Truth is an absurdity

[Christian Democrats]

It is true that a square has four sides!

Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

It is true that a square has four sides!

Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?

Holy SHIT I just realized something!

Saying there is no truth is a paradox!

It would mean the statement is false, which would mean that there is some truth somewhere out there.

But someone probably already said that, ok.

[Typhlochactas]

It is true that a square has four sides!

Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?

Holy SHIT I just realized something!

Saying there is no truth is a paradox!

It would mean the statement is false, which would mean that there is some truth somewhere out there.

But someone probably already said that, ok.

I beat you to it.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Holy SHIT I just realized something!

Saying there is no truth is a paradox!

It would mean the statement is false, which would mean that there is some truth somewhere out there.

But someone probably already said that, ok.

I beat you to it.

Is that the truth?

[Typhlochactas]

I beat you to it.

Is that the truth?

Yes.

[VogoLannd]

It is true that a square has four sides!

Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?

It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.

[Typhlochactas]

It is true that a square has four sides!

Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?

It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.

If it's agreed upon by all subjective views, then it's objective.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

It is true that a square has four sides!

Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?

It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.

A square is an abstract idea, and therefore internal.

You might as well say numbers don't exist.

Abstract ideas are different from concrete objects because while the latter has to deal with the interpretation of something outside the body, and therefore dependent on the mind to detect (if it is truly there anyway), abstract ideas are self-generated. Language only tells us how to construct them ourselves, but we are the architects of each in our own minds.

I cannot show you a circle in reality, I can only show you a representation of one. You have to have the idea in your own mind afterwards.

[Metaphysics (Ancient)]

Absolute Truths exist, for example, 2 + 2 will always equal 4

But you are correct in the fact that a majority of "truth" is subjective.

[Wikkiwallana]

It is true that a square has four sides!

Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?

It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.

No, a square has four sides by definition. We didn't see squares out in nature and declare "these are things with 4 sides, by Jove!". We instead, in the process of naming geometric figures, said, "And henceforth, all figures with exactly four equal sides, and exactly four 90° interior angles, shall be called 'squares'," and therefore anything that is a square is a thing with 4 sides. No subjectivity, no lack of perception, it's simple, objective truth.

[Metaphysics (Ancient)]

It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.

No, a square has four sides by definition. We didn't see squares out in nature and declare "these are things with 4 sides, by Jove!". We instead, in the process of naming geometric figures, said, "And henceforth, all figures with exactly four equal sides, and exactly four 90° interior angles, shall be called 'squares'," and therefore anything that is a square is a thing with 4 sides. No subjectivity, no lack of perception, it's simple, objective truth.

Observing anything is subjective.

[Wikkiwallana]

2 + 2 will always equal 4

2.45 + 2.45 = 4.9

Round the figures, watch what happens.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Absolute Truths exist, for example, 2 + 2 will always equal 4

But you are correct in the fact that a majority of "truth" is subjective.

The correct question is "can anything beyond me be a lie and would I be able to know?"

As an example, say I am a king in a room. It is all I have ever known in my entire life.

I have 5 messengers who tell me of the world, it's features, and of my kingdom of which I rule.

They ask for orders, I give them, and they come back later with a response.

They are my only connection to the world outside of my room, and I trust them because I have no better option.

The question to ask is, is there really a world beyond that room.

Do I really have a kingdom.

Couldn't the messengers be liars.

All I am sure of is the room, and I don't truly know how to leave.

I trust the messengers, but if all this time they were utter liars, I wouldn't know, and would have know way of knowing.

Likewise with the conscious mind.

All you can be sure of is the mind that is in itself thinking, all else is handled by what you assume are your senses, and what you then assume to tell you information that is correct about the world, or whether there is a world at all.

[Metaphysics (Ancient)]

2 + 2 will always equal 4

2.45 + 2.45 = 4.9

Round the figures, watch what happens.

rounding is a non-truth. Its an appeal to people's 'laziness' LOL

[Wikkiwallana]

No, a square has four sides by definition. We didn't see squares out in nature and declare "these are things with 4 sides, by Jove!". We instead, in the process of naming geometric figures, said, "And henceforth, all figures with exactly four equal sides, and exactly four 90° interior angles, shall be called 'squares'," and therefore anything that is a square is a thing with 4 sides. No subjectivity, no lack of perception, it's simple, objective truth.

Observing anything is subjective.

In that post, what is being observed?

[Metaphysics (Ancient)]

Absolute Truths exist, for example, 2 + 2 will always equal 4

But you are correct in the fact that a majority of "truth" is subjective.

The correct question is "can anything beyond me be a lie and would I be able to know?"

As an example, say I am a king in a room. It is all I have ever known in my entire life.

I have 5 messengers who tell me of the world, it's features, and of my kingdom of which I rule.

They ask for orders, I give them, and they come back later with a response.

They are my only connection to the world outside of my room, and I trust them because I have no better option.

The question to ask is, is there really a world beyond that room.

Do I really have a kingdom.

Couldn't the messengers be liars.

All I am sure of is the room, and I don't truly know how to leave.

I trust the messengers, but if all this time they were utter liars, I wouldn't know, and would have know way of knowing.

Likewise with the conscious mind.

All you can be sure of is the mind that is in itself thinking, all else is handled by what you assume are your senses, and what you then assume to tell you information that is correct about the world, or whether there is a world at all.

which is why we need to say that observation is subjective. Good proof, I like it.

[VogoLannd]

It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.

If it's agreed upon by all subjective views, then it's objective.

What of alien life? even if we can somehow magically achieve a universal human consensus we have not considered the opinions of other sophisticated life forms that may exist in the universe with their own perspectives. We would have to gather ALL that are capable of making subjective evaluations before proclaiming that every sophisticated being with subjective faculties agrees that this object is what we say it is.

EVEN IF THAT WERE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, all you have is an agreement between subjective beings that an object has the semblance of being such and such. It would be arrogant in my opinion to assume that if we were all to vanish that that square would definitely be a square and it would without a doubt have four sides etc.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

If it's agreed upon by all subjective views, then it's objective.

What of alien life? even if we can somehow magically achieve a universal human consensus we have not considered the opinions of other sophisticated life forms that may exist in the universe with their own perspectives. We would have to gather ALL that are capable of making subjective evaluations before proclaiming that every sophisticated being with subjective faculties agrees that this object is what we say it is.

EVEN IF THAT WERE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, all you have is an agreement between subjective beings that an object has the semblance of being such and such. It would be arrogant in my opinion to assume that if we were all to vanish that that square would definitely be a square and it would without a doubt have four sides etc.

Even simpler, if a schizophrenic is the only being in the universe...

...I think you can see the implications.

[Metaphysics (Ancient)]

Observing anything is subjective.

In that post, what is being observed?

The "4 sides" the "exactly four 90 degree interior angles"

[VogoLannd]

No, a square has four sides by definition. We didn't see squares out in nature and declare "these are things with 4 sides, by Jove!". We instead, in the process of naming geometric figures, said, "And henceforth, all figures with exactly four equal sides, and exactly four 90° interior angles, shall be called 'squares'," and therefore anything that is a square is a thing with 4 sides. No subjectivity, no lack of perception, it's simple, objective truth.

Four equal sides, 90 degree interior angles, numbers and words. Like I wrote before, I believe whatever we utter and whatever we write has it's origin in convictions which lack incontestable/objective proof. So here I see the proposal that the belief in words and and the belief in numbers carries the objective truth of the square. Subjective belief carrying truth on it's shoulders.

You position one faith down then you posit another faith on top of it and on top of that you get incontestable truth. You my friend are an alchemist. For there is surely some magic involved in that last step.

[Dongolia]

Truth is an absurdity that man ought to throw overboard.

How? Think about this and you'll realise that your reasoning, while not incorrect, is largely academic ... Enter realism.

[Metaphysics (Ancient)]

It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.

If it's agreed upon by all subjective views, then it's objective.

This is inherently false. If everyone was color blind and saw red as green or green as red, that would still not be a truth. Green and Red are two independent colors.

[Wikkiwallana]

In that post, what is being observed?

The "4 sides" the "exactly four 90 degree interior angles"

You don't have to observe for equal sides and four 90° angles (which actually should have been 4 equal angles, I forgot to account for curved surfaces, damn you non-euclidean geometry!) to state that something possessing them to be categorized a certain way. Much like I don't have to observe a creature with the front of a eagle and the back of a lion to define such a thing as a griffon.

[The Batorys]

OP:

Your mom is an absurdity.

[Wikkiwallana]

No, a square has four sides by definition. We didn't see squares out in nature and declare "these are things with 4 sides, by Jove!". We instead, in the process of naming geometric figures, said, "And henceforth, all figures with exactly four equal sides, and exactly four 90° interior angles, shall be called 'squares'," and therefore anything that is a square is a thing with 4 sides. No subjectivity, no lack of perception, it's simple, objective truth.

Four equal sides, 90 degree interior angles, numbers and words. Like I wrote before, I believe whatever we utter and whatever we write has it's origin in convictions which lack incontestable/objective proof. So here I see the proposal that the belief in words and and the belief in numbers carries the objective truth of the square. Subjective belief carrying truth on it's shoulders.

You position one faith down then you posit another faith on top of it and on top of that you get incontestable truth. You my friend are an alchemist. For there is surely some magic involved in that last step.

No magic, you are just looking at the world in a fun house mirror. What do you even mean by "the belief in words and and the belief in numbers"? I have posited no faiths, regardless of what you claim.