Philosophy Now Forum

.

Eyeon wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:16 am What is the absolute truth of everything? I propose it is the A=A.

It depends on what you mean by "=".

In Mathematics that symbol is overloaded.

There exist systems in which A=A is not true, even though A is identical to A. Example below:

Eyeon wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:16 am What is the absolute truth of everything? I propose it is the A=A.

A is A (not A=A) is the fundamental premise of correct reason and the criteria for all true statements. There is no absolute, "truth."

Truth is not a thing or entity, it is an attribute and has no ontological meaning. It is strictly an epistemological concept pertaining to propositions.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:52 pm A is A (not A=A) is the fundamental premise of correct reason and the criteria for all true statements. There is no absolute, "truth."

Truth is not a thing or entity, it is an attribute and has no ontological meaning. It is strictly an epistemological concept pertaining to propositions.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. --Bill Clinton

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 1:49 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:52 pm A is A (not A=A) is the fundamental premise of correct reason and the criteria for all true statements. There is no absolute, "truth."

Truth is not a thing or entity, it is an attribute and has no ontological meaning. It is strictly an epistemological concept pertaining to propositions.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. --Bill Clinton

It has no independent meaning. It's a copula.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:36 pm It has no independent meaning. It's a copula.

Is it?

Eyeon wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:16 am What is the absolute truth of everything? I propose it is the A=A.

"A" is defined through its repetition through "=" in "A=A".

"=" is undefined except through "=(A)=" where "=" is defined through its repetition through "A". An example of this would be "equality results in equality".

The middle term allows for the repetition of one phenomenon through another with this repetition resulting in identity. However this repetition is the continuity of a singular phenomenon thus necessitating identity being grounded in its individual expression or singularness.

As such both "A" and "=" are define through their relations, with "A=A" and "=(A)=" being dependent upon eachother, thus reducing the truth value to "A=" or "A equals" or "A is". This reduction results from identity being strictly monadic in the respect it gains its identity through a singular expression or rather expression of its singularness. In simpler terms identity is expressed through its monadicity with this monadicity being grounded in its continuity through repetition.

.

.

.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:52 pm

Eyeon wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:16 am What is the absolute truth of everything? I propose it is the A=A.

A is A (not A=A) is the fundamental premise of correct reason and the criteria for all true statements. There is no absolute, "truth."

Is this last statement true?

Could whatever this last statement is, to you, be refuted?

What is the difference between 'truth' and 'absolute truth' to you?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:52 pm Truth is not a thing or entity, it is an attribute and has no ontological meaning. It is strictly an epistemological concept pertaining to propositions.

Eyeon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:08 am Take a look at a leaf. You will see that the leaf has opposing sides. An A=A formation. See the A=A in a leaf!

https://www.seacoastonline.com/storyima ... 519381.jpg

I don't see A=A in the leaf. You are imagining things.

On the one hand I see a symbolic expression A=A.
On the other hand I see a leaf.

How is A=A related to the leaf?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:16 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:52 pm

Eyeon wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:16 am What is the absolute truth of everything? I propose it is the A=A.

A is A (not A=A) is the fundamental premise of correct reason and the criteria for all true statements. There is no absolute, "truth."

Is this last statement true?

Could whatever this last statement is, to you, be refuted?

What is the difference between 'truth' and 'absolute truth' to you?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:52 pm Truth is not a thing or entity, it is an attribute and has no ontological meaning. It is strictly an epistemological concept pertaining to propositions.

My mistake. I thought this was a philosophy site, not a twenty questions game show.

Why would I say what I did not mean? [You do not have to answer that question--it's rhetorical.]

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 11:44 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:16 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:52 pm
A is A (not A=A) is the fundamental premise of correct reason and the criteria for all true statements. There is no absolute, "truth."

Is this last statement true?

Could whatever this last statement is, to you, be refuted?

What is the difference between 'truth' and 'absolute truth' to you?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:52 pm Truth is not a thing or entity, it is an attribute and has no ontological meaning. It is strictly an epistemological concept pertaining to propositions.

My mistake. I thought this was a philosophy site, not a twenty questions game show.

Why would I say what I did not mean? [You do not have to answer that question--it's rhetorical.]

You, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT back up and support your CLAIM here.

See, everyone who CLAIMS things like; "there are NO absolute truths" REFUTE "them self" every time they TRY TO back up and support their CLAIM.

Your CLAIM here is a SELF-REFUTING CLAIM.

Eyeon wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:16 am What is the absolute truth of everything? I propose it is the A=A.

A=A is merely a logically truth which do not necessarily represent reality in all cases.
In general logic what we are doing is dealing with only abstracted things and not real particular things.

There is no absolute truth, i.e. no absolutely-absolute truth.
What is truth is always relative truths, i.e. they are relative to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
For example, we have the truth of "absolute-temperature" but this 'absolute' is relative to the scientific FSK, thus it is a relative absolute and a relative truth.

At present, the range scientific truths are the most credible [in degrees] in comparison to other sources of truths from different FSKs.
But despite being the most credible truths, scientific truths are at best merely 'polished conjectures'.
There are no absolutely-absolute truths.