, which were used to study mathematical and physical processes, could they be made mathematical objects, so we could make axiomatic theories, like algebraic and differential equations, which are means of representing physical processes and mathematical structures, objects of mathematical investigation.
Many philosophers had the conviction that all truths, or all truths about a particular domain, followed from a few principles. These principles were taken to be either metaphysically prior or epistemologically prior or both. In the first sense, we took them to be entities of such a nature that what exists is ‘caused’ by them. When we took the principles as epistemologically prior, that is, as ‘axioms’, we took them to be either epistemologically privileged, i.e., self-evident, not needing to be demonstrated, or again, inclusive ‘or’, to be such that all truths do indeed follow from them, by means of deductive inferences. Gödel (1984) showed in the spirit of Hilbert, treating axiomatic theories as themselves mathematical objects that mathematics, and even a small part. Of mathematics, elementary number theory, could not be axiomatized, that, more precisely, any class of axioms that is such that we could effectively decide, of any proposition, whether or not it was in that class, would be too small to capture all of the truths.
The notion of truth occurs with remarkable frequency in our reflections on language, thought, and action. We are inclined to suppose, for example, that truth is the proper aim of scientific inquiry, that true beliefs help ‘us’ to achieve our goals, that to understand a sentence is to know which circumstances would make it true, that reliable preservation of truth as one argues from premises to a conclusion is the mark of valid reasoning, that we should not regard moral pronouncements as objectively true, and so on. To assess the plausible of such theses, and to refine them and to explain why they hold (if they do), we require some view of what truth be a theory that would account for its properties and its relations to other matters. Thus, there can be little prospect of understanding our most important faculties lacking a good theory of truth.
The nature of the alleged ‘correspondence’ and the alleged ‘reality remains objectivably obscures’. Yet, the familiar alternative suggests, ~ that true beliefs are those that are ‘mutually coherent’, or ‘pragmatically useful’, or ‘they establish by induction of each to a confronted Verifiability in some suitable conditions with persuasive counterexamples. A twentieth-century departure from these traditional analyses is the view that truth is not a property at all ~. That the syntactic form of the predicate, ‘is true’, distorts its really semantic character, which is not to describe propositions but to endorse them. Nevertheless, they have also faced this radical approach with difficulties and suggest, a counter intuitively, that truth cannot have the vital theoretical role in semantics, epistemology and elsewhere that we are naturally inclined to give it. Thus, truth threatens to remain one of the most enigmatic of notions, and an explicit account of it can seem essential yet, beyond our reach. However, recent work provides some grounds for optimism.
The belief that snow is white owes its truth to a certain feature of the external world, namely, to the fact that snow is white. Similarly, the belief that dogs bark is true because of the fact that dogs bark. This trivial observation leads to what is perhaps the most natural and popular account of truth, the ‘correspondence theory’, according to which a belief (statement, a sentence, propositions, etc.) as true just in case there exists a fact corresponding to it (Wittgenstein, 1922). This thesis is unexceptionably for finding out whether one should account of truth are that it is clearly compared with the correspondence theory, and that it succeeds in connecting truth with verification. However, if it is to provide a rigorous, substantial and complete theory of truth ~. If it is to be more than merely a picturesque way of asserting all equivalences to the form:
The belief that ‘p’ is ‘true p’.
Then we must supplement it with accounts of what facts are, and what it is for a belief to correspond to a fact, and these are the problems on which the correspondence theory of truth has foundered. For one thing, it is far form clear that reducing ‘the belief achieves any significant gain in understanding that ‘snow is white is true’ to ‘the facts that ‘snow is white’ exists’: For these expressions seem equally resistant to analysis and too close in meaning for one to provide an illuminating account of the other. In addition, the general relationship that holds in particular between the belief that snow is white and the simple fact is, that snow is white, between the belief that dogs bark and the fact that dogs bark, and so on, is very hard to identify. The best attempt to date is Wittgenstein’s (1922) so-called ‘picture theory’, under which an elementary proposition is a configuration of terms, with whatever stare of affairs it reported, as an atomic fact is a configuration of simple objects, an atomic fact corresponds to an elementary proposition (and makes it true) when their configurations are identical and when the terms in the proposition for it to the similarly-placed objects in the fact, and the truth value of each complex proposition the truth values of the elementary ones have entailed. However, even if this account is correct as far as it goes, it would need to be completed with plausible theories of ‘logical configuration’, ‘elementary proposition’, ‘reference’ and ‘entailment’, none of which is easy to come by way of the central characteristic of truth. One that any adequate theory must explain is that when a proposition satisfies its ‘conditions of proof or verification’, then it is regarded as true. To the extent that the property of corresponding with reality is mysterious, we are going to find it impossible to see what we take to verify a proposition should indicate the possession of that property. Therefore, a tempting alternative to the correspondence theory an alternative that eschews obscure, metaphysical concept which explains quite straightforwardly why Verifiability implies, truth is simply to identify truth with Verifiability (Peirce, 1932). This idea can take on variously formed. One version involves the further assumption that verification is ‘holistic’, i.e., that of a belief is justified (i.e., turn over evidence of the truth) when it is part of an entire system of beliefs that are consistent and ‘harmonious’ (Bradley, 1914 and Hempel, 1935). We have known this as the ‘coherence theory of truth’. Another version involves the assumption associated with each proposition, some specific procedure for finding out whether one should on sensing and responding to the definitive qualities or stare of being actual or true, such that a person, an entity, or an event, that is actually might be gainfully to employ the totality of things existent of possessing actuality or essence. On this account, to say that a proposition is true is to sa that the appropriate procedure would verify (Dummett, 1979, and Putnam, 1981). From mathematics this amounts to the identification of truth with probability.
The attractions of the verificationist account of truth are that it is refreshingly clear compared with the correspondence theory, and that it succeeds in connecting truth with verification. The trouble is that the bond it postulates between these notions is implausibly strong. We do indeed take verification to indicate truth, but also we recognize the possibility that a proposition may be false in spite of there being impeccable reasons to believe it, and that a proposition may be true although we are not able to discover that it is. Verifiability and ruth are no doubt highly correlated, but surely not the same thing.
A well-known account of truth is known as ‘pragmatism’ (James, 1909 and Papineau, 1987). As we have just seen, the verificationist selects a prominent property of truth and considers it the essence of truth. Similarly, the pragmatist focuses on another important characteristic namely, that true belief is a good basis for action and takes this to be the very nature of truth. We have said that true assumptions were, by definition, those that provoke actions with desirable results. Again, we have an account with a single attractive explanatory feature, but again, it postulates between truth and its alleged analysand then, utility is implausibly close. Granted, true belief tends to foster success, but it happens regularly that actions based on true beliefs lead to disaster, while false assumptions, by pure chance, produce wonderful results.
One of the few uncontroversial facts about truth is that the proposition that snow is white if and only if snow is white, the proposition that lying is wrong is true if and only if lying is wrong, and so on. Traditional theories acknowledge this fact but regard it as insufficient and, as we have seen, inflate it with some further principle of the form, ‘x is true’ if and only if ‘x’ has property ‘p’ (such as corresponding to reality, Verifiability, or being suitable as a basis for action), which is supposed to specify what truth is. Some radical alternatives to the traditional theories result from denying the need for any such further specification (Ramsey, 1927, Strawson, 1950 and Quine, 1990). For example, ne might suppose that the basic theory of truth contains nothing more that equivalences of the form, ‘The proposition that ‘p’ is true if and only if ‘p’ (Horwich, 1990).
This sort of proposal is best presented with an account of the ‘raison de étre’ of our notion of truth, namely that it enables ‘us ’ to express attitudes toward these propositions we can designate but not explicitly formulate. Suppose, for example, they tell you that Einstein’s last words expressed a claim about physics, an area in which you think he was very reliable. Suppose that, unknown to you, his claim was the proposition whose quantum mechanics are wrong. What conclusion can you draw? Exactly which proposition becomes the appropriate object of your belief? Surely not that quantum mechanics are wrong, because you are not aware that is what he said. What we have needed is something equivalent to the infante conjunction:
If what Einstein said was that E = mc2, then E = mc2,
and if that he said as that Quantum mechanics were
wrong, then Quantum mechanics are wrong. . . . And so on?
That is, a proposition, ‘K’ with the following properties, that from ‘K’ and any further premises of the form. ‘Einstein’s claim was the proposition that p’ you can infer p’. Whatever it is. Now suppose, as the deflationist says, that our understanding of the truth predicate consists in the stimulative decision to accept any instance of the schema. ‘The proposition that ‘p; is true if and only if ‘p’, then we have solved your problem? For ‘K’ is the proposition, ‘Einstein’s claim is true ’, it will have precisely the inferential power that we have needed. From it and ‘Einstein’s claim is the proposition that quantum mechanics are wrong’, you can use Leibniz’s law to infer ‘The proposition that quantum mechanic is wrong is true, which given the relevant axiom of the deflationary theory, allows you to derive ‘Quantum mechanics is wrong’. Thus, one point in favour of the deflationary theory is that it squares with a plausible story about the function of our notion of truth, in that its axioms explain that function without the need for further analysis of ‘what truth ‘is’.
Not all variants of deflationism have this virtue, according to the redundancy performative theory of truth, implicate a pair of sentences, ‘The proposition that ‘p’ is true’ and plain ‘p’s’, has the same meaning and expresses the same statement as one and another, so it is a syntactic illusion to think that p is true’ attributes any sort of property to a proposition (Ramsey, 1927 and Strawson, 1950). Nonetheless, it becomes hard to explain why we are entitled to infer ‘The proposition that quantum mechanics are wrong is true’ form ‘Einstein’s claim is the proposition that quantum mechanics are wrong. ‘Einstein’s claim is true’. For if truth is not property, then we can no longer account for the inference by invoking the law that if ‘x’, appears identical with ‘Y’ then any property of ‘x’ is a property of ‘Y’, and vice versa. Thus the redundancy/performative theory, by identifying rather than merely correlating the contents of ‘The proposition that ‘p’ is true’ and ‘p’, precludes the prospect of a good explanation of one on truth’s most significant and useful characteristics. So restricting our claim to the ineffectually weak, accedes of a favourable Equivalence schematic: The proposition that ‘p’ is true is and is only ‘p’.
Support for deflationism depends upon the possibility of showing that its axiom instances of the equivalence schema unsupplements by any further analysis, will suffice to explain all the central facts about truth, for example, that the verification of a proposition indicates its truth, and that true beliefs have a practical value. The first of these facts follows trivially from the deflationary axioms, for given a deductive assimilation to knowledge of the equivalence of ‘p’ and ‘The proposition that ‘p is true’, any reason to believe that ‘p’ becomes an equally good reason to believe that the preposition that ‘p’ is true. We can also explain the second fact as to the deflationary axioms, but not quite so easily. Consider, to begin with, beliefs of the form:
(B) If I perform the act ‘A’, then my desires will be fulfilled.
Notice that the psychological role of such a belief is, roughly, to cause the performance of ‘A’. In other words, gave that I do have belief (B), then typically, I will perform the act ‘A’. Notice also that when the belief is true then, given the deflationary axioms, the performance of ‘A’ will in fact lead to the fulfilment of one’s desires, i.e., If (B) is true, then if I perform ‘A’, my desires will be fulfilled. Therefore: If (B) is true, then my desires will be fulfilled. So valuing the truth of beliefs of that form is quite reasonable. Nevertheless, inference derives such beliefs from other beliefs and can be expected to be true if those other beliefs are true. So valuing the truth of any belief that might be used in such an inference is reasonable.
To the extent that they can give such deflationary accounts of all the acts involving truth, then the collection will meet the explanatory demands on a theory of truth of all statements like, ‘The proposition that snow is white is true if and only if snow is white, and we will undermine the sense that we need some deep analysis of truth.
Nonetheless, there are several strongly felt objections to deflationism. One reason for dissatisfaction is that the theory has many axioms, and therefore cannot be completely written down. It can be described as the theory whose axioms are the propositions of the fore ‘p if and only if it is true that p’, but not explicitly formulated. This alleged defect has led some philosophers to develop theories that show, first, how the truth of any proposition derives from the referential properties of its constituents, and second, how the referential properties of primitive constituents are determined (Tarski, 1943 and Davidson, 1969). However, assuming that all propositions including belief attributions remain controversial, law of nature and counterfactual conditionals depends for their truth values on what their constituents refer to. Moreover, there is no immediate prospect of a decent, finite theory of reference, so that it is far form clear that the infinite, that we can avoid list-like character of deflationism.
Another source of dissatisfaction with this theory is that certain instances of the equivalence schema are clearly false. Consider.
(a) THE PROPOSITION EXPRESSED BY THE SENTENCE
IN CAPITAL LETTERS IN NOT TRUE.
Substituting this into the schema one gets a version of the ‘liar’ paradox: Specifically: (b) The proposition that the proposition expressed by the sentence in capital letters is not true is true if and only if the proposition expressed by the sentence in capital letters are not true.
From which a contradiction is easily derivable. (Given (b), the supposition that (a) is true implies that (a) is not true, and the supposition that it is not true that it is.) Consequently, not every instance of the equivalence schema can be included in the theory of truth, but it is no simple matter to specify the ones to be excluded. In "Naming and Necessity" (1980), Kripler gave the classical modern treatment of the topic reference, both clarifying the distinction between names and definite descriptions, and opening the door to many subsequent attempts to understand the notion of reference in terms and an original episode of attaching a name to a subject. Of course, deflationism is far from alone in having to confront this problem.
A third objection to the version of the deflationary theory presented here concerns its reliance on ‘propositions’ as the basic vehicles of truth. It is widely felt that the notion of the proposition is defective and that we should not employ it in semantics. If this point of view is accepted then the natural deflationary reaction is to attempt a reformation that would appeal only to sentences, for example:
‘p’ is true if and only if p.
Nevertheless, this so-called ‘disquotational theory of truth’ (Quine, 1990) has trouble over Indexicals, demonstratives and other terms whose referents vary with the context of use. It is not true, for example, that every instance of ‘I am hungry’ is true and only if ‘I am hungry’. There is no simple way of modifying the disquotational schema to accommodate this problem. A possible way of these difficulties is to resist the critique of propositions. Such entities may exhibit an unwelcome degree of indeterminancy, and might defy reduction to familiar items, however, they do offer a plausible account of belief, as relations to propositions, and, in ordinary language at least, we indeed take them to be the primary bearers of truth. To believe a proposition is too old for it to be true. The philosophical problem includes discovering whether belief differs from other varieties of assent, such as ‘acceptance’, discovering to what extent degrees of belief are possible, understanding the ways in which belief is controlled by rational and irrational factors, and discovering its links with other properties, such as the possession of conceptual or linguistic skills. This last set of problems includes the question of whether they have properly said that prelinguistic infants or animals have beliefs.
Additionally, it is commonly supposed that problems about the nature of truth are intimately bound up with questions as to the accessibility and autonomy of facts in various domains: Questions about whether we can know the facts, and whether they can exist independently of our capacity to discover them (Dummett, 1978, and Putnam, 1981). One might reason, for example, that if ‘t is true’ means’ nothing more than ‘t will be verified’, then certain forms of scepticism, specifically, those that doubt the correctness of our methods of verification, that will be precluded, and that the facts will have been revealed as dependent on human practices. Alternatively, we might say that if truth were an inexplicable, primitive, non-epistemic property, then the fact that ‘t’ is true would be completely independent of ‘us’. Moreover, we could, there, have no reason to assume that the propositions we believe actually have tis property, so scepticism would be unavoidable. In a similar vein, we might think that as special, and perhaps undesirable features of the deflationary approach, is that we have deprived truth of such metaphysical or epistemological implications.
On closer scrutiny, however, it is far from clear that there exists ‘any’ account of truth with consequences regarding the accessibility or autonomy of non-semantic matters. For although we may expect an account of truth to have such implications for facts of the from ‘t is true’, we cannot assume without further argument that the same conclusions will apply to the fact ’t’. For it cannot be assumed that ‘t’ and ‘t are true’ nor, are they equivalent to one and another, explained ‘true’, from which is being employed. Of course, if we have distinguishable truth in the way that the deflationist proposes, then the equivalence holds by definition. However, if reference to some metaphysical or epistemological characteristic has defined truth, then we throw the equivalence schema into doubt, pending some demonstration that the true predicate, in the sense assumed, it will be satisfied insofar, as there are thought to be epistemological problems hanging over ‘t’ that does not threaten ‘t is true’, giving the needed demonstration will be difficult. Similarly, if we so define ‘truth’ that the fact, ‘t’ is felt to be more, or less, independent of human practices than the fact that ‘t is true’, then again, it is unclear that the equivalence schema will hold. It seems. Therefore, that the attempt to base epistemological or metaphysical conclusions on a theory of truth must fail because in any such attempt we will simultaneously rely on and undermine the equivalence schema.
The most influential idea in the theory of meaning in the past hundred yeas is the thesis that meaning of an indicative sentence is given by its truth-conditions. On this conception, to understand a judgment of conviction, as given the responsibility of a sentence, is to know its truth-conditions. The conception was first clearly formulated by Frége (1848-1925), was developed in a distinctive way by the early Wittgenstein (1889-1951), and is a leading idea of Davidson (1917-). The conception has remained so central that those who offer opposing theories characteristically define their position by reference to it.
The conception of meaning as truth-conditions needs not and should not be advanced as a complete account of meaning. For instance, one who understands a language must have some idea of the range of speech acts conventionally performed by the various types of a sentence in the language, and must have some idea of the significance of various kinds of speech acts. We should moderately target the claim of the theorist of truth-conditions on the notion of content: If two indicative sentences differ in what they strictly and literally say, then the difference accounts for this difference in their truth-conditions. Most basic to truth-conditions is simply of a statement that is the condition the world must meet if the statement is to be true. To know this condition is equivalent to knowing the meaning of the statement. Although this sounds as if it gives a solid anchorage for meaning, some security disappears when it turns out that repeating the very same statement can only define the truth condition, as a truth condition of ‘snow is white’ is that snow is white, the truth condition of ‘Britain would have capitulated had Hitler invaded’ is the Britain would have capitulated had Hitler invaded. It is disputed wether. This element of running-on-the-spot disqualifies truth conditions from playing the central role in a substantive theory of meaning. The view has sometimes opposed truth-conditional theories of meaning that to know the meaning of a statement is to be able to use it in a network of inferences.
Whatever it is that makes, what would otherwise be mere sounds and inscriptions into instruments of communication and understanding. The philosophical problem is to demystify this power, and to relate it to what we know of ourselves and the world. Contributions to the study include the theory of ‘speech acts’ and the investigation of communication and the relationship between words and ideas and the world and surrounding surfaces, by which some persons express by a sentence often vary with the environment in which he or she is placed. For example, the disease I refer to by a term like ‘arthritis’ or the kind of tree I call an ‘oak’ will be defined by criteria of which I know next to nothing. The raises the possibility of imagining two persons in moderate differently environmental, but in which everything appears the same to each of them, but between them they define a space of philosophical problems. They are the essential components of understanding nd any intelligible proposition that is true can be understood. Such that which an utterance or sentence expresses, the proposition or claim made about the world may by extension, the content of a predicated or other sub-sentential component is what it contributes to the content of sentences that contain it. The nature of content is the cental concern of the philosophy of language.
In particularly, the problems of indeterminancy of translation, inscrutability of reference, language, predication, reference, rule following, semantics, translation, and the topics referring to subordinate headings associated with ‘logic’. The loss of confidence in determinate meaning (from each individualized decoding is another individual encoding) is an element common both to postmodern uncertainties in the theory of criticism, and to the analytic tradition that follows writers such as Quine (1908-). Still it may be asked, why should we suppose that we should account fundamental epistemic notions for in behavioural terms what grounds are there for assuming ‘p knows p’ is a matter of the status of its statement between some subject and some object, between nature and its mirror? The answer is that the only alternative might be to take knowledge of inner states as premises from which we have normally inferred our knowledge of other things, and without which we have normally inferred our knowledge of other things, and without which knowledge would be ungrounded. However, it is not really coherent, and does not in the last analysis make sense, to suggest that human knowledge have foundations or grounds. We should remember that to say that truth and knowledge ‘can only be judged by the standards of our own day’ which is not to say, that it is less important, or ‘more ‘cut off from the world’, that we had supposed. It is just to say, that nothing counts as justification, unless by reference to what we already accept, and that there is no way to get outside our beliefs and our language to find some test other than coherence. The characterlogical characteristic is that the professional philosophers have thought it might be otherwise, since the body has haunted only them of epistemological scepticism.
What Quine opposes as ‘residual Platonism’ is not so much the hypostasising of nonphysical entities as the notion of ‘correspondence’ with things as the final court of appeal for evaluating present practices. Unfortunately, Quine, for all that it is incompatible with its basic insights, substitutes for this correspondence to physical entities, and specially to the basic entities, whatever they turn out to be, of physical science. Nevertheless, when we have purified their doctrines, they converge on a single claim ~, that no account of knowledge can depend on the assumption of some privileged relations to reality. Their work brings out why an account of knowledge can amount only to a description of human behaviour.
What, then, is to be said of these ‘inner states’, and of the direct reports of them that have played so important a role in traditional epistemology? For a person to feel is nothing else than for him to be able to make a certain type of non-inferential report, to attribute feelings to infants is to acknowledge in them latent abilities of this innate kind. Non-conceptual, non-linguistic ‘knowledge’ of what feelings or sensations is like is attributively to beings from potential membership of our community. We comment upon infants and the more attractive animals with having feelings based on that spontaneous sympathy that we extend to anything humanoid, in contrast with the mere response to stimuli, attributed to photoelectric cells and to animals about which no one feels sentimentally. Assuming moral prohibition against hurting infants is consequently wrong and the better-looking animals are that those moral prohibitions grounded’ in their possession of feelings. The relation of dependence is really the other way round. Similarly, we could not be mistaken in assuming a four-year-old child has knowledge, but no one-year-old, any more than we could be mistaken in taking the word of a statute that eighteen-year-old can marry freely but seventeen-year-old cannot. There is no more ‘ontological ground’ for the distinction that may suit ‘us’ to make in the former case than in the later. Again, such a question as ‘Are robots’ conscious?’ Calling for a decision on our part whether or not to treat robots as members of our linguistic community. All this is a piece with the insight brought intro philosophy by Hegel (1770-1831), that the individual apart from his society is just another animal.
Willard van Orman Quine, the most influential American philosopher of the latter half of the 20th century, when after the wartime period in naval intelligence, punctuating the rest of his career with extensive foreign lecturing and travel. Quine’s early work was on mathematical logic, and issued in ‘A System of Logistic’ (1934), ‘Mathematical Logic’ (1940), and ‘Methods of Logic’ (1950), whereby it was with the collection of papers from a “Logical Point of View” (1953) that his philosophical importance became widely recognized. Quine’s work dominated concern with problems of convention, meaning, and synonymy cemented by “Word and Object” (1960), in which the indeterminancy of radical translation first takes centre-stage. In this and many subsequent writings Quine takes a bleak view of the nature of the language with which we ascribe thoughts and beliefs to ourselves and others. These ‘intentional idioms’ resist smooth incorporation into the scientific world view, and Quine responds with scepticism toward them, not quite endorsing ‘eliminativism’, but regarding them as second-rate idioms, unsuitable for describing strict and literal facts. For similar reasons he has consistently expressed suspicion of the logical and philosophical propriety of appeal to logical possibilities and possible worlds. The languages that are properly behaved and suitable for literal and true descriptions of the world happen to those within the fields that draw upon mathematics and science. We must take the entities to which our best theories refer with full seriousness in our ontologies, although an empiricist. Quine thus supposes that science requires the abstract objects of set theory, and therefore exist. In the theory of knowledge Quine associated with a ‘holistic view’ of verification, conceiving of a body of knowledge as for a web touching experience at the periphery, but with each point connected by a network of relations to other points.
They have also known Quine for the view that we should naturalize, or conduct epistemology in a scientific spirit, with the object of investigation being the relationship, in human beings, between the inputs of experience and the outputs of belief. Although we have attacked Quine’s approaches to the major problems of philosophy as betraying undue ‘scientism’ and sometimes ‘behaviourism’, the clarity of his vision and the scope of his writing made him the major focus of Anglo-American work of the past forty years in logic, semantics, and epistemology. And the works cited his writings’ cover “The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays” (1966), “Ontological Relativity and Other Essays” (1969), “Philosophy of Logic” (1970), “The Roots of Reference” (1974) and “The Time of My Life: An Autobiography” (1985).
Coherence is a major player in the theatre of knowledge. There are cogence theories of belief, truth and justification, as these are to combine themselves in the various ways to yield theories of knowledge coherence theories of belief are concerned with the content of beliefs. Consider a belief you now have, the beliefs that you are reading a page in a book, in so, that what makes that belief the belief that it is? What makes it the belief that you are reading a page in a book than the belief that you have a creature of some sort in the garden?
One answer is that the belief has a coherent place or role in a system of beliefs, perception or the having the perceptivity that has its influence on beliefs. As, you respond to sensory stimuli by believing that you are reading a page in a book than believing that you have some sorted creature in the garden. Belief has an influence on action, or its belief is a desire to act, if belief will differentiate the differences between them, that its belief is a desire or if you were to believe that you are reading a page than if you believed in something about a creature. Sortal perceptivals hold accountably the perceptivity and action that are indeterminate to its content if its belief is the action as if stimulated by its inner and latent coherence in that of your belief, however. The same stimuli may produce various beliefs and various beliefs may produce the same action. The role that gives the belief the content it has is the role it plays upon a network of relations to other beliefs, some latently causal than others that relate to the role in inference and implication. For example, I infer different things from believing that I am reading a page in a book than from any other belief, justly as I infer about other beliefs form.
The input of perceptibility and the output of an action supplement the central role of the systematic relations the belief has to other beliefs, but the systematic relations give the belief the specific contentual representation it has. They are the fundamental source of the content of belief. That is how coherence comes in. A belief has the representational content by which it does because of the way in which it coheres within a system of beliefs (Rosenberg, 1988). We might distinguish weak coherence theories of the content of beliefs from stronger coherence theories. Weak coherence theories affirm that coherence is one determinant of the representation given that the contents are of belief. Strong coherence theories of the content of belief affirm that coherence is the sole determinant of the contentual representations of belief.
When we turn from belief to justification, we confront a similar group of coherence theories. What makes one belief justified and another not? Again, there is a distinction between weak and strong theoretic principles that govern its theory of coherence. Weak theories tell ‘us’ that the way in which a belief coheres with a background system of beliefs is one determinant of justification, other typical determinants being perception, memory, and intuitively strong theories, or dominant projections are in coherence to justification as solely a matter of how a belief coheres with a system of latent hierarchal beliefs. There is, nonetheless, another distinction that cuts across the distinction between weak and strong coherence theories between positive and negative coherence theory (Pollock, 1986). A positive coherence theory tells ‘us’ that if a belief coheres with a background system of belief, then the belief is justifiable. A negative coherence theory tells ‘us’ that if a belief fails to cohere with a background system of beliefs, then the belief is not justifiable. We might put this by saying that, according to the positivity of a coherence theory, coherence has the power to produce justification, while according to its being adhered by negativity, the coherence theory has only the power to nullify justification.
Least of mention, a strong coherence theory of justification is a formidable combination by which a positive and a negative theory tell ‘us’ that a belief is justifiable if and only if it coheres with a background system of inter-connectivity of beliefs. Coherence theories of justification and knowledge have most often been rejected for being unable to deal with an accountable justification toward the perceptivity upon the projection of knowledge (Audi, 1988, and Pollock, 1986), and, therefore, considering a perceptual example that will serve as a kind of crucial test will be most appropriate. Suppose that a person, call her Julie, and works with a scientific instrumentation that has a gauging measure upon temperatures of liquids in a container. The gauge is marked in degrees, she looks at the gauge and sees that the reading is 105 degrees. What is she justifiably to believe, and why? Is she, for example, justified in believing that the liquid in the container is 105 degrees? Clearly, that depends on her background beliefs. A weak coherence theorist might argue that, though her belief that she sees the shape 105 is immediately justified as direct sensory evidence without appeal to a background system, the belief that the location in the container is 105 degrees results from coherence with a background system of latent beliefs that affirm to the shaping perceptivity that its 105 as visually read to be 105 degrees on the gauge that measures the temperature of the liquid in the container. This, nonetheless, of a weak coherence view that combines coherence with direct perceptivity as its evidence, in that the foundation of justification, is to account for the justification of our beliefs.
A strong coherence theory would go beyond the claim of the weak coherence theory to affirm that the justification of all beliefs, including the belief that one sees the shaping to sensory data that holds accountable a measure of 105, or even the more cautious belief that one sees a shape, resulting from the perceptivals of coherence theory, in that it coheres with a background system. One may argue for this strong coherence theory in several different ways. One line or medium through which to appeal to the coherence theory of contentual representations. If the content of the perceptual belief results from the relations of the belief to other beliefs in a network system of beliefs, then one may notably argue that justification thoroughly rests upon the resultants’ findings in relation to the belief been no other than the beliefs of a furthering network system of coordinate beliefs. In face value, the argument for the strong coherence theory is that without any assumptive grasp for reason, in that the coherence theories of content are directed of beliefs and are supposing causes that only produce of a consequent, of which we already expect. Consider the very cautious belief that I see a shape. How could the justification for that perceptual belief be an existent result that they characterize of its material coherence with a background system of beliefs? What might the background system of expression that ‘we’ would justify that belief? Our background system contains a simple and primal theory about our relationship to the world and surrounding surfaces that we perceive as it is or should be believed. To come to the specific point at issue, we believe that we can tell a shape when we see one, completely differentiated its form as perceived to sensory data, that we are to trust of ourselves about such simple matters as wether we see a shape before ‘us’ or not, as in the acceptance of opening to nature the inter-connectivity between belief and the progression through which we acquire from past experiential conditions of application, and not beyond deception. Moreover, when Julie sees the believing desire to act upon what either coheres with a weak or strong coherence of theory, she shows that its belief, as a measurable quality or entity of 105, has the essence in as much as there is much more of a structured distinction of circumstance, which is not of those that are deceptive about whether she sees that shape or sincerely does not see of its shaping distinction, however. Light is good, and the numeral shapes are large, readily discernible and so forth. These are beliefs that Julie has single handedly authenticated reasons for justification. Her successive malignance to sensory access to data involved is justifiably a subsequent belief, in that with those beliefs, and so she is justified and creditable.
The philosophical problems include discovering whether belief differs from other varieties of assent, such as ‘acceptance’ discovering to what extent degrees of belief is possible, understanding the ways in which belief is controlled by rational and irrational factors, and discovering its links with other properties, such as the possession of conceptual or linguistic skills. This last set of problems includes the question of whether we have properly said that prelinguistic infants or animals have beliefs.
Thus, we might think of coherence as inference to the best explanation based on a background system of beliefs, since we are not aware of such inferences for the most part, we must interpret the inferences as unconscious inferences, as information processing, based on or accessing the background system that proves most convincing of acquiring its act and used from the motivational force that its underlying and hidden desire are to do so.
Inference to the best explanation, can justify beliefs about the external world, the past, theoretical entities in science, and even the future. Consider belief about the external world and assume that we know what we do about the external world through our knowledge of our subjective and fleeting sensations. It seems obvious that we cannot deduce any truths about the existence of physical objects from truths describing the character of our sensations. But neither can we observe a correlation between sensations and something other than sensations since by hypothesis all we ever have to rely on ultimately is knowledge of our sensation. Nevertheless, we may be abler to posit physical objects as the best explanation for the character and order of our sensations. In this way, various hypotheses about the past might best explain present memory, theoretical postulates in physics might best explain phenomena in the macro-world, and it is even possible that our access to the future is through universal laws formulated to explain past observations. But what is the form of an inference to the best explanation?
It is natural to desire a better characterization of inference, but attempts to do so by constructing a fuller psychological explanation fail to comprehend the grounds on which inferences will be objectively valid -a point elaborately made by Frége. And attempts to understand the nature of inference better though the device of the representation of inference by formal-logical calculations or derivations. (1) Leave us puzzled about the relation of formal-logical derivations to the informal inferences they are supposed to represent or reconstruct, and (2) leaves us worried about the sense of such formal derivations. Are these derivations inferences? And are not informal inferences needed to apply the rules governing the constructions of formal derivation (inferring that this operation is an application of that formal rule?). It is usual to find it said that, an inference is a (perhaps very complex) act of thought by virtue of which act (1) I pass from a set of one or more propositions or statements to a proposition or statement and (2) it appears that the latter are true if the former is or are. This psychological characterization has had to encounter the literature under more or less inessential variations. And attempts to understand the nature of inference through the device of the representation of inference by formal-logical calculations or derivations better. Are such that these derivation’s inferences? And aren’t informal inferences needed to apply the rules governing the constructions of formal derivations (inferring that this operation in an application of that formal rule)? These are concerns cultivated by, for example, Wittgenstein.
Coming up with an adequate characterization of inference -and even working out what would count as an adequate characterization is hard and hardly near a solved philosophical problem.
Let us suppose that there is some property ‘A’ pertaining to an observational or experimental situation, and that out of several of observed instances of ‘A’, some fraction m/n (possibly equal to 1) has also been instances of some logically independent property ‘B’. Suppose further that the background circumstances not specified in these descriptions have been varied to a substantial degree and that there is no collateral information available concerning the frequency of ‘B’s’ among ‘A’s’ or concerning causal or nomological connections between instances of ‘A’ and instances of ‘B’.
In this situation, an enumerative or instantial inductive inference would move from the premise that m/n of observed ‘A’s’ are ‘B’s’ to the conclusion that approximately m/n of all ‘A’s’ are ‘B’s’. (The usual probability qualification will be assumed to apply to the inference, than being part of the conclusion.) The class of ‘A’s’ should be taken to include not only unobserved ‘A’s’ and future ‘A’s, bu also possible or hypothetical ‘A’s’. An alternative conclusion would concern the probability or likelihood of succeeding observations, ‘A’ being a ‘B’.
The traditional or Humean problem of induction, often called simply the problem of induction, is the problem of whether and why inferences that fit this schema should be considered rationally acceptable or justified from an epistemic or cognitive standpoint, i.e., whether and why reasoning in this way is likely to lead to true claims about the world. Is there any sort of argument or rationale that can be offered for thinking that conclusions reached in this way are likely to be true if the corresponding premiss is true-or, even that their chances of truth are significantly enhanced?
Once, again, this issue deals explicitly with cases where all observed ‘A’s’ are ‘B’s’ and where ‘A’ is claimed to be the cause of ‘B’, but his argument applies just as well to the more general case. Hume’s conclusion is entirely negative and sceptical as inductive inferences are not rationally justified, but are instead, there result of an essentially a-rational process, custom or habit. Hume challenges the proponents of induction to supply a cogent line of reasoning that leads from an inductive premise to the corresponding conclusion and offers an extremely influential argument as a dilemma (sometimes called ‘Hume’s fork’) to show that there can be no such reasoning. Such reasoning would, he argues, have to be either deductively demonstrative reasoning concerning relations of ideas or ‘experimental’ (i.e., empirical) reasoning concerning matters of fact or existence. It cannot be the former, because all demonstrative reasoning relies on the avoidance of contradiction, and it is not as contradiction to suppose that ‘the course of nature may change’, that an order observed in the past will not continue in the future, and it cannot be the latter, since any empirical argument would appeal to the success of such reasoning in previous experience, and the justifiability of generalizing from previous experience is precisely what is at issue - so that any such appeal would be question-begging. Hence concludes. There can be no such reasoning.
When one present such an inference in ordinary discourse it often seems to have the following form:
(1) O is the case.
(2) If ‘E’ had been the case O is what we would expect.
(3) ‘E’ was the case.
This is the argument form that Peirce called hypothesis or abduction. That is of saying, which we typically derive prediction from hypotheses and establish whether they are satisfied, that only an account of induction leaves unanswered two prior questions: How do we arrive at the hypotheses in the first place? And on what basis do we decide which hypotheses are worth testing? These questions concern the logic of discovery or, in Charles S. Peirce’s terminology, abduction. Many empiricist philosophers have denied that there is logic (as opposed to psychology) of discovery. Peirce, and followers such as N.R. Hanson, insisted that there is a logic of abduction.
The logic of abduction thus investigates the norms employed in deciding whether a hypothesis is worth testing a given stage of inquiry, and the norms influencing how we should retain the key insights of rejected theories in formulating their successors.
Again, to consider a very simple example, we might upon coming across one’s footprints on a beach, reason to the conclusion that a person walked along the beach recently by noting walking along the beach one would expect to find just such footprints.
But is abduction a legitimate form of reasoning? Obviously, if the conditionals in (2) read as a material conditional such arguments would be hopelessly bad. Since the proposition that ‘E’ materially implies O is entailed by O, there would always be many competing inferences to the best explanation and non of them seem to lend even self-evident support to its conclusion. The conditionals we employ in ordinary discourse, however, are seldom, if ever, material conditionals. The vast majority of ‘I. Then . . . ‘ statements may not be truth-functionally complex. Rather, they seem to assert a connection of some sort between the states of affairs referred to in the antecedent (after the ‘if’) and in the consequent (after the ‘if’) and in the consequent (after the ‘if’). Perhaps the argument for more plausibility, if the conditional is read in this more natural way. But consider an alterative footprints explanation:
(1) There are footprints on the beach.
(2) If cows wearing boots had walked along the beach recently one would expect to find such footprints.
Therefore, there is a high probability that:
(3) Cows wearing boots walked along the beach recently.
This inference has precisely the same form as the earlier inference the conclusion that people walked along the beach recently and its premisses are just as true, but we would have no doubt concerning both the conclusion and the inference as simply silly. If we are to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate reasoning to the best explanation, it seems that we need a more sophisticated model of the argument form. It seems that in reasoning to an explanation we need criteria for choosing between alternative explanations. If reasoning to the best explanation is to constitute a genuine alternative to inductive reasoning, it is important that these criteria not be implicit premisses that will convert our argument into an inductive argument. Thus, for example, if of this reason we conclude that people rather than cows walked along the beach are only that we are implicitly relying on the premiss that footprints of this sort are usually produced by people, then it is certainly tempting to suppose that our inference to the best explanation was really a disguised inductive inference of the form:
(1) Most footprints are produced by people.
(2) Here are footprints.
Therefore probably
(3) These footprints were produced by people.
If we follow the suggestion made above, we might construe the form of reasoning to the best explanation as follows:
(1) O (a description of some phenomenon).
(2) Of the set of available and competing explanation
E1, E2 . . . En capable of explaining O, E1 is the best according to the correct criteria for choosing among potential explanations.
Therefore probably,
(3) E1.
The model of explanation must be filled, of course, we need to know what the relevant criteria are for choosing among alternative explanations. Perhaps, the ingle most common virtue of explanation cited by philosophers is simplicity. Sometimes simplicity may be understood as for the number of things or events that explanation commits one to. Sometimes the crucial question concerns the number of kinds of things that theory commits one to.
Explanations are also sometimes taken to be more plausible the more explanatory ‘power’ they have. This power is usually defined as the number of a thing or more likely, the number of kinds of things, that they can explain. Thus, Newtonian mechanics were so attractive, the argument goes, partly because of the range of phenomena the theory could explain.
The familiarity of an explanation for the resemblance to already accepted kinds of explanation, in addition that now and again are implicated as a reason for preferring that explanation be for no less than the familiar kinds of explanation. So, if one provides a kind of evolutionary explanation for the disappearance of one’s organ in a creature, should look more favourably on a similar sort of explanation for the disappearance of another organ.
Alternative qualifications may use criterions’ in choosing among varying explanations, and there are many other candidates. But in evaluation the claim that inference to the best explanation constitutes a legitimate and independent argument form, one must explore the argument form, one need explore the question of whether it is a contingent fact that, at least, most phenomenon’s explanations and that explanations that satisfy a given criterion, simplicity, for example, is more likely to be correct. Here it might be pleasant (for scientists and writers of textbooks) if the reasoning to the explanation relies very much criteria. It seems that one cannot without circularity of reasoning to be of explanation to discover that reliance on such criteria is safe. But if one has some independent was of discovering that simple, powerful, familiar explanations are more often correct, then why should we think that reasoning to the best explanation is an independent source of information about the world? Why should we not conclude that it would be more perspicuous to represent reasoning this way?
(1) Most phenomena have the simplest, most powerful,
Familiar explanations available.
(2) Here is an observed phenomenon, and E1 is the simplest, most powerful, familiar explanation available.
Therefore, probably,
(3) This is to be explained by E1.
But the above is simply an instance of familiar inductive reasoning.
One might object to such an account on the grounds that not all justifiable inferences are self-explanatory, and more generally, the account of coherence may, at best, is ably successful to competitions that are based on background systems (BonJour, 1985, and Lehrer, 1990). The belief that one sees a shape competes with the claim that one does not, with the claim that one is deceived, and other sceptical objections. The background system of beliefs informs one that one is acceptingly trustworthy and enables one to meet the objections. A belief coheres with a background system just in case it enables one to meet the sceptical objections and in the way justifies one in the belief. This is a standard strong coherence theory of justification (Lehrer, 1990).
Illustrating the relationship between positive and negative coherence theories for the standard coherence theory is easy. If some objection to a belief cannot be met as the background system of beliefs of a person, then the person is not justified in that belief. So, to return to Julie, suppose that she has been told that a warning light has been installed on her gauge to tell her when it is not functioning properly and that when the red light is on, the gauge is malfunctioning. Suppose that when she sees the reading of 105, she also sees that the red light is on. Imagine, finally, that this is the first time the red light has been on, and, after years of working with the gauge, Julie, who has always placed her trust in the gauge, believes what the gauge tells her, that the liquid in the container is at 105 degrees. Though she believes what she reads is at 105 degrees is not a justified belief because it fails to cohere with her background belief that the gauge is malfunctioning. Thus, the negative coherence theory tells ‘us’ that she is not justified in her belief about the temperature of the contents in the container. By contrast, when we have not illuminated the red light and the background system of Julie that tells her that under such conditions that gauge is a trustworthy indicator of the temperature of the liquid in the container, then she is justified. The positive coherence theory tells ‘us’ that she is justified in her belief because her belief coheres with her background system of Julie lets it be known that she, under such conditions gauges a trustworthy indicant of temperature characterized or identified in respect of the liquid in the container, then she is justified. The positive coherence theory tells ‘us’ that she is justified in her belief because her belief coheres with her background system continues as a trustworthy system.
The foregoing sketch and illustration of coherence theories of justification have a common feature, namely, that they are what we have called inter-naturalistic theories of justification what makes of such a view are the absence of any requirement that the person for whom the belief is justified have any cognitive access to the relation of reliability in question. Lacking such access, such a person will usually, have no reason for thinking the belief is true or likely to be authenticated, but will, on such an account, is nonetheless to appear epistemologically justified in accepting it. Thus, such a view arguably marks a major break from the modern epistemological traditions, which identifies epistemic justification with having a reason, perhaps even a conclusive reason, for thinking that the belief is true. An epistemologist working within this tradition is likely to feel that the externalist, than offering a competing account of the same concept of epistemic justification with which the traditional epistemologist is concerned, has simply changed the subject.
They are theories affirming that coherence is a matter of internal relations between beliefs and that justification is a matter of coherence. If, then, justification is solely a matter of internal relations between beliefs, we are left with the possibility that the internal relations might fail to correspond with any external reality. How, one might have an objection, can a completely internal subjective notion of justification bridge the gap between mere true belief, which might be no more than a lucky guess, and knowledge, which we must ground in some connection between internal subjective conditions and external objective realities?
The answer is that it cannot and that we have required something more than justified true belief for knowledge. This result has, however, been established quite apart from consideration of coherence theories of justification. What we have required maybe put by saying that the justification that one must be undefeated by errors in the background system of beliefs. Justification is undefeated by errors just in case any correction of such errors in the background system of belief would sustain the justification of the belief based on the corrected system. So knowledge, on this sort of positivity is acclaimed by the coherence theory, which is the true belief that coheres with the background belief system and corrected versions of that system. In short, knowledge is true belief plus justification resulting from coherence and undefeated by error (Lehrer, 1990). The connection between internal subjective conditions of belief and external objectivity are from which reality’s result from the required correctness of our beliefs about the relations between those conditions and realities. In the example of Trust, she believes that her internal subjectivity to conditions of sensory data in which we have connected the experience and perceptual beliefs with the external objectivity in which reality is the temperature of the liquid in the container in a trustworthy manner. This background belief is essential to the justification of her belief that the temperature of the liquid in the container is 105 degrees, and the correctness of that background belief is essential to the justification remaining undefeated. So our background system of beliefs contains a simple theory about our relation to the external world that justifies certain of our beliefs that cohere with that system. For instance, such justification to convert to knowledge, that theory must be sufficiently free from error so that they have sustained the coherence in corrected versions of our background system of beliefs. The correctness of the simple background theory provides the connection between the internal condition and external reality.
Coherence is a major participant in the theatre of knowledge that coherence theories of belief, truth and justification are combined in ways to yield theories of knowledge. Coherence theories of belief are concerned with the content of beliefs, justly as a belief you now have, the beliefs that you are reading a page in a book, making that belief the belief that it is? Particularly, is the belief from which a coherent system of beliefs has an influence on beliefs. Belief has an influence on action. You will act differently if you believe that you are reading a page than if you believe something about whatever bring to a possibility. Perception and action undermine the content of belief, however. The same stimuli may produce various beliefs and various beliefs may produce the same action. The role that gives the belief the content it has is the role it plays within a network of relations to other beliefs, the role in reference and implication, for example, I infer different things from believing that I am reading a page in a book than from any other belief, just as I infer that belief from different things than I infer other beliefs from, but the systematic relations give the belief the specific content it has.
The coherence theory of truth arises naturally out of a problem raised by the coherence theory of justification. The problem is that anyone seeking to determine whether she has knowledge is confined to the search for coherence among her beliefs. The sensory experiences have been deadening til their representation has been exemplified as some perceptual belief. Beliefs are the engines that pull the train of justification. Nevertheless, what assurance do we have that our justification is based on true beliefs? What justification do we have that any of our justifications are undefeated? The fear that we might have none, that our beliefs might be the artifacts of some deceptive demon or scientist, leads to the quest to reduce truth to some form, perhaps an idealized form, of justification (Rescher, 1973, and Rosenberg, 1980). That would close the threatening sceptical gap between justification and truth. Suppose that a belief is true if and only if it is justifiable of some person. For such a person there would be no gap between justification and truth or between justification and undefeated justification. Truth would be coherence with some ideal background system of beliefs, perhaps one expressing a consensus among systems or some consensus among belief systems or some convergence toward a consensus. Such a view is theoretically attractive for the reduction it promises, but it appears open to profound objectification. One is that there is a consensus that we can all be wrong about at least some matters, for example, about the origins of the universe. If there is a consensus that we can all be wrong about something, then the consensual belief system rejects the equation of truth with the consensus. Consequently, the equation of truth with coherence with a consensual belief system is itself incoherently.
Coherence theories of the content of our beliefs and the justification of our beliefs themselves cohere with our background systems but coherence theories of truth do not. A defender of coherentism must accept the logical gap between justified belief and truth, but may believe that our capacities suffice to close the gap to yield knowledge. That view is, at any rate, a coherent one.
What makes a belief justified and what makes a true belief knowledge? Thinking that whether a belief deserves one of these appraisals is non-synthetically depending on what causal subject to has the belief. In recent decades several epistemologists have pursed this plausible idea with a variety of specific proposals. Some causal theories of knowledge have it that a true belief that ‘p’ is knowledge just in case it has the right sort of causal connection to the fact that ‘p’. Such a criterion can be applied only to cases where the fact that ‘p’ is a sort that can reach causal relations, this seems to exclude mathematically and other necessary facts and perhaps any fact expressed by a universal generalization, and proponents of this sort of criterion have usually of this sort of criterion have usually supposed that it is limited to perceptual knowledge of particular facts about the subject’s environment.
For example, Armstrong (1973) proposed that a belief of the form. This (perceived) object is ‘F’ is (non-inferential) knowledge if and only if the belief is a completely reliable sign that the perceived object is ‘F’, that is, the fact that the object is ‘F’ contributed to causing the belief and its doing so depended on properties of the believer such that the laws of nature dictated that, for any subject ‘x’ is to occur, and so thus a perceived object of ‘y’, if ‘x’ undergoing those properties is for ‘us’ to believe that ‘y’ is ‘F’, then ‘y’ is ‘F’. Dretske, (1981) offers a similar account, as to the belief’s being caused by a signal received by the perceiver that carries the information that the object is ‘F’.
This sort of condition fails, however, to be sufficient for non-inferential perceptual knowledge because it is compatible with the belief’s being unjustified, and an unjustifiable belief cannot be knowledge. For example, suppose that your mechanisms for colour perception are working well, but you have been given good reason to think otherwise, to think, say, that the substantive primary colours that are perceivable, that things look chartreuse to you and chartreuse things look magenta. If you fail to heed these reasons you have for thinking that your colour perception or sensory data is a directional way for us in believing of a thing that looks magenta, in that for you it is magenta, your belief will fail to be justified and will therefore fail to be knowledge, although the thing’s being magenta in such a way causes it as to be a completely reliable sign, or to carry the information, in that the thing is blush-coloured.
One could fend off this sort of counterexample by simply adding to the causal condition the requirement that the belief be justified, buy this enriched condition would still be insufficient. Suppose, for example, that in nearly all people, but not in you, as it happens, causes the aforementioned aberrations are colour perceptions. The experimenter tells you that you have taken such a drug but then says, ‘now wait, the pill you took was just a placebo’, suppose further, that this last thing the experimenter tells you is false. Her telling you that it was a false statement, and, again, telling you this gives you justification for believing of a thing that looks a subtractive primary colour to you that it is a sensorial primary colour, in that the fact you were to expect that the experimenters last statements were false, making it the case that your true belief is not knowledgeably correct, thought as though to satisfy its causal condition.
Goldman (1986) has proposed an importantly different causal criterion namely, that a true belief is knowledge, if it is produced by a type of process that is ‘globally’ and ‘locally’ reliable. Causing true beliefs is sufficiently high is globally reliable if its propensity. Local reliability deals with whether the process would have produced a similar but false belief in certain counterfactual situations alternative to the actual situation. This way of marking off true beliefs that are knowledge does not require the fact believed to be casually related to the belief, and so it could in principle apply to knowledge of any kind of truth.
Goldman requires that global reliability of the belief-producing process for the justification of a belief, he requires it also for knowledge because they require justification for knowledge, in what requires for knowledge but does not require for justification, which is locally reliable. His idea is that a justified true belief is knowledge if the type of process that produced it would not have produced it in any relevant counterfactual situation in which it is false. Noting that other concepts exhibit the same logical structure can motivate the relevant alternative account of knowledge. Two examples of this are the concept ‘flat’ and the concept ‘empty’ (Dretske, 1981). Both seem absolute concepts-a space is empty only if it does not contain anything and a surface is flat only if it does not have any bumps. However, the absolute character of these concepts is relative to a standard. For ‘flat’, there is a standard for what counts as a bump and for ‘empty’, there is a standard for what counts as a thing. To be flat is to be free of any relevant bumps and to be empty is to be devoid of all relevant things.
What makes an alternative situation relevant? Goldman does not try to formulate examples of what he takes to be relevantly alternate, but suggests of one. Suppose, that a parent takes a child’s temperature with a thermometer that the parent selected at random from several lying in the medicine cabinet. Only the particular thermometer chosen was in good working order, it correctly shows the child’s temperature to be normal, but if it had been abnormal then any of the other thermometers would have erroneously shown it to be normal. A globally reliable process has caused the parent’s actual true belief but, because it was ‘just luck’ that the parent happened to select a good thermometer, ‘we would not say that the parent knows that the child’s temperature is normal’. Goldman gives yet another example:
Suppose Sam spots Judy across the street and correctly believes
That it is Judy. If it did so occur that it was Judy’s twin sister,
Trudy, he would be mistaken her for Judy? Does Sam?
Know that it is Judy? As long as there is a serious possibility
That the person across the street might have been Trudy. Rather,
Than Judy. . . . We would deny that Sam knows.
(Goldman, 1986)
Goldman suggests that the reason for denying knowledge in the thermometer example, be that it was ‘just luck’ that the parent did not pick a non-working thermometer and in the twin’s example, the reason is that there was ‘a serious possibility’ that might have been that Sam could probably have mistaken for. This suggests the following criterion of relevance: An alternate situation, whereby, that the same belief is produced in the same way but is false, it is relevantly just in case at some point before the actual belief was to its cause, by which a chance that the actual belief was to have caused, in that the chance of that situation’s having come about was instead of the actual situation was too converged, nonetheless, by the chemical components that constitute its inter-actual exchange by which endorphin excitation was to influence and so give to the excitability of neuronal transmitters that deliver messages, inturn, the excited endorphins gave ‘change’ to ‘chance’, thus it was, in that what was interpreted by the sensory data and unduly persuaded by innate capabilities that at times are latently hidden within the mind, Or the brain, giving to its chosen chance of luck.
This avoids the sorts of counterexamples we gave for the causal criteria as we discussed earlier, but it is vulnerable to one or ones of a different sort. Suppose you were to stand on the mainland looking over the water at an island, on which are several structures that look (from at least some point of view) as would ne of an actualized point or station of position. You happen to be looking at one of any point, in fact a barn and your belief to that effect are justified, given how it looks to you and the fact that you have exclusively of no reason to think nor believe otherwise. Nevertheless, suppose that most of the barn-looking structures on the island are not real barns but fakes. Finally, suppose that from any viewpoint on the mainland all of the island’s fake barns are obscured by trees and that circumstances made it very unlikely that you would have to a viewpoint not on the mainland. Here, it seems, your justified true belief that you are looking at a barn is not knowledge, although there was not a serious chance that there would have developed an alternative situation, wherefore you are similarly caused to have a false belief that you are looking at a barn.
That example shows that the ‘local reliability’ of the belief-producing process, on the ‘serous chance’ explication of what makes an alternative relevance, yet its view-point upon which we are in showing that non-locality is in addition to sustain of some probable course of the possibility for ‘us’ to believe in. Within the experience condition of application, the relationship with the sensory-data, as having a world-view that can encompass both the hidden and manifest aspects of nature would comprise of the mind, or brain that provides the excitation of neuronal ions, giving to sensory perception an accountable assessment of data and reason-sensitivity allowing a comprehensive world-view, integrating the various aspects of the universe into one magnificent whole, a whole in which we played an organic and central role. One-hundred years ago its question would have been by a Newtonian ‘clockwork universe’, a theoretical account of a probable ‘I’ universe that is completely mechanical. The laws of nature have predetermined everything that happens and by the state of the universe in the distant past. The freedom one feels regarding ones actions, even about the movement of one’s body, is an illusory infraction and the world-view expresses as the Newtonian one, is completely coherent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment