The Truth... is it true or false?

Remove all ads!

[Nothing but the remains of a bitter post which was uncalled for and held absolutely no usefull and beneficial information.]

I apologize for the rude post. Bad day.

[This message has been edited by ArchAngel (edited May 02, 2002).]

 

ArchAngel, Thruth? I want to have an insignificant puzzle about thruth. Where can I find one?

/me off to try and find an insignificant puzzle of thruth and lies to throw at someone.

 

I am willing to change Yuk! with "Sigh!" *looking hopelessly in the air and breathing out* I just.. Just have had too many debates with eager drunk (me included) philosophy students at parties to fully understand what purpose 2+2=5 and other thruth twister have.. Apart from wasting time in which you could have had fun.

I just think DRSW should enjoy his new dawn and not be confused by heavy thinking. Not yet, anyway. When he is gonna study science he'll have quite a lot of tough toppics to wonder about.

 

I made my point that I didnt believe in truth in the normal sense of the word, and am leaving the rest alone.

I still find thruth intresting..and am still wondering where I can find it can you help me out ArchAngel?

Yes DRSW, just enjoy your newfound freedom of truth, in whatever sense you believe in. If you want to read something intresting..read the above posts, but dont put to much insight into them..unless you really want to.

 

Hmmm, I don't understand this derison of philosophy. Metaphysics and epistemology aren't forms of "pocket philosophy" (whatever that may be) but rather they are forms of analytic philosophy. I certainly see no harm in discussing in a civil manner the nature of truth and hardly find it a waste of time. I would urge others who might not enjoy these type of discussions (and I don't find them to be something that prevents you from having fun, indeed, I find philosophical arguments to be quite fun and interesting) to simply abstain from them rather than ridiculing others for engaging in discussions of "pocket philosophy" or more accurately metaphysics. Others who have engaged in this type of "pocket philosophy" in the past (at a much more complex level of course) include Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Russell, Putnam, Shoemaker, etc. etc. etc.

I appologize for drifting off topic but I feel others should not be made the object of scorn for choosing to engage in the noble tradition of philosophical debate. Now, I've written this and erased it numerous times because I do not wish to start a personal debate, and I'm hoping this isn't interpreted as a personal attack because that is not my intent, but since the debate of philosophy is one of my loves I feel compelled to make a public defense of it.

 

under "T" in your dictionary, DeBhaal.

Edit; I am sorry Laches. I just had a bad day yesterday. I'll edit the first post I made if you like. To remove the dirty stains on the philosophy carpet we play our mindgames on. It was non of my business to mengle in your affairs with that bitter post. Why should I decide what is fun and what is not? Add what is interesting and what is not.

[This message has been edited by ArchAngel (edited May 02, 2002).]

 

Uhh, I don't want to be annoying or bother you guys, but weren't we talking about truth and lies. I find it great that you appologised to him, but back on topic, I'd have to say that if you didn't know truth, there would be no truth or lies to you sense you didn't know the difference. If that makes sense.

[This message has been edited by Rolsuk Fryulee (edited May 03, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Rolsuk Fryulee (edited May 03, 2002).]

 

Well Rolsuk, the conversation ArchAngel and I had together wasn't exactly on topic but I don't think a civil disagreement ever hurt anything, espescially given the display given in other threads today by Vanilla Ice (2 potentially interesting topics closed because of the stupidity of one -- too bad.)

On topic, I think the argument put forth by Rolusk and others does not hold water even though I believe there is such thing as truth. Consider the concept of "Unicorns" -- they don't exist but we still have the concept. Take "Sherlock Holmes" -- doesn't exist but we still have him as a concept.

I think that people aren't thinking about "truth" in the right way though. "Truth" isn't something that exists out there in the same way that other objects like the moon or debatably God does. Rather, truth is something that statements either are or are not.

Some statements are true, and others are false. The truth value of a statement is dependent on the state of the world. If the statement accurately reflects the state of the world it is true. If it doesn't, it is false. Absent any assertions there is no truth value, things just are.

There are statements though and therefore as long as one accurately represents the state of affairs there is truth. I think that this is an even better example than mathematics and I used it above:

"If A then C"
"A"
" Therefore C"

Any argument which follows this logical form and has true premises will be a valid and true argument. 'A' and 'C' above stand for any proposition by the way. We can know the truth value of many premises empirically, others we can know logically, and others we can't know. I really don't see how you could deny that some statements are true though and therefore that there is not such thing as truth.

[This message has been edited by Laches (edited May 03, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Laches (edited May 03, 2002).]

 

Laches, you're a brick wall of impertinance and presumptuousness.

Let me dissect your argument to a point - first, you entered the debate with a little close-minded cliche of 2+2=4. To strengthen your argument, you forgot to tell what the truth IS and just scribbled things that are "true statements" - the description of which we are seeking, not these cold-forged examples.

Then, suddenly you begin a thesis on the relationship between metaphysics and epistemology, preparing to unveil your magician's mask and shout out the Truth. But, unfortunately, you have no way to defend your predominant 2+2=4 declaration, and you illegally immigrate between the countries of Math and Philosophy, which happen to be on opposite sides of infinity.

You say, "If you want to sit here and argue about how we know 2+2=4 is true that's epistemology, not metaphysics and you aren't talking about whether it is true at all..."

Philosophy is the study of truth and the decapitation of falsehoods. Metaphysics is the creation of truths to better equip a science. Epistemology IS the discussion of truth, whereas metaphysics is the study of obsolete definites.

Your advance worsens when you state that "People can be wrong." This is, mind you, in the course of a dripping bladder full of assumptions and arrogant hypothesis about an unthought, infertile reckoning. You are suddenly compensating for previous lack of emotion and adding a practical advance to the properties of your highness and the self-proclaimed prominence and truth of your words. Simply because people disagree doesn't mean that you are right, Laches.

Discussing such a wondrous topic as the Truth can only be given to minds of a maleable genesis - not a rock-hard golem with its arms crossed and ears plugged.

Next, you arrogantly announce that there's not higher math than what you know, and that what exists you understand. To prove that 2+2=4, something that no man can do, you begin racing your way through a mathematical quandrary that would have Aristotle and Plato crying with laughter on the floor.

"Now you may disagree, but you would be wrong."

Wonderful, that statement - the sign of a true incapable. Obviously you are relevant in the discerning of the Truth, because you have an entire arsenal of attacks. You can use confusing educational terms, blunt hypocricy, and "true premises" that you discovered yourself, all alone.

It amazes me that any attempt at epistemology can result in these claims like "Just like if you say there is no such thing as truth you disagree with me but this doesn't mean there is no truth, just means you're confused."

We're confused because we disagree with you?
Doesn't this disrupt your previous accusation in a blabbering wave of hypocritical advancements to a feeble mind?

Oh, and now as I read, you're naming philosophers who disagree with everything you've said. I doubt any of those men ever said everyone else was wrong because they were right. They'd be on the floor laughing with Aristotle and Plato - look at this greatest modern fan Laches - a true philosopher, with an open mind and a genius statement! I'm right because you're wrong, and you're wrong because I'm right! Profound!

Your next blabbering results in the realization of the reader that the OPPOSITE of what you're saying is true. Majority rules, you say, because apparently if someone who is color-blind claims there's only black and white and grey, then he's wrong (although to him, there are only black, white and grey) because you see colors.

Truth, Laches, can never be found in the forcing of an opinion. It also can never be found when someone with your stone-block head attempts to convince people that he's right simply because he is. Especially when he travels down a tangent road to reach the goal. I don't believe you have any idea how to represent your ideals, and I don't think that you have the personal capacity to try. You are prominantly arrogant, and your statements can be discluded from an intelligent man's reasoning simply because the only evidence of their truth is your own claim that you are right, which is based on closed-minded mathematics (the tangent road) and backwater cliches.

Try to change, or 2+2 will never equal 4.

 

Hmmm, I've only read that through once Xaelifer but I'm going to go ahead and respond anyways.

First, I've never considered myself an arrogant person and am feeling a bit down right now that I might have come across that way. If I seemed to be arrogant to anyone else in the thread I appologize, that certainly wasn't my intent. I fear that in real life I often speak with a lot of nuances that don't translate well on-line where there is no voice inflection and thus good natured sarcasm, irony etc is lost. Again, I appologize to anyone if it seemed that I was adopting an arrogant attitude.

Second, there were some things you wrote Xaelifer which I would disagree with. I think it best to simply say that metaphysics answers the question "what is it?" while epistemology answers the question: "how do we know it?" I was trained that these were two important and distinct questions and that they are often confused.

Third, I believe that while I was attacked for saying some philosopers agree with me that I really didn't say anyone agreed with me. If you look back in one post I suggested that certain writers could be read because they talk a lot about truth (I see how this might be read that they agree with me but it wasn't intended that way and I also see how this might be interpreted as coming off high handed while I really was making an honest suggestion) and in another I talk about other philosophers who discuss truth but make no claims that they agree with me either as that was a post that drifted a bit off topic. So, I don't feel that the claim that I was holding certain philosophers to agree with me while in fact they all think I'm an obvious idiot is really a valid one.

Fourth, I don't believe mathematics and philosophy to be on opposite ends of infinity. They're brothers in my book. That's why maybe the most respected philosopher in the world today is David Lewis, the Australian philosopher now teaching at Princeton. Lewis writes in primarily metaphysics, modal logic, mathematical logic, and also epistemology. There is a long tradition tying mathematics and analytical philosophy, just look at the Greeks and the way they entertwined math and philosophy, I believe it has been entertwined since.

I would agree that my presentation should've been thought out and organized better. Prior to this post, I feel my last post to most accurately state my position and the previous posts to illustrate it. I do not feel however I'm simply full of crap and trying to thrust my ideas down the throats of others. I believe everything I've written to be consistent though badly disjointed, I appologize again. I also think there were a number of misunderstandings of what I was trying to communicate and that is primarily my responsibility.

As for the rest of it, I have no comment. Now, I truly did not wish to seem as if I felt that I was superior to anyone at any point in this thread and I sincerely appologize to anyone if I came across that way. I certainly don't wish to force my opinion on anyone and I never have.

 

Seeing that the Truth is not going to be solved...I give up, for now.

Just a few rants then the end.

The Truth if ever we came to a conclusion of one is that the truth can not be deffined. But that with out the Truth their can be no Lies & with out Lies their can be no Truth. So for now the truth & lies are just their. Like us, no one knows why where here but we are just then same.

ArchAngel & DeBhaal Stasion, I am not really sure what your tring to get across to me. But I have the feeling it's "get a life." But maybe not. A little clearning up on that would be nice.

And if anyone wondered why I started this post, the answer is simple. I can not stop myself from thinking about the world and such things. I'm probley some child proglagee and dont know it I wondered what if anything did any of you think.

So I end this very short post. But one last thing.

The Truth Is Out Their.

 

DRSW; You said you don't lie to people anymore. Not as much as before anyway... or whatever.

Telling the thruth, or at least not deliberately altering what you say to cover up something is signs of an improving strenght of character. Enjoy it.

 

Thankyou for the comment ArchAngel.

 

Alright, Laches - thanks for clearing all that up. I shall listen to your comments intensely from here on; please have an open mind on the following, for it is simply an opinion, of which everyone has stored underneath his clothes:

The question we have stumbled upon is, bluntly,

"Is there truth?"

Personally, I can not answer this with one word, so I'll do it with many.

Truth is the concept of uncontested, absolute knowledge. It is the pure reality, the core of understanding that can not be argued.

I believe this 'Truth' to be unreachable, unattainable and indiscernable with eye of the human.

I believe no theory can possibly be 'true', because every human communicates, thinks, and coheres to a spoken language which unescapably collects generalities and faults - especially in philisophical words like 'truth'. Because we base the very definition of truth on our language (and its daily use) there can be no sense of a reality besides perception of the senses. The word should not be used to understand what is real, simply because it has a general meaning. The physical senses are used to detect what is supposedly active reality - but that depends soully on how the senses react - and nowadays the senses are aggravated greatly by the spoken generality.
What I am typing right now every person discovers different meaning in - perhaps one man thinks the word "generality" means "steak sauce" or something. One always does. Many always don't.

To explain what truth is, I use the example of a world of equally differing men - half colorblind, half able to detect color.

What is true here? Are there vibrant pigments, or are there only black and white and grey? There is no possible way of deciding, because there is NO MAJORITY of perceptions. On Earth, most men see color, and therefore many assume that there is, indeed color, and laugh at those who would dare say there may not be.

On Earth now, is it true that are you sitting at a computer? The only way for me to know that you are indeed sitting at a computer is for you to define EXACTLY what "sitting at a computer" means. This is impossible (linguistic perspective prohibits). Even if you did, I would have to use my physical senses to detect that, relative to my position (remember that phrase!), you are, indeed, "sitting at a computer".

Now let's add another dimension. Another person wants to know if you are sitting at a computer, but he's blind and deaf. In his way of sense, he feels you all over and decides that, no, you are standing up.

The truth to the blind man is, now, that you are standing up because that's what he has decided most strongly, and proved it to himself with his physical sense methods. Perhaps if you and all your friends convince him with a MAJORITY vote that he's sitting down, he'll find this other argument more truthful. Although even after that every person will think differently on what "sitting at a computer" really means in English, because it's impossible to equalize.

What I am saying is this:
In the physical form there is no way to find truth amongst a group.

In a simple explanation, here's why:
All physically-sensed perceptions differ, however slightly, and record a variety of truths - but there can, according to sought definition, be only one truth to any situation.

Therefore, truth does not exist in groups. It DOES exist individually. If you see and touch and hear and taste a spoon, you know it's there, but your neighbor will always see, touch, hear, and taste something different, however slightly.

(You may argue, again, that 2+2=4. Once again, language prevails, and we'll never know what a 2 or a 4 contains in a perfect sense. Say you have apples that are equally large to the smallest atomic point. If you put two of these with two others, you'll have four - but still, the answer is a word, and, to me, could mean "tree" or "bird" or "nose". You may say that no, it doesn't mean these things, but it would be based on a majority's given meaning.)

There is more of mine to this argument - but my fingers are truly tired.

 

I am tired, so I will be brief.

There is a different between truth and fact. Fact is truth, but it can be verified by an observer. (I saw the rock fall to the ground, hence the rock fell to the ground is a fact)

Truth cannot necessarily be verified by an observer, but its still true. Truth is something you *know*, and it cannot be proven, but its still 'true'.

. . . Did that make any sense?

 

DRSW, I wasnt saying 'you need to get a life.' Merely agreeing with ArchAngel, and others that were telling you to enjoy your new will to tell the truth about everything.
I came to that decision a year or so ago, so I can somewhat understand how it is.
Anyway, good luck with telling the truth all the time.