All western/analytic Philosophy is bullshit

[Skepdick]

So, what do you assign your own statement if you do not assign it truth?

Nothing. It's just a sentence. I am narrating my experiences/observations.

You may not like my narrative (and you would label it false).
You may like my narrative (and you would label it true).

If a statement is not true, then what is it exactly?

It's a sentence.

Also, and by the way, changing your topic title after the discussion in the thread does not suddenly make your statement more true.

Any type of 'philosophy' is only "bullshit" if that is what you want to assign to it.

I have no idea. Truth is your religion - not mine.

[Age]

Dude. You cheated and you got caught. Just eat the loss like a grown up.

Change over time is not cheating, moron. Change is fact of this universe.

If change is a fact of the one and only Universe, and change over time is not cheating, then after you change some thing in order to prove what you previously believed is true, then some one else could just as easily change it back, to how it was and is meant to be, to prove what is actually the actual Truth, or just changed it to prove what they believe is already true, and according to your so called "logic" here, this would not be cheating at all.

If change over time not cheating and change is a fact of the Universe, then absolutely any one could change absolutely any thing, to just suit and fit in with their own already held assumptions and/or beliefs about what is true and not, which obviously defeats the WHOLE purpose of expressing what is actually true and right.

That you are unable to properly define the notion of "sameness" in a way that it can account for change/time is your problem - eat that like a grown up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

[Skepdick]

after you change some thing in order to prove what you previously believed is true, then some one else could just as easily change it back, to how it was and is meant to be

And that's precisely what I am betting on!

How it was meant to be is a normative claim.

It's an OUGHT, not an IS.

[Age]

So, what do you assign your own statement if you do not assign it truth?

Nothing. It's just a sentence. I am narrating my experiences/observations.

Which some might call 'your own bullshit'.

So, your statement; "The Truth is that there is no Truth", is just a sentence, which could be true or it could be false, correct? Or, is it not even that, to you?

You may not like my narrative (and you would label it false).
You may like my narrative (and you would label it true).

And I may like your narrative and label is false, or, not like your narrative and label it true.

See, to me what I like or do not like has no bearing on what is actually true or false.

I look at and see what IS thee actual Truth of things, whether I like it or not.

If a statement is not true, then what is it exactly?

It's a sentence.

Okay.

So, this would imply that you do not care at all when one proves your sentences to be wrong or false, because to you they are just sentences anyway, with not truth nor false value to them, correct?

Also, and by the way, changing your topic title after the discussion in the thread does not suddenly make your statement more true.

Any type of 'philosophy' is only "bullshit" if that is what you want to assign to it.

I have no idea. Truth is your religion - not mine.

But I do not have a religion.

Why would you assume and/or believe such an absurd thing?

[Age]

after you change some thing in order to prove what you previously believed is true, then some one else could just as easily change it back, to how it was and is meant to be

And that's precisely what I am betting on!

How it was meant to be is a normative claim.

It's an OUGHT, not an IS.

But absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. But, according to you there is NO 'IS'. According to you there is NO Truth.

Also, I did actually write: after you change some thing in order to prove what you previously believed is true, then some one else could just as easily change it back, to how it was and is meant to be, to prove what is actually the actual Truth, or just changed it to prove what they believe is already true

[Belinda]

I suggest if you want to see the actual Truth of things, then you start by speaking the actual Truth first.

The Truth is that there is no Truth.

Now fuck off.

However we cannot maintain life unless we start from a position of faith.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually the decision making process, either true or false, is subjecting choice to the law of excluded middle. I see your proof as an expression of computer programming...ie it is true as a calculation done by a computer.

What I am really demonstrating is that given any linguistic expression, such as P and ¬P, you can have one computer which calculates it as "false"; and another computer which calculates it as "true"

That should be sufficient to demonstrate that the "correct" answer is simply a matter of choice.

The LNC is prescriptive, not descriptive. It's a value, not a fact - thus violating the is-ought gap.

Game over.

All contexts, in this case computing, are simultaneously true and false.

All Assertions are Simultaneously True and False
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=28743

Computation is descriptive as it is a tautology of philosophy (ie "philosophy of computer science").

[Skepdick]

However we cannot maintain life unless we start from a position of faith.

Of course. That's the primary telos.

You don't need truth to stay alive, but you need to be alive to seek truth.

[Belinda]

You don't need truth to stay alive, but you need to be alive to seek truth.

If I repeat this off piste as I'd like to I don't know whether or not I should quote you as Skepdick

[Skepdick]

You don't need truth to stay alive, but you need to be alive to seek truth.

If I repeat this off piste as I'd like to I don't know whether or not I should quote you as Skepdick

No quote/credit required. It's probably not even my own idea.

Of all the things that float in my head, I often struggle to recall the origin of it all. Some of it I derived myself - some of it I borrowed. Difficult to tell which is which.