For Those NOT TRUE only

A Definition of Fact: [Edited]

* something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
* a true piece of information
* A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

According to this dictionary definition of FACT [Edited] please sign your name or id tag if you believe that you are NOT TRUE .
. Please clearly indicate by writing -

Yes, I _____________ am NOT TRUE.

Thankyou.

Originally posted by sonship
A Definition of True:

* something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
* a true piece of information
* A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

May I enquire as to which dictionary you are quoting this from?

Originally posted by twhitehead
May I enquire as to which dictionary you are quoting this from?

The word defined is not True but Fact:
That was my error.

And the paste came from here:

No, I just use better dictionaries than you. I note you failed to give the source of your definition. Did you make it up?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
* something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
* a true piece of information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
* A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

Everything else remains the same with my question.

May I inquire if you have a text on Logic (or two) which you have handy that you like to refer to? What is it?

For those answering the question in the OP, the emphasis is wrong, he should more properly be asking whether anyone considers themselves to not be TRUE ie is TRUE synonymous with REAL. It is not asking if anyone considers themselves to be 'NOT TRUE' as in 'FALSE'.

Originally posted by sonship
The word defined is not True but Fact:

So, what relevance does a definition for 'fact' have when dealing with the meaning of the word 'true'?
Why don't you give us a dictionary definition for the word 'true' that matches your intended usage?

Originally posted by sonship
May I inquire if you have a text on Logic (or two) which you have handy that you like to refer to? What is it?

May I enquire in what context you are asking for this reference? Do you wish to study the subject or just learn what the word means? Whichever the case, it wouldn't hurt to start with Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Originally posted by sonship
A Definition of Fact: [Edited]

[b] * something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
* a true piece of information
* A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

According to this dictionary definition of FACT [Edited] please sign your name or id tag if you b ...[text shortened]... indicate by writing -

Yes, I _____________ am NOT TRUE.

Thankyou.[/b]

Is it a true fact or just a regular fact?

I, vistesd, am not true. I am not false.

I take my existence as a fact. I take the following statement as true: “It is the case that vistesd exists.”

—I will continue to be insistent over the distinction between (a) fact, as that which is the case; and (b) truth, as a statement that accurately represents that which is the case; though I think I understood what sonship was after. To say that “I am not true” is not true—or false—if we are taking about existence: it is meaningless. There may be some other language game (contextual discourse) whose context could render such a statement about my “trueness” (or not) meaningful for those engaged in that language game.

Further, I take my own existence as a “brute fact” , in this sense— Since my senses and my consciousness are part and parcel of what I take it to mean for me to exist—to what else could I appeal for confirmation? What evidence could there possibly be for my existence that is not filtered through my senses and consciousness—i.e., my existence? I do not even rely on “my” senses and consciousness to “tell me” that “I” exist. That would be a confusion. They are what “I” am.

—“One of the most misleading representational techniques in our language is the use of the word 'I.'” (Wittgenstein) This is the kind of case where it seems quite easy to become “bewitched by our own language” (Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 109).

Wittgenstein made this point in On Certainty. Some kinds of doubt undermine themselves—for example, any doubt that I exist, such that there could be any sense in seeking confirmation from some exogenous source. (If I were to seriously question whether or not I exist at all, it is my brain chemistry that ought to be examined, not logic or some external evidence.* ) Such doubts undermine the very notion of evidentiary justification. As Wittgenstein said (using a different example): "I would not know what such a person would still allow to be counted as evidence and what not.” (OC, 231; my emphasis) In the example at hand, I do not know what could be counted as evidence and what not.

Further: “To be sure there is justification; but justification comes to an end.” (OC, 192) And: “The reasonable man does not have certain doubts.” (OC, 220; italics in original)

Note that none of this has to do with taking anything on faith. It just has to do with what I cannot sensibly doubt, such that there could be any evidence that could sensibly count toward resolving that doubt; to attempt to do so would just accentuate the absurdity.

______________________________________

*As I recall, Descartes did not question his existence per se, in his skeptical thought experiment, but the form of that existence. In any event, I am not a Cartesian skeptic. I mention “brain chemistry”, not to be flippant, but just to allow for some psychiatric condition that could result in such an absurdity.

Originally posted by sonship
A Definition of Fact: [Edited]

[b] * something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
* a true piece of information
* A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

According to this dictionary definition of FACT [Edited] please sign your name or id tag if you b ...[text shortened]... indicate by writing -

Yes, I _____________ am NOT TRUE.

Thankyou.[/b]

Yes, I josephw do in fact exist, truly, but not always true.

Ah, to be true indeed!

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I, vistesd, am not true. I am not false.

I take my existence as a fact. I take the following statement as true: “It is the case that vistesd exists.”

—I will continue to be insistent over the distinction between (a) fact, as that which is the case; and (b) truth, as a statement that acc ...[text shortened]... ippant, but just to allow for some psychiatric condition that could result in such an absurdity.[/b]

"Since my senses and my consciousness are part and parcel of what I take it to mean for me to exist—to what else could I appeal for confirmation?"

Possibly those things which your senses and consciousness tell you exist? I think that without the existence of those things which our senses and consciousness are aware of one may stumble at confirmation of the existence of anything, much less one's own existence. Imagine nothing to sense.

"What evidence could there possibly be for my existence that is not filtered through my senses and consciousness—i.e., my existence?"

That is a very good question. Perhaps the part of you that exists independent of your senses. If and when that part of you that "senses" fails, what remains of your existence, if the senses are all that confirms existence? To rely solely on one's physical senses for conformation of one's existence is, in my view, limiting of one's existence.

" I do not even rely on “my” senses and consciousness to “tell me” that “I” exist. That would be a confusion. They are what “I” am."

That's confusing. First you said it was your "senses and consciousness" that confirms your existence, but now you say they are not reliable, even after saying "what evidence could there possibly be for my existence that is not filtered through my senses and consciousness—i.e., my existence?"

We exist because we are alive. We live because we have been given life. The fact of our existence can only be attributed to the one that causes life to exist. Our existence is defined by the life we live. The true purpose and meaning of which is found in the one that created everything in existence and brought man into being.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I, vistesd, am not true. I am not false.

I take my existence as a fact. I take the following statement as true: “It is the case that vistesd exists.”

—I will continue to be insistent over the distinction between (a) fact, as that which is the case; and (b) truth, as a statement that acc ...[text shortened]... ippant, but just to allow for some psychiatric condition that could result in such an absurdity.[/b]

How would you know that something was 'the case' if it wasn't true?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How would you know that something was 'the case' if it wasn't true?

Easy. It would be the case that not-P.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Since my senses and my consciousness are part and parcel of what I take it to mean for me to exist—to what else could I appeal for confirmation?"

Possibly those things which your senses and consciousness tell you exist? I think that without the existence of those things which our senses and consciousness are aware of one may stumble at confirmatio ...[text shortened]... ng of which is found in the one that created everything in existence and brought man into being.[/b]

That's confusing. First you said it was your "senses and consciousness" that confirms your existence, but now you say they are not reliable, even after saying "what evidence could there possibly be for my existence that is not filtered through my senses and consciousness—i.e., my existence?"


I admit that it’s confusing. But not because I am saying that my senses and consciousness are unreliable. It’s confusing because of our common language. In the first pass, I simply used that language “my” sense and consciousness as if there is some other “I” that “has” them. In the second pass, I tried to clear that up—and illustrate how our common language can lead to such confusion—by pointing out that “they” are what I am. (I probably shouldn’t have put quotes around the “I” in that sentence.)

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How would you know that something was 'the case' if it wasn't true?

1. See BigDoggProblem's reply above.

2. Technically I can't know that P (or that not-P) is the case, if it is false--since knowledge is defined as justified true belief. I might think I know, I might be "certain" that I know--but if it turns out to be not true, then I didn't know.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]That's confusing. First you said it was your "senses and consciousness" that confirms your existence, but now you say they are not reliable, even after saying "what evidence could there possibly be for my existence that is not filtered through my senses and consciousness—i.e., my existence?"


I admit that it’s confusing. But not because I am say ...[text shortened]... y” are what I am. (I probably shouldn’t have put quotes around the “I” in that sentence.)[/b]

I thought that was the case. I sensed it more than I actually understood it cognizant-ly 😉 while reading it. But I still don't get you. 🙂

But it was this statement that got me going: "Since my senses and my consciousness are part and parcel of what I take it to mean for me to exist—to what else could I appeal for confirmation?"

It looks as though you're saying there is nothing else besides your senses that confirms your existence. That you know of. I think. Anyway, isn't that like nihilistic?