Truth is an absurdity

[Wikkiwallana]

OP:

Your mom is an absurdity.

Really? Playground insults? That's not going to get any of us anywhere.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

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.

Ah, can't ride that train.

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

[Typhlochactas]

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.

You are confusing objectivism with absolutism. If something is universally agreed upon by all subjective views, then it is objective by definition. That does make it true. If something is true, then it's absolute, not objective. You've confused terms.

[VogoLannd]

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.

You have posited two faiths.

90 degrees

1) You believe that 90 is objectively 90. Why can't 60 be 90 and 90 be 60 or something entirely different? The Romans believed a 2 was actually a II. Which is objectively true? 2? II? what if we turn II sideways and get = , is that objectively a II sideways, is it objectively an equal sign, or is it something else completely ? Two identical lines whose entire meaning changes if you position those very two lines differently? There is no objective proof that 90 (two figures drawn or contemplated) means objectively 90 as you understand it to be and yet you believe that it does.

2) You believe the word degrees truthfully represents degrees. Why can't pegrees be degrees or something altogether different? Once again you have the chasm between the idea or thing and the subject labeling it without any objective truth being reached. This is a conjuration of a belief.

[CVT Temp]

You have posited two faiths.

90 degrees

1) You believe that 90 is objectively 90. Why can't 60 be 90 and 90 be 60 or something entirely different? The Romans believed a 2 was actually a II. Which is objectively true? 2? II? what if we turn II sideways and get = , is that objectively a II sideways, is it objectively an equal sign, or is it something else completely ? Two identical lines whose entire meaning changes if you position those very two lines differently? There is no objective proof that 90 (two figures drawn or contemplated) means objectively 90 as you understand it to be and yet you believe that it does.

2) You believe the word degrees truthfully represents degrees. Why can't pegrees be degrees or something altogether different? Once again you have the chasm between the idea or thing and the subject labeling it without any objective truth being reached. This is a conjuration of a belief.

Why is it that you still can't tell the difference between a signifier and that which is signified?

[Wikkiwallana]

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.

You have posited two faiths.

90 degrees

1) You believe that 90 is objectively 90. Why can't 60 be 90 and 90 be 60 or something entirely different? The Romans believed a 2 was actually a II. Which is objectively true? 2? II? what if we turn II sideways and get = , is that objectively a II sideways, is it objectively an equal sign, or is it something else completely ? Two identical lines whose entire meaning changes if you position those very two lines differently? There is no objective proof that 90 (two figures drawn or contemplated) means objectively 90 as you understand it to be and yet you believe that it does.

Problem one, you are assuming any of those is supposed to be an objective statement of reality rather than an agreed upon symbol to make communication possible. This isn't high fantasy, there is no "True Language" that is a perfect description of the universe, nor is there a need for one.

2) You believe the word degrees truthfully represents degrees.

No, I believe it is a construct we use to say "1/360th of a circle) because it's faster.

Why can't pegrees be degrees or something altogether different?

It can, but the word degrees is already the common English term, so it's the most useful at the current time. Unless you are a math/metric wonk and insist on using radians.

Once again you have the chasm between the idea or thing and the subject labeling it without any objective truth being reached. This is a conjuration of a belief.

No, this is gibberish. Possibly post-modernism taken way, way too far.

[VogoLannd]

You have posited two faiths.

90 degrees

1) You believe that 90 is objectively 90. Why can't 60 be 90 and 90 be 60 or something entirely different? The Romans believed a 2 was actually a II. Which is objectively true? 2? II? what if we turn II sideways and get = , is that objectively a II sideways, is it objectively an equal sign, or is it something else completely ? Two identical lines whose entire meaning changes if you position those very two lines differently? There is no objective proof that 90 (two figures drawn or contemplated) means objectively 90 as you understand it to be and yet you believe that it does.

2) You believe the word degrees truthfully represents degrees. Why can't pegrees be degrees or something altogether different? Once again you have the chasm between the idea or thing and the subject labeling it without any objective truth being reached. This is a conjuration of a belief.

Why is it that you still can't tell the difference between a signifier and that which is signified?

The truth of that which is signified, if it even has a truth, can never be reached by us. Are you saying the difference between the signifier and that which is signified is the difference between the arbitrary and the true? How do you know for certain that that which is signified is without a doubt true or has some kind of truth?

[Wikkiwallana]

Why is it that you still can't tell the difference between a signifier and that which is signified?

The truth of that which is signified, if it even has a truth, can never be reached by us. Are you saying the difference between the signifier and that which is signified is the difference between the arbitrary and the true? How do you know for certain that that which is signified is without a doubt true or has some kind of truth?

It doesn't matter. Harry Potter has a lightning bolt shaped scar on his forehead. Harry Potter isn't real. It is still true that Harry Potter has a lightning bolt shaped scar on his forehead.

[Meryuma]

2) You believe the word degrees truthfully represents degrees. Why can't pegrees be degrees or something altogether different? Once again you have the chasm between the idea or thing and the subject labeling it without any objective truth being reached. This is a conjuration of a belief.

Meaningless bullshit. What are you even trying to get at here? Language has to be arbitrary to exist, but arbitrary doesn't mean false because phonology cannot be true or false.

The Romans believed a 2 was actually a II. Which is objectively true? 2? II?

Oh my god, what? Neither of those are "believed" to be "true", they're signifiers. They're not claims, they're representations needed to communicate. Different languages/writing systems aren't wrong, they represent other cultures. This should be obvious - being confusing ≠ being profound.

"Which is objectively true? Kimonos or pants?"

[Esternial]

Humans are absurd.

So yes.

[Free Soviets]

The statement "Cogito, ergo sum" is not something that is innately true, it rests upon certain presuppositions (I would encourage you to read Descarte's meditations, it is quite clear there, especially in the third meditation), namely, that we are not somehow created to think fallaciously, or that thought itself is not a phantasm and an illusion.

wait, what?
1) thinking fallaciously still entails there being thinking going on, and therefore the existence of some thinking something or other. and it's me, whatever it is that i am!
2) i don't think you can define illusion in such a way that the proposition held by me right now 'i am thinking' is false. who or what is being tricked, and how does the result of that tricking not count as thinking?
3) more generally, you seem to simply have confused descartes' point - he needs god to not be a deceiver to get anywhere else, not for the cogito. the evil demon could be real and the cogito still undoubtable.

[Free Soviets]

"Which is objectively true? Kimonos or pants?"

pants.

[Cameroi]

the absurdity of pretending there is no reality out there, is how fanatacism created the technologically depressed era of the middle ages, and is at the root of today's 'economic' failures.

granted the pretense that reality can be "owned" by any one ideological, religious, or even cultural perspective, is equally "absurd".

diversity is reality's one true nature. tyrants, and sometimes the rest of us, can pull our hair out at this, but diversity is going to go right on being reality's nature regardless.

we do not live in a hierarchal universe, whatever god or gods or anything else there might happen to be. we live in one that is instead, statistical and diverse.

[Person012345]

1 + 1 = 2. It's true by definition.

[Person012345]

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.

You have posited two faiths.

90 degrees

1) You believe that 90 is objectively 90. Why can't 60 be 90 and 90 be 60 or something entirely different? The Romans believed a 2 was actually a II. Which is objectively true? 2? II? what if we turn II sideways and get = , is that objectively a II sideways, is it objectively an equal sign, or is it something else completely ? Two identical lines whose entire meaning changes if you position those very two lines differently? There is no objective proof that 90 (two figures drawn or contemplated) means objectively 90 as you understand it to be and yet you believe that it does.

90 is a representation of ninety single units. XC has the same meaning (I think). It doesn't matter how you choose to represent it. What matters is the meaning. Representation is used so that you can communicate it to others. Whether they understand it is quite different from whether the meaning of what you said was true.

2) You believe the word degrees truthfully represents degrees. Why can't pegrees be degrees or something altogether different? Once again you have the chasm between the idea or thing and the subject labeling it without any objective truth being reached. This is a conjuration of a belief.

Same as above. Degrees means degrees because that's what we define it to mean. You could think of a degree in your mind, you could draw a degree, without ever bringing the word "degree" into it. The question you asked is nonsensical, asking "2 or II, which is true" is like asking "German Shepherd or Alsatian, which is canine".

[VogoLannd]

Meaningless bullshit. What are you even trying to get at here? Language has to be arbitrary to exist, but arbitrary doesn't mean false because phonology cannot be true or false.

You don't know what I am trying to get at yet you believe with certainty that it is "meaning bullshit." Contradiction. So you believe phonology objectively cannot be true or false? You think that you know an objective truth of a concept? What faculties do you have that you think are responsible for stumbling onto this objective truth?

Oh my god, what? Neither of those are "believed" to be "true", they're signifiers. They're not claims, they're representations needed to communicate. Different languages/writing systems aren't wrong, they represent other cultures. This should be obvious - being confusing ≠ being profound.

Did you study the Romans? Did all of them believe in the same branch of linguistics that you believe in? Once again, what subjective faculties did you use to stumble unto these objective findings about what language is in essence?

[Samuraikoku]

There is only one truth.

[Paixao]

All of language is but a metaphor, and hence so is most of human thought. (I hold the belief that most human thought is based on language, and hence it is very difficult to conceptualize an idea you have no word for - unless you have previously seen it - i.e. I believe it should be possible to use Orwellian "Newspeak" to eliminate the concept of rebellion from language and hence thought, over a long period of time).

The entirety of human existence is just the observation of the world around us and the most logical (by whatever standards we hold to be logical or sensible) derivation of the 'facts' we from there observe.

Everybody agrees that 'the sky is blue' these days, because we all grew up associating that frequency of light with blue, go back to Ancient Greece, however, and the sky is 'copper'. (if you don't believe me; http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/61). For that matter, however, even the 'frequency of light' is a metaphorical concept that humanity uses to understand how light (as observed by us) reacts to its physical environment.

It is perfectly plausible that the entirety of science is wrong, that gravity doesn't exist and that the whole universe rotates around us - its just that according to everything we have observed, that is wrong, and that in all of human experience so far, nobody has ever defeated the 'theory' of gravity.

[Paixao]

You have posited two faiths.

90 degrees

1) You believe that 90 is objectively 90. Why can't 60 be 90 and 90 be 60 or something entirely different? The Romans believed a 2 was actually a II. Which is objectively true? 2? II? what if we turn II sideways and get = , is that objectively a II sideways, is it objectively an equal sign, or is it something else completely ? Two identical lines whose entire meaning changes if you position those very two lines differently? There is no objective proof that 90 (two figures drawn or contemplated) means objectively 90 as you understand it to be and yet you believe that it does.

90 is a representation of ninety single units. XC has the same meaning (I think). It doesn't matter how you choose to represent it. What matters is the meaning. Representation is used so that you can communicate it to others. Whether they understand it is quite different from whether the meaning of what you said was true.

2) You believe the word degrees truthfully represents degrees. Why can't pegrees be degrees or something altogether different? Once again you have the chasm between the idea or thing and the subject labeling it without any objective truth being reached. This is a conjuration of a belief.

Same as above. Degrees means degrees because that's what we define it to mean. You could think of a degree in your mind, you could draw a degree, without ever bringing the word "degree" into it. The question you asked is nonsensical, asking "2 or II, which is true" is like asking "German Shepherd or Alsatian, which is canine".

90 degrees is a completely arbitrary and non-existent metaphor that humans use for simplifying 'measurements' (something else that is completely arbitrary to the universe, I might add. There is no such thing as 'a kilometre', there is only the commonly accepted amount of space as observed by a human in its regular environment and at a certain temperature that all humanity has decided to agree on as being 'a kilometre' - simply a measurement that aids in communication between humans. A kilometre doesn't exist! It is no more true that a 'hobblegetkanme' - a unit I have now invented that designates the exact same space as a kilometre. Its just that everybody agrees that 'a kilometre' as opposed to a 'hobblegetkanme' is 'the truth')

In essence what I am saying is that the Truth ITSELF is subjective, and nothing more than what the majority of people at any given time agree on.

[Paixao]

1 + 1 = 2. It's true by definition.

Its statistically true.

There is absolutely no reason that the universe cannot, when we combine two objects, create a third. The entirety of the laws of physics are based on observation and statistics, just because, so far, whenever humanity has combined 2 objects, it has observed that 2 objects remain, does not mean that this is an absolute truth, only 'the truth' - the thing all/most of humanity agrees on.

[Kanaria]

Is the statement "Truth is an absurdity" true, therefore making truth not an absurdity?
Ah, whatever: I made up a philosophy that is based on the idea that -1=1. Equalism. Try it sometime- it confuses you, but it's more comforting than skepticism or dogma, which, in an Equalist viewpoint, are completely equal and valid and true. AT THE SAME TIME.
Basically, anything is valid.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Is the statement "Truth is an absurdity" true, therefore making truth not an absurdity?
Ah, whatever: I made up a philosophy that is based on the idea that -1=1. Equalism. Try it sometime- it confuses you, but it's more comforting than skepticism or dogma, which, in an Equalist viewpoint, are completely equal and valid and true. AT THE SAME TIME.
Basically, anything is valid.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=207695&p=11554563#p11554563

Not confusing to people who went to farther depths of mindfuckery.

I fuck brains like this thread fucks language definitions.

[Risottia]

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.

Fallacy. Truth =/= reality. Symbol =/= meaning.

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?

You're mixing semantics with semiotics.

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.

Assuming that the "true essence" (whatever it may be, apart from a poorly-defined and widely-abused term) is something real, of course.

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.

Again, semiotcs and semantics.

What is this if not faith? For faith is defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

There is proof, though, that the English-speakers use the symbol "apple" to mean that thing.
Hence, not faith.

Mankind observes phenomena, cannot possibly fathom it's objective essence, and yet a word is assigned to it with no actual insight gained.

Insight? The point of labelling stuff isn't getting insights, is merely having a handy tool for references.
If I label a book in a library as "Z5-coll.3", I don't have any interest in getting insight about that book. I just want to know where I can find that individual book in my library.

Your argument seems so plagued by systematical misunderstanding and misuse of definitions that it's frankly quite pointless.

[VogoLannd]

Fallacy. Truth =/= reality. Symbol =/= meaning.

A belief in logic, how do you know for certain that X is definitely not such and such? Truth is definitely not equal to reality? How is this the case with a doubt?

You're mixing semantics with semiotics.

Sir, I have no duty to hold Ancient Greek schools of thought as objective sources of truth. If Ancient Greece had never existed you'd have no ground to stand on. The terms semantics and semiotics would be absurd scribblings with no meaning.

There is proof, though, that the English-speakers use the symbol "apple" to mean that thing.
Hence, not faith.

That is not proof at all. You are making a synthetic connection. I don't believe consensus equals proof. Faith in consensus dominates here.

Insight? The point of labelling stuff isn't getting insights, is merely having a handy tool for references.
If I label a book in a library as "Z5-coll.3", I don't have any interest in getting insight about that book. I just want to know where I can find that individual book in my library.

It is amazing to me how many people on this forum claim to really know what the objective essence of things such as labeling in this case. How do you know that all people label things not to gain any insight but merely to have a handy tool for referencing? If even one subjective being has ever labeled something in order to try to understand its essence better then you would be wrong.

Your argument seems so plagued by systematical misunderstanding and misuse of definitions that it's frankly quite pointless.

Your argument is nothing more than the overvaluation of Ancient Greek schools of thought as sources for knowing objective truths. My perspective is not in accordance with your regulative articles of belief, I have threatened your outlook on life so you defend it by slandering my views as resulting from some sort of "systematical" misunderstanding but sir I couldn't care less about your system, it can go to the dogs for all I care.

[Kubrath]

It is amazing to me how many people on this forum claim to really know what the objective essence of things such as labeling in this case. How do you know that all people label things not to gain any insight but merely to have a handy tool for referencing? If even one subjective being has ever labeled something in order to try to understand its essence better then you would be wrong.

It is amazing to me how you actually state that labeling provides anything other than reference. Seriously, what kind of insight about "x" would one get if they labeled it "x1"? Would they know it's mass, it's weight, it's temperature, it's feelings, it's purpose, if any? This scribble called semantics would've still been devised, even if Anceint Greece never existed, just with a different Label.

Yes, a label may purposefully carry information about the object at hand, like for example labeling an apple as "roundishcomingfromatreefruit" but that is only After you've analyzed and concluded that.