Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote: Two philosophers walk into a bar - one says nothing is true, the other says everything is true - who is telling the truth?

I have met philosophers who claim the former, but not one who says the latter. However, there are many who say there is some truth. And you can be quite certain that if there is a truthful philosopher there, he is among that latter group. For the one who says there is NO truth has self-defeated; by his own claim, his claim is not true.

He's confessed his own inadequacy, therefore. And you may believe him with confidence.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote: Two philosophers walk into a bar - one says nothing is true, the other says everything is true - who is telling the truth?

I have met philosophers who claim the former, but not one who says the latter. However, there are many who say there is some truth.

Some philosophers might say that some truth is relative truth.

Greta wrote:Some philosophers might say that some truth is relative truth.

The ones who know what they are talking about would say that it is what people believe to be the truth that is relative, not the truth itself. Have a go, Greta; with a sharp enough spike and a heavy mallet, you might get that through Mr Can's skull.

uwot wrote:

Greta wrote:Some philosophers might say that some truth is relative truth.

The ones who know what they are talking about would say that it is what people believe to be the truth that is relative, not the truth itself. Have a go, Greta; with a sharp enough spike and a heavy mallet, you might get that through Mr Can's skull.

Well, he's very keen on his absolute truth, as perceived in the middle east 2,000 years ago. That's what he uses as a conduit towards "the good life" and the edifice relies on conviction about things based on authority and inference and not on evidence. The the unbending nature of ideal theist conviction is considered to be a virtue.

Then again, determination to not accept the bleedin' obvious without certain levels of proof is seen as a virtue in science. Also problematic, and most damaging for animals when they were assumed, in lieu of conclusive evidence, to be unfeeling automatons rather than feeling beings. Any dog owner knows that idea is insane, almost psychopathic, no matter how many smart alecs cry "anthropomorphism".

Greta wrote: Some philosophers might say that some truth is relative truth.

Oh, sure. But everybody admits that some kinds of truth are relative...such as whether you prefer vanilla or chocolate. There's a truth about that, but it will depend on your subjective mood.

However, the only important question is whether any truth is absolute. That's where views actually differ. And on that question, only the people who assert the affirmative are actually being logical. The rest are simply self-contradictory.

Greta wrote: Well, he's very keen on his absolute truth,

"Keenness" has zero to do with whether or not it's logical.

"There is no truth" simply cannot be true, logically speaking. It's as absurd as saying "This bachelor is married," and "This circle is square." It's analytically impossible, regardless of your or my or anyone's opinion.

Now, to say, "One knows no truth" is a different issue: many people don't know what the truth is, about a great many things, 'tis true. However, one thing no rational person can doubt is that truth must exist.

If it does not, then the statement "there is no absolute truth" is only relatively true, and hence, sometimes false; and hence, totally false, since there must be at least one absolute truth for that to be true, meaning relativism is not absolutely true.

It's as logically easy as shooting fish in the proverbial barrel.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Killing is Bad: DEPENDS.
Thus relativism is true.

I once made the statement, to a pastor, that "killing wasn't always bad" to which he argued that murder was always bad. He immediately misconstrued my statement of Killing as meaning murder. I didn't have the opportunity to ask what he had eaten for supper that evening, proving that to live, humans had to kill something, even vegans kill the plants that they eat.

Next time ask him about the wording of the Sixth commandment. Not even the hoi polloi were allowed to kill animals, as that was reserved for the privileged, and had to be done Kosher.
All the churches who had not already done so, in 1914 were encouraged to change the wording to Thou shalt do no murder to ensure that all the boys wanting to kill Germans were free to do so, without fear of God.

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:
Based on your "dialog" with it, admittedly dispatched in short sentences many perfectly apropos in response, it's clear there is no 'real mind' behind it...yet. The greater quandary is how much of a mind it takes to write something like this:

If nothing is true,
Then Relativism is not true.
If something is true,
Then Relativism is not true

We have different interpretations of it but to me it comes across like this:

Hogamous higamous man is polygamous
Higamous hogamous man is monogamous.

It begs the question to what extend is human intelligence in collusion with stupidity.

Relativism does not claim that 'nothing is true'. You are just being silly building a straw man.
If something is true then something is true in relation to it's premises. Thus a thing can ONLY be true, if relativism is true.
There is no doubt that what passes for human intelligence in your case has made a fatal collision with stupidity, never mind collusion.
Black is dark relies on a relation of meaning with the constituents of the definitions and in relation to, in this case the absence of light. The statement has no meaning without light, sight, or relations with these concepts. Thus the truth of this statement is relies on the relativism of the conditions.
Killing is Bad: DEPENDS.
Thus relativism is true.

Yes Relativism is true; one can even claim it to be "absolutely" true.

I merely quoted IC on his conclusions of whether something is true or nothing is true, which I found ludicrous since they both yield the same result that Relativism is not true...an oxymoron considering the terms used besides being obviously false. Instead of concluding that it was my fatal collision with stupidity you should have fought it out with your other troll partner who in a super simplistic announcement decided that Relativism is not true.

If what I write keeps going infra-red in your head, instead of replying, just shut up!

I simply responded to what you typed. Own it. I've no time to waste also reading the idiot IC.

Immanuel Can wrote: I have met philosophers

Me too, I bump into them all the time.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Relativism does not claim that 'nothing is true'. You are just being silly building a straw man.
If something is true then something is true in relation to it's premises. Thus a thing can ONLY be true, if relativism is true.
There is no doubt that what passes for human intelligence in your case has made a fatal collision with stupidity, never mind collusion.
Black is dark relies on a relation of meaning with the constituents of the definitions and in relation to, in this case the absence of light. The statement has no meaning without light, sight, or relations with these concepts. Thus the truth of this statement is relies on the relativism of the conditions.
Killing is Bad: DEPENDS.
Thus relativism is true.

Yes Relativism is true; one can even claim it to be "absolutely" true.

I merely quoted IC on his conclusions of whether something is true or nothing is true, which I found ludicrous since they both yield the same result that Relativism is not true...an oxymoron considering the terms used besides being obviously false. Instead of concluding that it was my fatal collision with stupidity you should have fought it out with your other troll partner who in a super simplistic announcement decided that Relativism is not true.

If what I write keeps going infra-red in your head, instead of replying, just shut up!

I simply responded to what you typed. Own it. I've no time to waste also reading the idiot IC.

Fucking figure out who wrote what first. What's a quote and what's original. In your case, give it a day or two before replying. If you can't then keep your ballpoint parked in your ass. Also note, IC is no more of an idiot than you are, just of a different variety within the same group.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: I have met philosophers

Me too, I bump into them all the time.

You should watch where you're going.

thedoc wrote: You should watch where you're going.

I do watch where I'm going, I bump into them deliberately. I'm amused by how bouncy they are.

Only "philosophers" can transform Truth into a thoroughly ludicrous concept. Truth, as a generic abstraction, doesn't exist except as one of philosophy's greatest handicaps. That's why we've been on the merry-go-round with this silly idea for the last 2500 years. It can only manifest itself distinctly, discretely when applied to something specific. Even then it doesn't have to conform to actual truth, only evaluated as such. Truth remains an empty set without defining properties until then.

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:
Yes Relativism is true; one can even claim it to be "absolutely" true.

I merely quoted IC on his conclusions of whether something is true or nothing is true, which I found ludicrous since they both yield the same result that Relativism is not true...an oxymoron considering the terms used besides being obviously false. Instead of concluding that it was my fatal collision with stupidity you should have fought it out with your other troll partner who in a super simplistic announcement decided that Relativism is not true.

If what I write keeps going infra-red in your head, instead of replying, just shut up!

I simply responded to what you typed. Own it. I've no time to waste also reading the idiot IC.

Fucking figure out who wrote what first. What's a quote and what's original. In your case, give it a day or two before replying. If you can't then keep your ballpoint parked in your ass. Also note, IC is no more of an idiot than you are, just of a different variety within the same group.

The thread is obvious and tedious.
You are basically mistaking my position and don't know when you might have an ally. However you are too dull and inarticulate to express yourself against IC who, despite his idiocy is managing to run you ragged.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I simply responded to what you typed. Own it. I've no time to waste also reading the idiot IC.

Fucking figure out who wrote what first. What's a quote and what's original. In your case, give it a day or two before replying. If you can't then keep your ballpoint parked in your ass. Also note, IC is no more of an idiot than you are, just of a different variety within the same group.

The thread is obvious and tedious.
You are basically mistaking my position and don't know when you might have an ally. However you are too dull and inarticulate to express yourself against IC who, despite his idiocy is managing to run you ragged.

If that's what you want to believe go right ahead. Based on the source I have no objection to you thinking that way. IC will also be glad to hear it!
Now kindly fuck off and keep away from my posts since I'm "too dull and inarticulate to express myself" which must the reason you consistently fail to grasp anything I write beside the more obvious reason that you may simply be stupid