True for me

[Rhiannon]

But then what is the point in smuggling in the concept of 'truth' to 'i think'?

If you want to put it like that, what us truth at all? Might as well dump it altogether.

[Nearly Sane]

But then what is the point in smuggling in the concept of 'truth' to 'i think'?

If you want to put it like that, what us truth at all? Might as well dump it altogether.

Things will be true - putting the concept of truth into opinion seems pointless

[Shaker]

Here's a nugget for you youngsters to chew on if you fancy it - Kant's theory of knowledge.

1) Opinion - subjectively insufficient and objectively insufficient. ("It's only my opinion/taste/preference - it's true/right/good for me but I can't demonstrate it to anybody else and I don't claim it's anything more than my own personal opinion"). Example: Marmite.

2) Belief - subjectively sufficient but objectively insufficient. ("I firmly believe this to be true, but I can't share my conviction that this is so and so can't demonstrate it to another party"). Example: belief in God.

3) Knowledge - subjectively sufficient and objectively sufficient. ("I believe X to be true because of the evidence for X, and can show X to you or any number of others who can themselves independently validate the truth of X"). Example: the atomic structure of beryllium.

[Hope]

Here's a nugget for you youngsters to chew on if you fancy it - Kant's theory of knowledge.

and ...?

[floo]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

I don't think I use the expression 'true for me'. I often say 'in my opinion', which seems only right and proper if I say something controversial.

[ProfessorDavey]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

I don't think I use the expression 'true for me'. I often say 'in my opinion', which seems only right and proper if I say something controversial.

I think there is a difference between a 'true for me' statement and an 'opinion'. To my mind something that is true for me is something entirely internalised with no suggestion that it goes beyond me. So if I say that Mozart is my favourite composer that is 'true for me' - I'm not suggesting that Mozart should be your favourite composer nor that Mozart is the best composer - merely that he is my favourite.

It isn't therefor an opinion that Mozart is my favourite composer, because an opinion is a challengeable view. Sure I could be lying, but if I'm not no-one else could legitimately challenge what my personal preference is.

However if I said that Mozart is the greatest composer - that's an opinion that I am externalising - I'm not saying he is the greatest composer (to me) but the greatest composer. That opinion may reasonable be challenged by others and a debate held. But if someone else said that rather than Mozart their favourite composer is Britten - that isn't really a challengeable opinion merely a statement of fact for them - i.e. true for me.

[floo]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

I don't think I use the expression 'true for me'. I often say 'in my opinion', which seems only right and proper if I say something controversial.

I think there is a difference between a 'true for me' statement and an 'opinion'. To my mind something that is true for me is something entirely internalised with no suggestion that it goes beyond me. So if I say that Mozart is my favourite composer that is 'true for me' - I'm not suggesting that Mozart should be your favourite composer nor that Mozart is the best composer - merely that he is my favourite.

It isn't therefor an opinion that Mozart is my favourite composer, because an opinion is a challengeable view. Sure I could be lying, but if I'm not no-one else could legitimately challenge what my personal preference is.

However if I said that Mozart is the greatest composer - that's an opinion that I am externalising - I'm not saying he is the greatest composer (to me) but the greatest composer. That opinion may reasonable be challenged by others and a debate held. But if someone else said that rather than Mozart their favourite composer is Britten - that isn't really a challengeable opinion merely a statement of fact for them - i.e. true for me.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm! I don't see the difference, to be frank, but if you do, fair enough!

[ProfessorDavey]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

I don't think I use the expression 'true for me'. I often say 'in my opinion', which seems only right and proper if I say something controversial.

I think there is a difference between a 'true for me' statement and an 'opinion'. To my mind something that is true for me is something entirely internalised with no suggestion that it goes beyond me. So if I say that Mozart is my favourite composer that is 'true for me' - I'm not suggesting that Mozart should be your favourite composer nor that Mozart is the best composer - merely that he is my favourite.

It isn't therefor an opinion that Mozart is my favourite composer, because an opinion is a challengeable view. Sure I could be lying, but if I'm not no-one else could legitimately challenge what my personal preference is.

However if I said that Mozart is the greatest composer - that's an opinion that I am externalising - I'm not saying he is the greatest composer (to me) but the greatest composer. That opinion may reasonable be challenged by others and a debate held. But if someone else said that rather than Mozart their favourite composer is Britten - that isn't really a challengeable opinion merely a statement of fact for them - i.e. true for me.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm! I don't see the difference, to be frank, but if you do, fair enough!

If is say 'I like marmite more than jam' - that is a statement of fact, but only applies to me. If I say 'Marmite is nicer than jam' or even 'everyone likes Marmite more than jam' those are opinions that I think applies beyond me. They aren't statements of fact, where as the first comment is a statement of fact, i.e. true for me.

[Shaker]

Here's a nugget for you youngsters to chew on if you fancy it - Kant's theory of knowledge.

and ...?

... and it's relevant to the topic of the thread, i.e. stating that something is "true for me" and thus is merely a subjectively and objectively insufficient opinion. (Like Floo, I can't really see any useful or meaningful distinction between Prof. Davey's "true for me" statement and an opinion). If there are any bits that you're struggling with, just ask - always glad to help.

[Hope]

Here's a nugget for you youngsters to chew on if you fancy it - Kant's theory of knowledge.

and ...?

... and it's relevant to the topic of the thread, i.e. stating that something is "true for me" and thus is merely a subjectively and objectively insufficient opinion. If there are any bits that you're stuggling with, just ask - always glad to help.

I've never claimed that Christianity is just 'true for me'.  That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.

[Shaker]

I've never claimed that Christianity is just 'true for me'.

I'm not aware that anybody had claimed that you'd made such a claim.

That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.

Based on what?

You don't seem to be very clear on precisely what position you're taking.

Is it, or is it not, your belief that Christianity is true and remains true whether someone believes that it is true or not, i.e. that Christianity is true regardless of what Jews, Muslim, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians, pagans, atheists say to the contrary?

[Rhiannon]

Here's a nugget for you youngsters to chew on if you fancy it - Kant's theory of knowledge.

1) Opinion - subjectively insufficient and objectively insufficient. ("It's only my opinion/taste/preference - it's true/right/good for me but I can't demonstrate it to anybody else and I don't claim it's anything more than my own personal opinion"). Example: Marmite.

2) Belief - subjectively sufficient but objectively insufficient. ("I firmly believe this to be true, but I can't share my conviction that this is so and so can't demonstrate it to another party"). Example: belief in God.

3) Knowledge - subjectively sufficient and objectively sufficient. ("I believe X to be true because of the evidence for X, and can show X to you or any number of others who can themselves independently validate the truth of X"). Example: the atomic structure of beryllium.

Except I'm not sure we know anything for certain. I think the best we can get is 'true according to how we understand the universe to work' - so probably 'we think' rather than 'I think', but no more than that.

[Nearly Sane]

Here's a nugget for you youngsters to chew on if you fancy it - Kant's theory of knowledge.

1) Opinion - subjectively insufficient and objectively insufficient. ("It's only my opinion/taste/preference - it's true/right/good for me but I can't demonstrate it to anybody else and I don't claim it's anything more than my own personal opinion"). Example: Marmite.

2) Belief - subjectively sufficient but objectively insufficient. ("I firmly believe this to be true, but I can't share my conviction that this is so and so can't demonstrate it to another party"). Example: belief in God.

3) Knowledge - subjectively sufficient and objectively sufficient. ("I believe X to be true because of the evidence for X, and can show X to you or any number of others who can themselves independently validate the truth of X"). Example: the atomic structure of beryllium.

Except I'm not sure we know anything for certain. I think the best we can get is 'true according to how we understand the universe to work' - so probably 'we think' rather than 'I think', but no more than that.

I don't really see any difference between 1 and 2. To an extent this relates back to Prof D's idea of internalising and externalising - they are notional expressions with no justifocation other than the 'decision' of the speaker to phrase the declaration in that way.


And I agree with Rhiannon that all we can say is we think but in those positions, we have agreed the method but none of those even addresses hard solipsism.

[Hope]

That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.

Based on what?

The only people I've heard use the term 'true for me' is non-believers when trying to ridicule believers.

[floo]

That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.

Based on what?

The only people I've heard use the term 'true for me' is non-believers when trying to ridicule believers.

Really? 

Mind you, believers who state they have evidence to substantiate their faith, but refuse to supply it certainly deserve to be challenged!

[Rhiannon]

That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.

Based on what?

The only people I've heard use the term 'true for me' is non-believers when trying to ridicule believers.

So when I say that I have 'true for me' experiences (beliefs if you like) as in post 5 above, I'm trying to ridicule you? How does that work?

[trippymonkey]

That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.

Based on what?

The only people I've heard use the term 'true for me' is non-believers when trying to ridicule believers.

But Hope, you've said certain parts of your Bible aren't to be trusted, no?

[ProfessorDavey]

That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.

Based on what?

The only people I've heard use the term 'true for me' is non-believers when trying to ridicule believers.

Really?!? I don't think so.

When I use the term it is to mean something that applies to me alone (e.g. my personal preference, my personal belief) that I don't apply to anyone else or 'externalise' and I know to be 'true to me'.

No sense of ridicule in that at all.

I don't like marmite is a statement which is true to me - might not be true to you, but it is certainly true to me.

[~TW~]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.

In addition the 'true for me' approach doesn't exist in isolation and is often, it seems to me, accompanied by other fallacies.

In the thread NS is talking about the 'true for them' resurrection claimants seem to be underpinned by large dollops of confirmation bias and special pleading (just for starters!)

 Well Gordon you are  going to die someday then you will know if The Lord Jesus Christ is true for you,meanwhile settle back and wait.

  ~TW~

[floo]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.

In addition the 'true for me' approach doesn't exist in isolation and is often, it seems to me, accompanied by other fallacies.

In the thread NS is talking about the 'true for them' resurrection claimants seem to be underpinned by large dollops of confirmation bias and special pleading (just for starters!)

 Well Gordon you are  going to die someday then you will know if The Lord Jesus Christ is true for you,meanwhile settle back and wait.

  ~TW~

An assertion without any evidence to back it up! 

[Gordon]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.

In addition the 'true for me' approach doesn't exist in isolation and is often, it seems to me, accompanied by other fallacies.

In the thread NS is talking about the 'true for them' resurrection claimants seem to be underpinned by large dollops of confirmation bias and special pleading (just for starters!)

 Well Gordon you are  going to die someday then you will know if The Lord Jesus Christ is true for you,meanwhile settle back and wait.

  ~TW~

I'll be dead, so I won't know anything.

[Hope]

I'll be dead, so I won't know anything.

To quote Floo,

An assertion without any evidence to back it up! 

[Gordon]

I'll be dead, so I won't know anything.

To quote Floo,

An assertion without any evidence to back it up! 

Don't be silly, Hope (hint - ask your local undertaker for confirmation that dead people aren't active in either a physical or mental sense.)

[floo]

I'll be dead, so I won't know anything.

To quote Floo,

An assertion without any evidence to back it up! 

How many dead people have you seen alive after they died?

[Harrowby Hall]

"It's true for me" is nothing more than a possible alternative for "common sense".

It's common sense means: "I have no evidence to support my view, nor I have any intention of seeking supporting evidence, but it is clear to me that ... "