Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:21 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:16 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:37 pm Truth is only a relationship.
It is when the idea of a thing matches the thing in the real world.
It is an expression and ackowledgement of that relationship.

People also have feelings about truth. At the simplest level honesty is the basis of any society because a society runs on rails of people meaning what they say and keeping promises. Most people know this, even when society is fractured into sub groups some of them criminal sub groups.

Sadly true. People who feel their petty beliefs are true is at the heart of all calumnies of the world.
But these are not "truth" but a pale fake truth.

At psychological level people's feelings about truth often amount to longings for or aimings-for more honesty , more truth, in social relationships.

Truth has been reified for the metaphysical level of feelings about truth.It may be the reification that you don't approve of.

You choose the correspondence theory of truth: I choose the coherence theory of truth with a nod to Plato.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:18 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:17 am
Is that true?

If you read the post, it's obvious it is true.

It can't be. Remember, "there's not such thing as the truth."

But that's not what it says. The title (not the article) is "No Such Thing as, 'The Truth'," which is intentionally capitalized.

The first paragraph says: "There is no such thing as, "The Truth," or ultimate truth or absolute truth. Truth is not a thing, not a substance, and not an entity."

It never says there is no truth. It does not say there is nothing that is true. I'm explaining what truth actually is, not repudiating it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:18 am But if it IS true, then what you said was false: there is an absolute truth, namely, that what you said is absolutely true.

"Absolutely true," is redundant. A proposition is either true or it isn't. There is no more "absolute truth," then there is, "absolute red," or, "absolute wet," or, "absolute live."

What I said was simply true. It is simply one example of a true statement because it has, as a proposition, the attribute, "truth."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:18 am You can't get both: you can't claim there's no truth, and then frame it as a true statement.

Of course. That's why I never made such a claim.

stevie wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:44 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:50 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:39 am I understand that you don't claim to be true ...

If that's what you think, then you don't understand.

There being no truth as you say you can't claim to be true what you are claiming.

I never said there is no truth. You are making the same mistake as IC. See my response to him.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:21 pm A proposition is either true or it isn't.

That's not true about all propositions. Some are true, some are not true; some are undecidable.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:16 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:37 pm Truth is only a relationship.
It is when the idea of a thing matches the thing in the real world.
It is an expression and ackowledgement of that relationship.

People also have feelings about truth. At the simplest level honesty is the basis of any society because a society runs on rails of people meaning what they say and keeping promises. Most people know this, even when society is fractured into sub groups some of them criminal sub groups.

At psychological level people's feelings about truth often amount to longings for or aimings-for more honesty , more truth, in social relationships.

Truth has been reified for the metaphysical level of feelings about truth.It may be the reification that you don't approve of.

Now relate this to my theory on "sacrifice". SEE my response to you at "Re: My theory on Temples and Sacrifice is purged everywhere!"

That the 'Lord' permitted Abraham to keep Isaac was symbolic of change where compassion by the settled 'owners of land' to the *unsettled was unusual. ["Lord" in the bible can literally refer to how the non-owning nomads were being forced to pay 'tolls' as trespassers who referred to the settlement owners as arrogant 'gods' expecting sacrifice for cutting across their nicely manicured lawns. That the story demonstrates a 'lord' who had unusual compassion in their day and would have been unique and very novel representation of compassion.]

* Edit: fixed "settled" to "unsettled" at the asterisk above.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:31 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:44 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:50 pm
If that's what you think, then you don't understand.

There being no truth as you say you can't claim to be true what you are claiming.

I never said there is no truth. You are making the same mistake as IC. See my response to him.

Fine. Obviously you are rejecting something which is rarely asserted nowadays and you are making a difference between "the truth" and "the true" similar to ancient Stoics. But who cares about such kind of fabricated differentiations?
Nevertheless in the OP you are claiming "Truth is an attribute." and "is an assertion that is true if such'n'such is actually so'n'so" and "There is no other kind of truth." which may lead to the concept of an absolutely true attribute which then isn't any different from "ultimate truth or absolute truth" which you are denying. So you have to work on a precise verbal expression to avoid self contradiction. I suggest you add the word "relative" or "conventional" and say "Truth is a relative/conventional attribute."

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:27 am People also have feelings about truth.

People have, "feelings," about everything, from their constipation to their latest sentimental delusions. Nothing is more deceptive than one's irrational feelings. Almost every fatal mistake results from allowing feelings to influence one's thinking and choices.

If you want to enjoy your life in this world you must understand that, to truth, you feelings do not matter at all.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:41 am It's true that there is no truth. It is a perfectly meaningful claim.

You're admitting it's not true. If it is true, you've falsified your own claim...and made it false again. So either way, it's guaranteed to be false.

If you are going to insist that I can't do what I have just done, go ahead and explain how I just did the impossible.

Heh. That's easy": you didn't "do" a thing. There was no achievement, no creation of a real thing, and no logic in the fact that you spoke those words. They're simple nonsense, self-contradiction.

What's more remarkable is that you're not able to see how obviously that's the case. One would think that putting two simple sentences side by side, each stating the opposite of the other, would be very hard to miss...

But somehow, you missed your own point.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:52 pm You're admitting it's not true. If it is true, you've falsified your own claim...and made it false again. So either way, it's guaranteed to be false.

So is it true; or false? You can't seem to tell.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:52 pm Heh. That's easy": you didn't "do" a thing. There was no achievement, no creation of a real thing, and no logic in the fact that you spoke those words. They're simple nonsense, self-contradiction.

At the very least I created something that seems like a contradiction. Par for the course then - the creation satisfies the intention.

I am still waiting for you to point out a problem.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:21 pm The first paragraph says: "There is no such thing as, "The Truth," or ultimate truth or absolute truth. Truth is not a thing, not a substance, and not an entity."

You forgot that some nouns are abstract nouns. "The truth" is an abstract noun, designating the set of all true statements.

And if your statement doesn't belong in the set of all true statements, then it isn't true, by definition.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:52 pm You're admitting it's not true. If it is true, you've falsified your own claim...and made it false again. So either way, it's guaranteed to be false.

So is it true; or false? You can't seem to tell.

You're a terrible reader. It's false. Either way, it has to be. It falsifies itself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:04 pm You forgot that some nouns are abstract nouns. "The truth" is an abstract noun, designating the set of all true statements.

And if your statement doesn't belong in the set of all true statements, then it isn't true, by definition.

So does the set of all true statements contain the statement "The set of all true statements exists" ?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:05 pm You're a terrible reader. It's false. Either way, it has to be. It falsifies itself.

You are an even worse interpreter. There is no such thing as self-falsification.

Falsifying myself affirms the falsifier.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:04 pm You forgot that some nouns are abstract nouns. "The truth" is an abstract noun, designating the set of all true statements.

And if your statement doesn't belong in the set of all true statements, then it isn't true, by definition.

So does the set of all true statements contain the statement "The set of all true statements exists" ?

Of course.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:05 pm You're a terrible reader. It's false. Either way, it has to be. It falsifies itself.

You are an even worse interpreter. There is no such thing as self-falsification.

Falsifying myself affirms the falsifier.

Empty rhetoric.