Truth is an absurdity

[Salandriagado]

Assumption 1: There does not exist a universal truth.
By Assumption 1, it is universally true that there does not exist a universal truth.
Thus, there exists a universal truth. Contradiction.
Thus, by contradiction, Assumption 1 must be incorrect.
That is, there must exist a universal truth. QED.



And no, I can't tell you what it is. This is a non-constructive proof.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Assumption 1: There does not exist a universal truth.
By Assumption 1, it is universally true that there does not exist a universal truth.
Thus, there exists a universal truth. Contradiction.
Thus, by contradiction, Assumption 1 must be incorrect.
That is, there must exist a universal truth. QED.



And no, I can't tell you what it is. This is a non-constructive proof.

You just said it, that there must be a universal truth.

Therefore, that there must be a universal truth, is a universal truth.

[Salandriagado]

Assumption 1: There does not exist a universal truth.
By Assumption 1, it is universally true that there does not exist a universal truth.
Thus, there exists a universal truth. Contradiction.
Thus, by contradiction, Assumption 1 must be incorrect.
That is, there must exist a universal truth. QED.



And no, I can't tell you what it is. This is a non-constructive proof.

You just said it, that there must be a universal truth.

Therefore, that there must be a universal truth, is a universal truth.

Yet that also implies that there is at least one other universal truth, else it would be false, or at best indeterminable. Thus, there exists some other universal truth. However, I can't tell you what that truth is.

[Sociobiology]

Assumption 1: There does not exist a universal truth.
By Assumption 1, it is universally true that there does not exist a universal truth.
Thus, there exists a universal truth. Contradiction.
Thus, by contradiction, Assumption 1 must be incorrect.
That is, there must exist a universal truth. QED.



And no, I can't tell you what it is. This is a non-constructive proof.

Logic called he wants to know if your going to do that again if you could use some lube this time.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

You just said it, that there must be a universal truth.

Therefore, that there must be a universal truth, is a universal truth.

Yet that also implies that there is at least one other universal truth, else it would be false, or at best indeterminable. Thus, there exists some other universal truth. However, I can't tell you what that truth is.

There must be a universal truth

There is a universal truth

Good enough?

[VogoLannd]

No, but considering I've studied under some people who are respected authorities on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, I do think that I have a pretty good grasp on what he actually thought.

I wouldn't put my faith on "respected authorities." Professors teaching Nietzschean philosophy in Nazi Germany during the 1930s were also respected authorities, yet I think a pupil of theirs and you would certainly disagee over who has an accurate understanding of Nietzschean philosophy even though both of you studied under respected authorities.

[Person012345]

The very way in which you wrote your response proves me right. The sentence "Science has lots of concepts that the human mind cannot grasp" was stated so assuredly and authoritatively and human limitation was the cause, since there exist concepts that you cannot grasp and no one you know or ever heard of can grasp them either then it is objectively the case that there are concepts that the human mind can't grasp. Limitation has led to truth.

The sentence "Because they hold in every case we know of and because it simplifies everything" compliments my example with the stair case, to hold true in every case is to be unable to decipher any significant difference between the cases, therefore the cases are similar and the outcome will be similar, inability/limitation has led to truth.

This entire post made no sense.

We not being able to grasp them didn't lead to them. Limitation did not lead to truth. Stop making idiotic nonsensical statements.

[VogoLannd]

The very way in which you wrote your response proves me right. The sentence "Science has lots of concepts that the human mind cannot grasp" was stated so assuredly and authoritatively and human limitation was the cause, since there exist concepts that you cannot grasp and no one you know or ever heard of can grasp them either then it is objectively the case that there are concepts that the human mind can't grasp. Limitation has led to truth.

The sentence "Because they hold in every case we know of and because it simplifies everything" compliments my example with the stair case, to hold true in every case is to be unable to decipher any significant difference between the cases, therefore the cases are similar and the outcome will be similar, inability/limitation has led to truth.

This entire post made no sense.

We not being able to grasp them didn't lead to them. Limitation did not lead to truth. Stop making idiotic nonsensical statements.

Once again you are reinforcing my view on logic. You do not possess the ability to understand my idea, this leads to you proclaiming that my statements are objectively nonsensical, implying that no one will be able to make sense of it. Your limitation has led to your belief that my idea is objectively nonsensical. Limitation has led to what you believe is the truth about my statements.

I'm so sorry that you can't understand this idea.

[Straughn]

This thread has a lot of potential ... like the 25 other threads since impetus that danced around it. If the archives were so kind, we can do a comparison later.
Keep up the good work otherwise!

[Meryuma]

...

Do you know what linguistics is?

Scientific study of human language, much of which has changed since the study of linguistics in the days of the Roman Empire which just largely borrowed from Ancient Greek thought. Linguistics today is very different from linguistics back then.

Linguistics as a discipline didn't exist in Ancient Roman times. What are you accusing me of?

[CVT Temp]

Once again you are reinforcing my view on logic. You do not possess the ability to understand my idea, this leads to you proclaiming that my statements are objectively nonsensical, implying that no one will be able to make sense of it. Your limitation has led to your belief that my idea is objectively nonsensical. Limitation has led to what you believe is the truth about my statements.

I'm so sorry that you can't understand this idea.

Logic really isn't a property of the world so much as a property of language. One can definitely use different systems of logic, but these different systems just amount to different ways of expressing ideas using different logical operators and different cardinalities for the number of truth values. It just happens that classical logic is one of the more useful setups to work with. However, there can be situations where slightly different logics make expressing thoughts easier.

[Risottia]

Logic really isn't a property of the world so much as a property of language.

^This, 1000 times this.
Again, the OP relies on a fundamental flaw of mistaking symbols for meanings (semiotics for semantics).

[Salandriagado]

Assumption 1: There does not exist a universal truth.
By Assumption 1, it is universally true that there does not exist a universal truth.
Thus, there exists a universal truth. Contradiction.
Thus, by contradiction, Assumption 1 must be incorrect.
That is, there must exist a universal truth. QED.



And no, I can't tell you what it is. This is a non-constructive proof.

Logic called he wants to know if your going to do that again if you could use some lube this time.

Kindly point out the flaw in that argument.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Logic called he wants to know if your going to do that again if you could use some lube this time.

Kindly point out the flaw in that argument.

None, because it's been restated 3 times in this thread.

[Dongolia]

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

Ah, can't ride that train.

Its just as much in "maybe" territory as anti-realism to me.

True, but realism appear to be the more useful approach.

On the other hand, in the case of the coherence vs. the correspondence theory of truth, I lean strongly towards the former.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Ah, can't ride that train.

Its just as much in "maybe" territory as anti-realism to me.

True, but realism appear to be the more useful approach.

On the other hand, in the case of the coherence vs. the correspondence theory of truth, I lean strongly towards the former.

Yeah, but in philosophy, I started the entire thing with the search for absolute truths. Undeniable pillars.

That's why I've landed in such a nihilistic position, and I may be the hardest nihilist the world has ever known.

That said, I hope that word means what I think it means.

[VogoLannd]

Logic really isn't a property of the world so much as a property of language.

^This, 1000 times this.
Again, the OP relies on a fundamental flaw of mistaking symbols for meanings (semiotics for semantics).

Take the idea of signifier and that which is signified, humans are incapable of obtaining insight from labeling, so they create a logical separation between signifier and that which is signified and proclaim the establishment of two separate categories to be objectively true. We believe the essence of the two categories to be objectively separate because WE can not make the connection, therefore no subjective being will ever make this connection. A subjective being gaining insight of an object by labeling it would be illogical because we are incapable of doing it. This is not proof of any truth, this just signifies our current LIMITATIONS as human beings. Those who believe in logic believe that our limitations are the sign posts to truth. We can't fathom how something could be contradictory and yet be valid so we refute it as illogical. Quantum theory states that our universe was created from a void that was positively charged. contradiction! impossible! how can nothing have a positive charge, how can nothing contain something! I cannot understand this so it must be illogical and false.

Well I am not going to be so arrogant and presumptuous as to believe that if our species can't understand something or do something then that means we have stumbled onto some kind of objective truth. Humanity and it's limitations are being grossly overvalued here.

[Seperates]

There probably is no such thing outside of mathematics that is objective truth... But that doesn't mean we can't search it out.

[Central Slavia]

As I understand it, the word objective is defined as an attribute which signifies incontestable reality towards the idea or thing that it is attached to. This means that if I claim X to be objective then X is a reality beyond my perspective and other perspectives cannot alter this X. The problem with ascribing anything objective to X is that all my faculties of evaluation are subjective in essence. I will use language and an apple as examples to demonstrate the impossibility of transforming our subjective beliefs into objective facts.

How is it that anything is properly labeled in language? or more specifically why is an apple regarded as an apple? Some may claim that the word apple is derived from the word aplaz which is from an older proto-Germanic language but then I retort why was an apple labeled aplaz? let's regress to the zero level, before any language existed as a precedent, how is it that humanity labeled the apple? here I claim as in everything else the chasm between human subjectivity and the true essence of the thing being observed is impossible to breech. When humans utter the word apple it is a sound and nothing more and when humans write the word apple it is a scribbling which is felt to be appropriate to the utterance. Neither the sound nor the scribbling brings us any closer to the essence of the thing in question. Would it be any more or less accurate to label an apple a schmaple or a durkato? And what if we were to draw two bent lines with an exclamation point at the end? How is this any less accurate than the word apple? What transpires at the origin of an object's labeling is devoid of any truth, what actually occurs is the conjuration of a belief. The man labeling the object with his particular version of the word apple is fostering a conviction that X from now on shall be called Y but there is no basis in objective reality for this connection! No incontestable proof whatsoever!

Congratulations! You just realized that a language is a set of arbitrary labels for things. The word for an apple might as well be durkato, the only important thing there is that you and whoever you're talking to both understand the label to refer to the same thing, or reasonably similar at the very least. The value of course is that I can inform someone of an event using an agreed set of labels without having to show him what took place.
However, I fail to see how this is a particularly deep insight of any sort.

What is this if not faith? For faith is defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Mankind observes phenomena, cannot possibly fathom it's objective essence, and yet a word is assigned to it with no actual insight gained. Now we see the abyss hidden beneath everything we've ever held to be true. There is no idea more genuine or favorable than another if truth is factored into our evaluations. Neither scientist nor priest has a more accurate grasp on reality since both are human and in possession of subjective faculties. The proud claim to truth of the scientific community is no less an article of faith than the Christian belief in the Holy Bible as the word of God.

And here comes the non-sequituur bullshit.
Scientific community has a solid claim to truth because unlike pretty much any religion there is, science makes true predictions about events and allows us to make things using these predictions.
An apple falls to the ground regardless if you call it apple or jablko or even durkato, and it is science, not religion that allows you to gauge how fast it will fall and how big a hole it will gouge in the soil underneath the tree, even what nutrition will your body gain from eating it.
And the beautiful bit? All of that takes place no matter if you believe in the theoretics of it, or not. You might be convinced the density of aluminium is 2.7 kg per cubic metre (through a simple decimal point shift error), but it won't allow you to lift a car with a single hand.
Faiths on the other hand offer no useful insight whatsoever.

There is no truth, there are only perspectives based solely on faith. Therefore,as far as humanity is concerned, all is faith. One should never be dissuaded from their beliefs because others claim they are "inaccurate" or "not based on fact" for this type of criticism emanates from an absurd and impossible demand to be assured of the truth behind an idea before holding it as one's own and acting upon it. If such a criteria was to be existentially forced on our species then all vestiges of language, philosophy, art, time, music, religion, science, politics, etc would be promptly removed from human history. Truth is an absurdity that man ought to throw overboard.

Heavily influenced by Nietzsche's Perspectivism. I would appreciate any thoughts or constructive criticism.

And more idiocy that doesn't survive contact with reality, because out of so many claims of equal value of ideas, you can't knot a whip from turds, or sate your thirst with saltwater, no matter how elegant a theory claiming so would sound.

[Central Slavia]

Logic called he wants to know if your going to do that again if you could use some lube this time.

Kindly point out the flaw in that argument.

For one "Beginning with true premises, a sound logic process will result in a true conclusion" is an universal truth coming from the definition of logic. As soon as you reject universal truths, it need not apply all the time, and thus using logic to disprove it is much like trying to fly by lifting yourself up by your hair. (AKA i's useless and if you try hard enough, you'll get a headache)

[VogoLannd]

Logic really isn't a property of the world so much as a property of language. One can definitely use different systems of logic, but these different systems just amount to different ways of expressing ideas using different logical operators and different cardinalities for the number of truth values. It just happens that classical logic is one of the more useful setups to work with. However, there can be situations where slightly different logics make expressing thoughts easier.

I agree with you that logic is used by people because it is expedient and therefore useful. But surely this doesn't lead to any objective/unconditional truth?

About truth values: According to logic, a truth value is something which states whether something is true or not. So the statement "the rock is solid" is believed to be true if the rock indeed seems to be solid, this is taken to be unconditionally true, no matter who looks at and examines the rock, they must conclude that the the rock is solid according to this truth value. However, the objective/truth characteristic of the rock being "solid in itself" is nullified when we examine the rock and determine that "the rock is solid" because all of us have done so on the condition that we used our senses to render this judgement, the statement "the rock is solid" thus becomes a conditional truth and not really a truth in as much as truth is believed to deal with the reality of ideas and things. A truth value is therefore not a truth but a value strengthened by unanimous consent or at least the majority. Something we take to be true is actually not true simply because it is knowable to us and that cancels out the possibility of it being an unconditional truth.

[CVT Temp]

I agree with you that logic is used by people because it is expedient and therefore useful. But surely this doesn't lead to any objective/unconditional truth?

I'm more of a structuralist than a correspondence theory person. Truth is in the form of structure. If two different descriptions of a system using two different sets of metaphysical assumptions both yield the same structure, then as far as I'm concerned they're equally valid descriptions. If you can describe a system in both classical and paraconsistent logic, then whichever one is easier to use is probably the "better" description, just from the point of view of convenience.

The universe is some kind of structure. The goal of "truth-seeking" or science is to figure out what that structure is. The fact that there may be many different ways to describe that structure is perfectly fine, because it's the structure induced by the description that matters and not the choice of description.

[Free Soviets]

According to logic, a truth value is something which states whether something is true or not. So the statement "the rock is solid" is believed to be true if the rock indeed seems to be solid, this is taken to be unconditionally true, no matter who looks at and examines the rock, they must conclude that the the rock is solid according to this truth value. However, the objective/truth characteristic of the rock being "solid in itself" is nullified when we examine the rock and determine that "the rock is solid" because all of us have done so on the condition that we used our senses to render this judgement, the statement "the rock is solid" thus becomes a conditional truth and not really a truth in as much as truth is believed to deal with the reality of ideas and things. A truth value is therefore not a truth but a value strengthened by unanimous consent or at least the majority. Something we take to be true is actually not true simply because it is knowable to us and that cancels out the possibility of it being an unconditional truth.

wait...is this your problem?

no. the fact that it is possible to be wrong has literally no bearing at all on the truth value of the proposition 'the rock is solid'. even if literally every single person was systematically wrong about it, due to the intervention of Descartes' evil demon maybe, there is still a truth value there, and it is objective. if this is where you are coming from, your problem is with knowledge claims and not truth.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Oh, oh, are we doing logical paradoxes brought about by modern reinterpretations of ancient Greek philosophy?

My turn!

"This sentence is false."

[Free Soviets]

Oh, oh, are we doing logical paradoxes brought about by modern reinterpretations of ancient Greek philosophy?

My turn!

"This sentence is false."

too short. i prefer the one about the barber who shaves everyone in town that doesn't shave themselves.