26 Aug 06
Heres some questions to think about. (1) What is real? What is truth? Define them witout citing synonyms please. (2) Can truth about reality be known? (3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we are not sure about the first 3 questions, and why?
I would also prefer if posters stick to value theory debate, and not get off on too many tangents. Thank you, I appreciate your time and your input.
26 Aug 06
Originally posted by ngeisler88If you are genuinely interested, here's a decent philosophy primer on various theories of truth.
Heres some questions to think about. (1) What is real? What is truth? Define them witout citing synonyms please. (2) Can truth about reality be known? (3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we a ...[text shortened]... debate, and not get off on too many tangents. Thank you, I appreciate your time and your input.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm
But if you just want people to say "goddunit", then say so.
26 Aug 06
Originally posted by ngeisler88who cares? those are dumb questions
Heres some questions to think about. (1) What is real? What is truth? Define them witout citing synonyms please. (2) Can truth about reality be known? (3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we a ...[text shortened]... debate, and not get off on too many tangents. Thank you, I appreciate your time and your input.
27 Aug 06
Originally posted by mazziewagNot to seem rude, but I will be critical of your statement.
you know none of this can be proved, are you just wanting attention?
You say none of this can be proven, which I am assuming you refer to my post about truth - obvious I know. So basically what your saying is that you can't know what truth is. Then you cant believe in anything with absolute certainty because it must be 100% true in order to foll under the category of truth, which is something you say we cant know. Hopefully, that is understandable, but that is the logical conclusion of what your saying.
However, and heres where I have contention with your response, is that you seem to know that "none" of this can be proven. None is a strong word, inferring no possible way - obvious I know. So you seem to know with absolute certainity that you cant know something to be true with absolute certainty, though you seem to believe that is true. So then what your saying is that you cant know truth, none of it can be proven, there are no absolutes to weight it against blablabla..... Therefore according to your logic, "there are no absolutes about truth," except that statemen which is an absolute and because you said it, I'm assuming you believe that to be true.
Do you see the flaw with your logic in that simple attempt of refutation? Whether you like it or not, that is the logical conclusion of what youre saying. And basically your statement is self-defeating, because you must truthfully know that none of this [truth talk] can be proven, meaning you cant truthfully know anything.....but somehow you know that.
27 Aug 06
Originally posted by mazziewagUhmm, yeah, the last comment I responded to under this post was probably long and confusing.
you know none of this can be proved, are you just wanting attention?
But Mazziewag or any other people for that matter, if you really are interested in what I'm saying or would like it explained better, then please send me a message.
27 Aug 06
Originally posted by dottewellYeah, thats some deep stuff. Thank you for your reference, although I do find some fault on what they are presenting/claiming...but it is definitely intriguing.
If you are genuinely interested, here's a decent philosophy primer on various theories of truth.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm
But if you just want people to say "goddunit", then say so.
However the main purpose of my post, although not mentioned (my own fault), is to just see what other people truthfully think about truth. I already have formulated and opinion through personal investigation, so more resources is not really what I am looking for, although that site did make me think. So what I really wanted, Dottewell, was to hear what you think it means, your understanding and viewpoint of it right now, not necessarily what others have presented.
Thanks for your reference, but I hoped that cleared things up.
27 Aug 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYeah I think that is the most easy and obvious answer, but what do you really believe is true or false about what people present and define as truth? Because a simple dictionary definition doesnt satisy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=truth
The purpose of my post was to get people to think and post what is their answer to those 4 questions. Yeah, it's deep I guess, but I posted this really to analyze my own own views on "truth" to see how they compare to others.
So what do you think people?
27 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ngeisler88My point in posting the link was to make sure you were aware there were several theories of truth which either answer or at least address your questions.
Yeah, thats some deep stuff. Thank you for your reference, although I do find some fault on what they are presenting/claiming...but it is definitely intriguing.
However the main purpose of my post, although not mentioned (my own fault), is to just see what other people truthfully think about truth. I already have formulated and opinion through person ...[text shortened]... ly what others have presented.
Thanks for your reference, but I hoped that cleared things up.
If you really want to know, my own approach to the matter is Wittgensteinian. I think any "metaphysical dicussion" of truth is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept, and how it functions in our language. I think your questions can be answered either trivially, or are meaningless. I think when you start imagining truth as some "thing", you are going terribly wrong. I think the important and meaningful questions about truth are along the lines of "How do we work out if X is true" or even "Is X true"?
Please don't bracket me with relativists; this is something quite different.
Anyway, I won't be any use in the discussion you want to have.
27 Aug 06
Originally posted by ngeisler88I support a neo-classical correspondence theory of truth: roughly, truth lies in the satisfaction of a correspondence relation between a structured proposition and a fact.
Heres some questions to think about. (1) What is real? What is truth? Define them witout citing synonyms please. (2) Can truth about reality be known? (3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we a ...[text shortened]... debate, and not get off on too many tangents. Thank you, I appreciate your time and your input.
Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we are not sure about the first 3 questions, and why?
These are silly questions.
--------------------------------------------
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
27 Aug 06
Originally posted by ngeisler88"Real" and "Truth" are words. Artificial labels we put on artificial things - mere constructs of our brains.
Heres some questions to think about. (1) What is real? What is truth? Define them witout citing synonyms please. (2) Can truth about reality be known? (3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we a ...[text shortened]... debate, and not get off on too many tangents. Thank you, I appreciate your time and your input.
27 Aug 06
5 edits
Originally posted by ngeisler88Do you see the flaw with your logic in that simple attempt of refutation?
I don't, and I'm a pretty sharp guy. What is the flaw? Analytically derive a contradiction from his statement, not from a strawman portrayal of his statement. Then I'll see it, if it's there.
Whether you like it or not, that is the logical conclusion of what youre saying.
Actually, it's only the logical conclusion of a strawman portrayal of skepticism. I don't believe it can be derived from his actual claim.
And basically your statement is self-defeating, because you must truthfully know that none of this [truth talk] can be proven, meaning you cant truthfully know anything.....but somehow you know that.
This is a non-sequitur, again rooted in your misconception of the nature of skepticism and your equivocation on the term "know."