Defining 'Truth': A Puzzling Quandary

[Nicomachus]

I think you may be confusing grammatical equations with objective observations! (even though I agree with most of your post)

that statement by the way is not 'truth' in the objective sense but false in the objective sense. False can be a personal truth, however it is still false in objective reality...


hehe, what's wrong with poetry? or even pottery?

Moonrat

Moonrat, with all due respect I think you are confusing reality with some nihilist/relativistic world or whatever it is you are doing. The statement "all red elephants always exist in loaves of bread" is entirely a true statement and it has nothing to do with "grammatical equations" or whatever you are talking about. This is all rather simple really; it is a vacuous truth. If you deny then I would also expect you to deny axioms including the laws of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction. It would only follow from your previous statements. Well, I don't know what to say, if you think the statement "all red elephants always exist in loaves of bread" is false then I just can't fathom what else you might think, sounds like relativism. Well, let's see what you think about this one:

"All red elephants always exist in loaves of bread and at the same time all red elephants never exist in loaves of bread."

By the way, so you won't have to trouble yourself looking this up in any Logic 101 book this is also true and there is no contradiction. =)
*Nico

 

[Moonrat]

ah yes, we can agree that your statements are true. BUT, they are not TRUTH.

You are suggesting, I take it, a distinction between that which is TRUE, and that which is TRUTH.

Which leads me to suggest that perhaps by truth you are suggesting a more subjective component. i.e what 'truth' is to you as opposed to what 'true' is for all of us...

what ever your truth is, it must be something which you say is 'true'.

true has objective properties shared in by all...si o no?

to me, truth is an involitile statement that transcends all. we can agree that i am typing and it is true. BUT, is it true within the vastness of the universe??

Five million light years from here does not negate the fact that you typed that sentence...and whatever 'truth' exists five million light years from here, or the summed up 'truth' of all, does also not negate the objective properties of 'true'...

true is one for all...

this mite be a dream, within a dream, within a dream, etc.

perhaps it might be, then therefore there is the objective dream and the indiviudal dream, objective and subjective once again, objective is the functioning for all component, and subjective the unique spin...and again, it would still be 'true' that all is a dream...or illusion..

i can say that i am the creator of my reality and this may be true today, in the physical reality, but is it true for eternity.

you are the creator then of your 'reality', but then there would be the reality that we all create together. Like, wow, we BOTH see the blue sky and the cars and we both agree this sentence began with the word 'Like'.

Hehe, old drunk, there aint no out thinkin' the natural synergy and coordinates of all ideas! All ideas can be true, or false, or mystery (both true and false). And they all are equaly depending upon each other, there is no hiearchy amonst them, just separate and distinct functions...

from what i understand, every time we make a 'true statement' is must include a qualifier. once we do that we make it a relative, subjective truth.

olde drunk, that's the whole point, is that all truths contain an objective co-ordinate and a natural subjective spin...

you know, about the five blind men feeling up an elephant and describing a different thing, but we all can see that can see that it is still an elephant that they are describing...

truth is that which remains after all other 'truths' have been vanquished.

perhaps a statement like 'the universe is eternal and infinite' is true. unfortunately, it is based on belief and can not be proven. we might agree, but is it the TRUTH??

no, even better, it's MYSTERY...see, because it's the mystery in synergy with the feelings that inspires TRUTH in the first place...nice to wonder, concieve, question...wonder some more.


dont forget, all ideas (which are the seed of ALL actions and creations) are either one of the three. the trick is in defining the objective and true co-ordinates for true, false, and mystery, but when you do, it's kinda like lookin' at those little three dee paintings that you have to stare at for it to *pop* out at you.

that's all I'm sayin'!

still dig yer style

Moonrat (aka Bubblefish)

 

[Moonrat]

If I had a prize for the greatest challenge, it would be yours sir, and for that you have my respect...

Really, work of art!

Moonrat, with all due respect I think you are confusing reality with some nihilist/relativistic world or whatever it is you are doing.

Nico, (may I call you nico?), I can assure you I am doing nothing of the sort. I am clearly distinguishing for any and all to cleary see for themselves the objective and distinct qualities of true, false, and mystery.

Until you have objective co-ordinates for all three, you cannot hope to understand what the hell true means in the first place.

So! What I am saying is that I am a conservative hyper-realist.


Nihilistic? hehe, God No!

The statement "all red elephants always exist in loaves of bread" is entirely a true statement and it has nothing to do with "grammatical equations" or whatever you are talking about. This is all rather simple really; it is a vacuous truth.

Nico, I am going to call you on your bluff and raise the stakes. And I specifically want you to challenge this statement in your reply.

Here goes. Ok, I happen to know that the statement " all red elephants ..etc..." is false because the TRUTH is that it is all BLUE Elephants always exist in loves of bread and the RED elephants live in marshmellows!

Now, there, I just proved your statement false by using your logic, prove that my statement is false, go ahead, I dare ya, I told you I was callin yer bluff!

If you deny then I would also expect you to deny axioms including the laws of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction.

ahh, good, yer a fighting man, I like that!

do you still think that?

It would only follow from your previous statements. Well, I don't know what to say, if you think the statement "all red elephants always exist in loaves of bread" is false then I just can't fathom what else you might think, sounds like relativism. Well, let's see what you think about this one:

hehe, you gots a big surprise in store for you, that's for sure!

"All red elephants always exist in loaves of bread and at the same time all red elephants never exist in loaves of bread."

{yer brilliant*}


that's true!

By the way, so you won't have to trouble yourself looking this up in any Logic 101 book this is also true and there is no contradiction. =)
*Nico

now I got to ask, do you understand 'how' with complete and utter precision?

Moonrat

 

[olde drunk]

you guys are being sophist, word game geeks. so be it!

i was relating how defining truth helps me in a practical manner. as i have said, intellectual loops, IMHO, are a waste of time since they do not make a better tomorrow. since i will never see a pink or red elephant, what value is it where they reside? even drunk i didn't care!

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Nicomachus]

Nico, I am going to call you on your bluff and raise the stakes. And I specifically want you to challenge this statement in your reply.

Here goes. Ok, I happen to know that the statement " all red elephants ..etc..." is false because the TRUTH is that it is all BLUE Elephants always exist in loves of bread and the RED elephants live in marshmellows!

Now, there, I just proved your statement false by using your logic, prove that my statement is false, go ahead, I dare ya, I told you I was callin yer bluff!
Moonrat

The problem is that you do not follow your ideas to their logical conclusions. Furthermore when you assert that you will use "my logic" to prove me wrong you are only providing more empirical evidence that you are a relativist. Obviously you deny objectiveness of axioms, being a subjectivist. You can say you are not a relativist but that does not mean you are not. You are plainly and obviously denying reality. You think you are talking about some kind of empirical epistemic view of truth and I am not, but in reality you simply do not understand the problem nor the nature of truth.

You are being ridiculous now; you think you have proven my statement false? Poppycock. These statements are true:
"Red elephants always exist in loaves of bread."

"Red elephants always exist in loaves of bread and red elephants never exist in loaves of bread."

"all BLUE Elephants always exist in loves of bread and the RED elephants live in marshmellows"

All of these statements are true at the same time. I don't see why you think you have proved me false because your statement is true. In argumentation we call this a false-dichotomy. Have you still not picked up a beginners book of logic and looked up vacuous truths? The very idea that you think I am wrong is sickening. You must be a relativist, although you think you are some kind of Objectivist but in reality you are denying reality.

As far as Olde Drunk, I don't know what an intellectual loop is and this is not sophistry. Simply because one does not utilizes the discourse of a elementary student to discuss intellectual matters does not mean one is being a sophist.

 

[olde drunk]

Nicomachus: you are debating for the sake of debating, not to gain information or expand knowledge.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Nicomachus]

Well no olde drunk, I simply saw people going around in circles and not realizing the implications of their statements so I corrected them. My corrections were criticized and I refuted the criticisms. There is no debate.
*Nico

 

[Moonrat]

you guys are being sophist, word game geeks. so be it!

i was relating how defining truth helps me in a practical manner.

hey olde drunk, don't give up, see, because I'm sayin' the same thing...

I think the error lies in where I am defining what 'true' is, and perhaps you are defining the 'thing' that you think is true is...

as i have said, intellectual loops, IMHO, are a waste of time since they do not make a better tomorrow.

hehe, intellectual loops are a waste of time, but understanding and transcending paradox's is another matter all together...and when you delve into the pool of true/false, you need mystery to wade out of it...(all I'm doin' is passin' on a method of CERTAINTY in doin' this, that's it)

since i will never see a pink or red elephant, what value is it where they reside? even drunk i didn't care!

love&peace,
olde drunk

they reside inside of imagination and art and poetry, which is TRUE is existence inside of subjectivity, but FALSE as true for all of us, let's see how long it takes Nico to see that!


Moonrat

 

[BoulderHead]

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome Nichomachus back to PF (he was absent even longer than me and I missed him).

There is no debate.

Oh, Nico ! :shy:

Now, rip me a new one...

 

[Moonrat]

The problem is that you do not follow your ideas to their logical conclusions. .

really? Like what? Since you made such a claim, you should now back it up in a place of public media...

Furthermore when you assert that you will use "my logic" to prove me wrong you are only providing more empirical evidence that you are a relativist.

Well, I might add that you are trying to define the messenger to prove that the message is false, which is a bit irrational if you don't mind me adding. Let's say I am a nihilistic relativistic communist lesbian greedy baby eater, that still does not refute the objective co-ordinates of what makes something 'true' or not...

and I did use your Aristolian logic to prove you statement false. which is creating a logic set or model, and forcing reality around you to fit your map instead of letting your map expand to see the reality around you...

If you think that '2+2= 4' and " The Earth is a sphere' holds the same value of truth that 'All red elephants...etc.." you are going to have to explain that without trying to make ME false in return..

see, because we are just challenging our ideas, not each other, and through the process come to greater understanding of what we already know..

Obviously you deny objectiveness of axioms, being a subjectivist.

there you go again, trying to define an opponent in the discussion to make yer point, (doesnt work)

I am denying that 'all red elephants' is a TRUE statement using the co-ordinates for true that are shared by 2+2=4, or, even simply, that which we can all see for CERTAINTY, not ideology.

You can say you are not a relativist but that does not mean you are not.

I can say that and it is just as irrelevant as you saying the opposite..

You are plainly and obviously denying reality.

hehe, that sounds funny from a guy telling me that all red elephants exist in loaves of bread! Can you take a picture next time you see one for us?

You think you are talking about some kind of empirical epistemic view of truth and I am not, but in reality you simply do not understand the problem nor the nature of truth.

You know, my ignorance is vast and wide, and my education still is lacking, but if there is ONE thing that I know with complete precision it is the qualities of TRUE, FALSE, and MYSTERY...(just to be fair, you should know that I am the discoverer of a global dialectic that defines such things with precision, and have these discussions all over the world via the net, NOT THAT IT MAKES MY STATEMENTS TRUE, however, but, well, this is a popular discussion in which I am completely undefeated in)

So, if what you are saying is true, then that means you can copy and paste just ONE of my statements that I say is true, and rip it apart and expose it as false using pristine logic..

Go ahead!

You are being ridiculous now; you think you have proven my statement false? Poppycock. These statements are true:
"Red elephants always exist in loaves of bread."

if that is a TRUE statement, then there must be some evidence of it. SHOW ME THE RED ELEPHANTS!

Otherwise, I can say that 'ZEUS has taken over the world' and apply the same truth you are. ZEUS EXISTS! Believe or die!

"Red elephants always exist in loaves of bread and red elephants never exist in loaves of bread."

"all BLUE Elephants always exist in loves of bread and the RED elephants live in marshmellows"

All of these statements are true at the same time.

TRUE WHERE? IN artistic reality? sure, but that is not defining truth for all, that is FALSE for all (true for the subject)

what makes them true? how did you come to the conclusion that they are true? can y ou repeat the steps?

please do, in writing, here, and back up your point

Thank you in advance.

I don't see why you think you have proved me false because your statement is true.

I said I proved you false using YOUR logic, not mine. By my standards of truth, all I did was blend with your statement and adopt your princaples of truth to show their absurdity...hyper logic defeats aristolian logic alll the time..

In argumentation we call this a false-dichotomy. Have you still not picked up a beginners book of logic and looked up vacuous truths?

my dear friend, I have here, in my dungeon amongst my concoctions 'Mates Elementary Logic', and I see no pictures of red elephants..nor do I need this book to prove that 2+2=4, or the the statement ' I am writing this right now' is true...

TRUE exists for all as a basic component of reality, regardless of what books you read or don't read. You are suggesting that your logic is what makes things true, and that is FALSE. True exists regardless and independent of 'elementary logic' and I can explain this to the professor as well as the farmer and homeboy.

The very idea that you think I am wrong is sickening.

well don't identify with the ideas you are discussing and you will enjoy the discussion and the process much more.

I don't think YOU are wrong, I think you have an irrational idea of what TRUE is, going on your words, but I think you are swell and look forward to more stimulating and challenging discussion with you on this matter.

You must be a relativist, although you think you are some kind of Objectivist but in reality you are denying reality.

that old trick again? look, I am NOT my ideas either, and to try to confuse me or you with the ideas being discussed and using 'guilt by association' in the realm of ideas is NOT logical, irrational, and NONWORKING..


now, for the record, i define truth as 'objective, science, honest, rational, one for all'

I define false as 'subjective, art, feelings, all for one'

I define mystery as 'WE DONT KNOW'

all ideas will fall in one of these three categories, and may even jump around back and forth. we become irrational when we confuse that natural qualities of 'objective' as 'subjective' and vice versa. We become even more irrational when we state for certainty what 'mystery' is other than we do not know.

There is TRUE
There is FALSE

and there is that which is BOTH true and FALSE, which means you can't tell the truth from the false, and that is MYSTERY.

if you can understand that, then you can have with complete and utter certainty the co-ordinates of what 'truth' is.

there are paradox's, yes, but NO CONTRADICTIONS...

and it is effectivly working in ALL enviroments ALL the time, which means 100% OBJECTIVE, i.e it works even when I die, is working for you even though you are misplacing your information, or when we are not looking at it, or regardless of any opinion, philosophy, metaphysics on the matter.

it is undefeated in the realm of rational discussion. but! keep trying! I could use the practice and you may even supply an idea to the global dialectic.

and you don't need to read any book or understand any logic other than just tapping into our natural dialouge and dialectic, and how we confront reality inside of us and outside of us, and where to put that information accuratly with complete certainty...

please point out where in this system of classification it does not do what it claims or is false in any way whatsoever.

Thanks!

Moonrat

PS GREAT DISCUSSION

 

[Moonrat]

Well no olde drunk, I simply saw people going around in circles and not realizing the implications of their statements so I corrected them.

hehe, you may have corrected 'them' by trying to define your opponent in the discussion, but you did nothing with the ideas they presented...

My corrections were criticized and I refuted the criticisms. There is no debate.

well you still gotsa lotsa e'splain'in to do! (by the way, you just falsly identified objective reality, tsk tsk, not a very logical thing to do!)

Moonrat

 

[Nicomachus]

blah blah blah. You think you are some kind of founder of a "global dialectic" but you don't understand basic logic. Most of your post is just nonsense. You keep talking about "my" logic which indicates you are a subjectivist. Logic is objective if you think it is subjective and relative all your position will do is destroy itself and you will spin in a vortext of nothingness. Anyway, most of what you have written is meaningless gibberish. All you have shown is that you *do not know what you are talking about.*

This is all very simple; the fact that you are asking me to provide evidence for my statements with respect to the elephants and that you think that the statements are only true in some "artistic" sense just shows me that you are ignorant of philosophy, logic, and lack cognitive reasoning. I also don't care if you have written a book on whatever subject it is you think you have written a book on because you are demonstrating that you don't know anything about any of this.

Very simple:

"All red elephants always exist in loaves of bread" is vacuously true. What part of that do you not understand? That long tirade you made is unwarranted nonsense. Every point you made is either irrelavent, unintelligible, or nonsense. Honestly, I don't care if you think I am swell or irrational when it is plainly obvious that you do not understand what logic is or what the nature of truth is nor will you be able to come to any meaningful or justified conclusions based on your relativism.

I will explain it as if I were explaining it to a child because obviously you think you only need to look at a flower or a cucumber to be able to use logic, whatever that means. The set of red elephants is empty; the set of blue elephants is empty, nothing has no potentiality. If you simply use a bit of logic, not the subjective nonsense you are using but objective logic based on the laws of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction, you will see this is all very elementary.

"All red elephants exist in loaves of bread." is vacuous but nonetheless true. Do you know what vacuous means? As well this statement "All red elephants always exist in loaves of bread and all red elephants never exist in loaves of bread" is vacuous but nonetheless true and without contradiction. Again nothing has no potentiality. This has nothing to do with your ridiculous and absurd notions of "poetic artistic" reality. For someone of your authority I would expect you to be more proficient in intellectual discourse.

Vacuous truth was one aspect of my post but you erroneously crticized it therefore I have provided the previous rebuttals which you should either, feel more confident in your relativism, or feel embarrased that you were being so ridiculous. As far as you being able to explain logic; I don't think you even have a grasp of the concept. If you did this would all be very simple. In peril is he who gains his education from you. All your statements hitherto have been ridiculous and I shall hope you will either concede or remain silent. Do not attempt to impose intellectual authority while demonstrating ignorance.
*Nico

-- Hey Boulder! How's it going?

 

[Nicomachus]

hehe, you may have corrected 'them' by trying to define your opponent in the discussion, but you did nothing with the ideas they presented...




well you still gotsa lotsa e'splain'in to do! (by the way, you just falsly identified objective reality, tsk tsk, not a very logical thing to do!)

Moonrat

Moonrat, you are still being absurd. Whether or not I label someone does not make my criticism of that person's ideas true or false. I did nothing with the ideas they presented? So you think "a cow is a cow" is not a tautology, you think the stolen-concept fallacy is a valid logical proposition, and so forth? No that is poppycock. As far as falsely defining objective reality what are you talking about? You have only made relativistic and subjectivist statements. Whether or not you are a relativist is no matter because most of your statements have simply been relativistic and relativism destroys itself.
*Nico

 

[Moonrat]

blah blah blah.

hehe, Nico, ok, the challenge is on! I am going to reply to each and every single one of your irrational ideas. (Sometimes you are rational too, yes, and I will respond to those too and prove to you that they are such)

however, your new best friend Moonrat is about to leave town for the day and I may not get back to you until tommorow evening, at which point I shall completely expose all of your irrationality with the grace, wit, and charm becoming of the princes...

(yes, I do think you could also be a bit more of the same!)

Moonrat

 

[Nicomachus]

Irrationality Moonrat? Nonsense. Simply because you don't know what you are talking about does not mean my propositions are irrational. Every statement I have made in this thread has been elementary. Obviously I know more aboutt his than you do and you are providing nothing of substance so I see no reason to further a discourse with you as you will simply repeat the nonsense you wrote previously. As well, I would never have a relativist for a friend so please don't bother.
*Nico

 

[Moonrat]

Irrationality Moonrat? Nonsense.
*Nico

yes, irrational thinking and I will prove it to all who read this thread. you may choose to leave the discussion and defeat yourself, but I will still respond to each and every point that you made and continue to make until either you, or I, or both, will come to a clearer understanding of what truth is, for certain, with complete and utter objectivity, honesty, and rational thinking..

Until tommorow, and thank God I'm not a relativist! That makes me and you at least a possibility for friendship, no? Good Lord Man, I do hope you are not a 'ideologicaltician'!

 

[Nicomachus]

Moonrat, your naked assertions are not proving anything. Either provide something substantive or remain silent. I don't want to read naked assertions about future naked assertions and other assorted nonsense. Basically, I find this amusing you are attempting to posit that my assertions are irrational but yet you compare vacuous truth propositions to artistry and poetry. Thus far in all of your criticism of my post all you have done is misunderstood, shown your ignorance, provide non sequiturs, allussions to epistemic nihilism, and naked assertions. On the whole every sentence of yours has been irrelavent with respect to crticizing posts. While yes, I realize the reason you are going in circles is because you do not understand any of this but your incessant prodding is a bit annoying. Again, all you have shown is that you don't understand anything that I have written. All I have provided are assertions that are so basic any intellectual worth his salt would understand and it has simply gone over your head. Stop wasting your time and dispense with this nonsense.
*Nico

 

[honestrosewater]

I thought the discussion was focusing on the difference between 1) truth that admits some degree of uncertainty, and 2) truth that admits no uncertainty; that some things are true by definition, while others follow from the consideration of evidence and involve a judgement call. I don't understand why this is "going in circles".? I think the definition of truth as a relational property of propositions is incomplete. It neglects the whole process of determining which propositions are true and to what extent (as in absolutely true or probably true). Or did I miss something?
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Moonrat]

blah blah blah.

Nico, blah blah blah does not define anything, nor does it make you look like you know how to present your case.

In this thread, we are talking about TRUTH..i.e. that which can be called TRUE, as in, what is true? or, when is something true?

I have provided, and will continue to provide, co-ordinates for what is true, compared to and with that which is false and mystery, and will continue to explain and make myself available to explain from more the one angle until you or others reading here understand...

dig?

You brought up terminology used in a system of logic, and brand that as a discovery of one for all of what 'truth' is. The title of this thread is not 'vacous' truth, but just plain and simple 'truth'. Vacous truth has a set of pre agreed definitions and laws that one does NOT need to comprehend to understand the very simple basics of 'truth'

I am not saying this form of logic is bull****, I am saying it is irrelevant in the discussion and is only a puzzle to play with and not a tool that can be used inside of a dialouge with our global nieghbors.

So, I play with you in return. In logic set, your statement is a vacous truth, in objective reality, your statement is simply FALSE, i.e. it has no representation for any and all to see, there are no red elephants. all you are doing is giving FALSE a specific term inside of a certain set of logic...fancy smanchy, to glow your intellect on the board when someone requests a genuine understanding of what 'true' is, you give them a logical twist of what is false.

Now, I can explain what I mean, and all I am doing is trying to get you to explain what it is you mean without you drooling over your intellect while trying to define mine as a sh*t thing, a poor thing ,and yours as godlike..I mean, please, let's just talk about truth, shall we, if not, then leave the thread. I think readers of this thread understand me and I don't think they understand you so well.

. You think you are some kind of founder of a "global dialectic" but you don't understand basic logic.

I am a 'discoverer' of a global dialectic, yes. And that is what I understand with precision. When I use this dialectic on your sentence that you copy and pasted, I say it is FALSE in objective reality by looking at the words, not the system you are using to INTERPRET your statement...

Most of your post is just nonsense. You keep talking about "my" logic which indicates you are a subjectivist. Logic is objective if you think it is subjective and relative all your position will do is destroy itself and you will spin in a vortext of nothingness.

I agree that logic is objective, and I am saying that your usage of it is rediculous in this thread...it does not define what 'true' is, it only is describing what 'false' is in a system of logic that does not contain co-ordinates for all information in objective reality.

Anyway, most of what you have written is meaningless gibberish. All you have shown is that you *do not know what you are talking about.*

again, what statement of mine about true is invalid? please stop accusing and start explaining...

I agree that your statement is a vacous truth, i.e. a statement which is false and also artistic and poetic...

This is all very simple; the fact that you are asking me to provide evidence for my statements with respect to the elephants and that you think that the statements are only true in some "artistic" sense just shows me that you are ignorant of philosophy, logic, and lack cognitive reasoning.

All elephants are pink and live in loaves of bread is POETRY, not a observation of objective reality. Nor is that statement ever used in any other thing other than poetry except in a logic book to give an example of a vacous truth..

I also don't care if you have written a book on whatever subject it is you think you have written a book on because you are demonstrating that you don't know anything about any of this.

Very simple:

"All red elephants always exist in loaves of bread" is vacuously true. What part of that do you not understand?

I understand that that statement is 'vacously true' in a system of logic and false in objective reality..what is it that you do not understand?

That long tirade you made is unwarranted nonsense. Every point you made is either irrelavent, unintelligible, or nonsense.

please stop repeating yourself over and over. thank you. again, show me an example of a vacous truth existing as a presence as an object in objective reality and not a map to help you define logic to yourself.

Honestly, I don't care if you think I am swell or irrational when it is plainly obvious that you do not understand what logic is or what the nature of truth is nor will you be able to come to any meaningful or justified conclusions based on your relativism.

my friend, you are repeating yourself again, and you are not describing nor defining that which is true but rather a term used in logic to define a false inside of a logic set, or a contradiction, or an irrational...

these are not 'truths' they are 'falses'

I will explain it as if I were explaining it to a child because obviously you think you only need to look at a flower or a cucumber to be able to use logic, whatever that means. The set of red elephants is empty; the set of blue elephants is empty, nothing has no potentiality. If you simply use a bit of logic, not the subjective nonsense you are using but objective logic based on the laws of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction, you will see this is all very elementary.

"All red elephants exist in loaves of bread." is vacuous but nonetheless true.

no, it is not true, it is false, and it is a vacous truth because it contains irrelevanices, contradictions, or non existants, i.e. things which do not exist in objective reality and are irrational...

a vacous truth does not define truth...it defines false

Do you know what vacuous means?

Yes, EMPTY, NOTHING...that is what it means..a 'nothing' truth..or a 'truth about nothing...

it does not define truth, I am sorry...

As well this statement "All red elephants always exist in loaves of bread and all red elephants never exist in loaves of bread" is vacuous but nonetheless true and without contradiction. Again nothing has no potentiality. This has nothing to do with your ridiculous and absurd notions of "poetic artistic" reality. For someone of your authority I would expect you to be more proficient in intellectual discourse.

it is not true, it is 'vacously true' and FALSE in objective reality, or, an artistic construct either used in poetry or by someone arguing irrationaly...

please stop talking about me and more to the ideas, thanks..

Vacuous truth was one aspect of my post but you erroneously crticized it therefore I have provided the previous rebuttals which you should either, feel more confident in your relativism, or feel embarrased that you were being so ridiculous.

I hope I have cleared that matter up..

As far as you being able to explain logic; I don't think you even have a grasp of the concept. If you did this would all be very simple. In peril is he who gains his education from you. All your statements hitherto have been ridiculous and I shall hope you will either concede or remain silent. Do not attempt to impose intellectual authority while demonstrating ignorance.

your statement about elephants is still false in objective reality.sorry. you can call it a 'vacuous truth' or an empty truth, but either way, it is non representational of anything in objecive reality other than poetry or perhaps cartoons, and does nothing to help those around us understand what 'true' is.

Something that is 'non' existant, empty, or vacuous is simply that, and any statement that describes that which is vacuous or empty as an existent is naturally false...

so I end this with where I started, you are playing with words in a grammar game, and cannot distinguish between true, false, or mystery...


Moonrat

 

[Moonrat]

I thought the discussion was focusing on the difference between 1) truth that admits some degree of uncertainty, and 2) truth that admits no uncertainty; that some things are true by definition, while others follow from the consideration of evidence and involve a judgement call. I don't understand why this is "going in circles".?
Rachel

TRUTH is only CERTAINTY in the objective sense, and I am just having some fun with Nico because he loves to argue and rave about his intelligence, yet he himself cannot explain in his own words what 'truth' is without copying and pasting or repeating examples of vacuous truths from wikepedia.com

vacuous truth is a non existing truth, or a fancy way of saying simply false that conforms to definitions given in a logic set. SAME THING, different words...

I think the definition of truth as a relational property of propositions is incomplete. It neglects the whole process of determining which propositions are true and to what extent (as in absolutely true or probably true). Or did I miss something?
Happy thoughts

I am not sure if you are asking me or nico, but regardless of what we put inside of the catergory of 'true' true perfroms a function, and we can only know that something is objective true, or has certainty when it can be viewed by others outside of ourselves or our independent point of view.

truth then is really OUR point of view. our subjectivity is true for us as individuals, but FALSE for all. we just need to distinguish between them.

we can only properly distinguish between true and false when we have the third category of mystery for that which we 'do not know'



Happy happy thoughts to you!

Moonrat

 

[Nicomachus]

Alright, you haven't refuted any of my assertions. Which is not surprising as you began with a strawman of my rebuttal. This whole discourse between you and I began because you attempted to crticize my original post and you were wrong. Thus far most of the posters have only shown that they are ignorant of tautologies. I suppose you all think "a cow is a cow" may be a false statement but you would only be only be fools. Vacuous truth was included in order to show the validity of truth propositions which do not deductively lead to other truth propositions. Basically you have a made a long tirade against a minor point I presented and have done so erroneously. Again, the reason you have done this is because you do not understand the concept, I don't know how bluntly I can put it. You keep droning on about how vacuous truth is poetry and how the propositions do not reflect objective reality but in reality they do just that. You simply don't get it. Its not a puzzle. You have also further given evidence of your ignorance by stating that vacuous truths are somehow contradictory, huh?

Really, I can only draw a few conclusions from your nonsense. Either you do not accept the validity of tautologies, in which case you must stop using logic or you are simply uneducated or you are a relativist and have no way to justify any proposition you make or any position you hold. The fact of the matter is you don't get and you are, for lack of a better phrase, out of your league. Furthermore you keep droning on about some "sentence I copied and pasted" you should really examine your own positions before accusing me of plagiarism, if you mean the vacuously true statement it is a common example and if you were educated in logic, which you obviously are not, you would have known that.

As well the word is "ridiculous" and when you say "there are no red elephants" you only further show that my statement about red elephants is true. I think you are acting like a little child so I will explain it thusly: If I had asked "Do all red elephants exist in loaves of bread" the correct response would be "No you are a vagabond and a lunatic." but if I say ""Is it true that all red elephants exist in loaves of bread" the answer is clearly yes it is true, although it is not useful.

It is not false you have not proven it false and I do not think you have anyway to justify any proposition of truth as you do not accept tautologies, otherwise you would not attack criticize the tautological statements I have provided in my first and subsequent posts. If the validity of tautologies are not accepted then you cannot build any system of logic all you have provided is a foundation for nihilism. I suppose you simply chose to attack me for no reason because you don't agree with "a cow is a cow" but you do not have the ability to criticize it but vacuous truth simply goes over your head so you decided to lunge into an ignorant tirade of rubbish. Absolutely no refutations have you provided. As well I am not insinuating that tautologies and vacuous truths are significant in themselves, obviously they are not, it is you providing erroneous criticism. Again, you over inflated the signicance of the example of vacuous truth in my original post, it was not an exercise to "glow my intelligence" I simply corrected and refuted those who were spouting nonsense. I suppose you think the stolen-concept fallacy is valid, but what I am saying you have no foundation for any logical propositions so it is of no matter what you propose as there is no justification.

It is you who are boring me with statements of my intelligence. I have provided nothing but elementary statements hardly something for me to brag about. If you have feelings of inadequecy keep them to yourself. If you find a statement of mine to be *ridiculous* or stupid then I should expect you to say so and *justify* not this absurd rubbish you have provided thus far. I will save you the trouble, there is no way to refute my assertions unless possibly you produced a red elephant, of course, which did not exist in a loaf of bread or you could say "no you are false" but as you have suggested you have no foundation for reasoning therefore anything you say will be unjustified nonsense. Even so you have no provided any relativistic justification only lamented "objetive co-ordinates" but it simply shows that you do not understand the problem nor if nothing unless you statements only prove the validity of mine. Would you also argue the mathematical validity of the statement "2+2=4," although you have asserted that you do not accept "1=1." Previously, you stated that I have not corrected anyone and was incorrect in my original post entirely, if that is the case why is the only point you are bringing up the one you do not have mental ability to understand? Obviously, you should be able to reufte the other original points. Stop this nonsense; I have given you a chance and you have fallen short.
*Nico

-- I will provide a summation. All you have proven in all your responses to me is that you did not understand my original post and you don't know anything about logic or philosophy.

 

[Nicomachus]

TRUTH is only CERTAINTY in the objective sense, and I am just having some fun with Nico because he loves to argue and rave about his intelligence, yet he himself cannot explain in his own words what 'truth' is without copying and pasting or repeating examples of vacuous truths from wikepedia.com

I have grown sick of your accusations. Vacuous truths are well documented and the example I gave is very well known. I have not taken anything from wikipedia.com; you can't even spell it correctly. Why would I bother with some unscholarly hack of an encyclopedia such as that? No I am an academic so I am very familiar with all those. Keep the accusations to yourself. Again you simply prove that you don't know anything about this, you look it up on *wikipedia.org* and you think "Oh well I have never heard of this so Nico must have just stolen this from them." That does not logically follow either.
*Nico

 

[Moonrat]

Alright, you haven't refuted any of my assertions. .

huh?

you haven't read my post then...

Which is not surprising as you began with a strawman of my rebuttal.

Nico, you are USING fancy terms that describe FALSE in objective reality as evidence of 'truth'...

you are not talking about that which is TRUE.

you are talking about that which is FALSE

it that is not a refutation, I don't know what is..

This whole discourse between you and I began because you attempted to crticize my original post and you were wrong.

Please do what you do best and copy and paste the statement that I made that you say i s false, and if you are correct, then I will apologise. So far, in sounds like you are repeating yourself over and over again...

Thus far most of the posters have only shown that they are ignorant of tautologies.

perhaps, but this is not about tautologies, this is about 'truth', and you do not seem to be able to define, in your own words, what 'truth' is..

I suppose you all think "a cow is a cow" may be a false statement but you would only be only be fools.

I think that is a true statement...its the pink elephants that I am talking about. stop looking at words through your interpretation system, and just look at the words, simple.

Vacuous truth was included in order to show the validity of truth propositions which do not deductively lead to other truth propositions. Basically you have a made a long tirade against a minor point I presented and have done so erroneously.

If that was a minor statement used to show an example of an aspect of logic and nothing more, I apologise. However, that is not how I read it, I read your statement as an example of 'truth'

Again, the reason you have done this is because you do not understand the concept, I don't know how bluntly I can put it.

what do I not understand? If an opponent does not understand something you see clearly, then EXPLAIN it using your own words or approach it from another angle. Simple. Instead, you keep repeating over and over how ignorant I am as if that statement makes it so!

You keep droning on about how vacuous truth is poetry and how the propositions do not reflect objective reality but in reality they do just that. You simply don't get it. Its not a puzzle. You have also further given evidence of your ignorance by stating that vacuous truths are somehow contradictory, huh?

my friend, I am referring to your statement about elephants. you said it was 'true' none the less, and I said it is a FALSE statement. you said that, looking at the statement through the persepctive of logic, that it contains a 'vacuous truth' and then you ranted and raved about me and my ignorance for days, and still are...

so I say again, FINE, in logic, thay may be called or defined as a vacous truth, but in objective reality, THAT SENTENCE IS FALSE AND POETRY...


call it what you will, be it still contains the same co-ordinates

Really, I can only draw a few conclusions from your nonsense. Either you do not accept the validity of tautologies, in which case you must stop using logic or you are simply uneducated or you are a relativist and have no way to justify any proposition you make or any position you hold. The fact of the matter is you don't get and you are, for lack of a better phrase, out of your league.

ok FINE, please copy and paste a statement that I made that is not true but FALSE...

thank you, simple...

this is a discussion about that which is TRUE, this is not a discussion about logic or tautology, archeology, shamanism, or politics..I am not refuting that you understand tautology, I am saying you cannot define in your own words what makes something TRUE for ALL..


it is SIMPLE, keep it simple..


cont'

 

[Moonrat]

Furthermore you keep droning on about some "sentence I copied and pasted" you should really examine your own positions before accusing me of plagiarism, if you mean the vacuously true statement it is a common example and if you were educated in logic, which you obviously are not, you would have known that.

o nico, I was kidding, relax, have some fun in the discussion, I was not accusing you of plaguerism, just teasing you.

As well the word is "ridiculous" and when you say "there are no red elephants" you only further show that my statement about red elephants is true.

hehe, and you call me slow! yes, that does make your statement about red elephants true, yes, but do you know HOW?

Nico, keep it simple, all of your studying is quite valid and has it's place, but come on man, we are talking about 'what makes something true'.


Do red elephants exist in loaves of bread? Huh? do they? If I said that, would I be crazy, a poet, or, in your case, a tautologist?

Look at the words, not how you interpret them, simple. Thanks

I think you are acting like a little child so I will explain it thusly: If I had asked "Do all red elephants exist in loaves of bread" the correct response would be "No you are a vagabond and a lunatic." but if I say ""Is it true that all red elephants exist in loaves of bread" the answer is clearly yes it is true, although it is not useful.

My friend, are you now suggesting that there is no disctinction between 'true' and 'vacuous truth' ?

It is not false you have not proven it false and I do not think you have anyway to justify any proposition of truth as you do not accept tautologies, otherwise you would not attack criticize the tautological statements I have provided in my first and subsequent posts.

I am not attacking tautology, I am attacking the statement red elephants exist in loaves of bread being claimed as true.

If the validity of tautologies are not accepted then you cannot build any system of logic all you have provided is a foundation for nihilism. I suppose you simply chose to attack me for no reason because you don't agree with "a cow is a cow" but you do not have the ability to criticize it but vacuous truth simply goes over your head so you decided to lunge into an ignorant tirade of rubbish. Absolutely no refutations have you provided.

Is this a refutation?

You say red elephants is a true statement.

I say it is a false statement.

you say it is a vacuous truth. I say, yes, it is a vacous truth in a logic set, but a vacuous truth, in this instance especially, is another way of saying FALSE.

I then say you are making no distinctions between the two, vacous truths, and truths...

you do not except my statement even after I refuted yours. where is there no 'refutes' ?;-)

As well I am not insinuating that tautologies and vacuous truths are significant in themselves, obviously they are not, it is you providing erroneous criticism. Again, you over inflated the signicance of the example of vacuous truth in my original post, it was not an exercise to "glow my intelligence" I simply corrected and refuted those who were spouting nonsense. I suppose you think the stolen-concept fallacy is valid, but what I am saying you have no foundation for any logical propositions so it is of no matter what you propose as there is no justification.

let me tell you how I see this discussion.

If a born again christian makes the statement " Jesus is God. " he is using his system of thought to make that a true statement.

However, that is not a true statement, even though his system of thought describes it as such...

You are using logic to make the red elephants a true statement, and if I am over critiquing you in this regard and you actually agree with me, then cool! end of discussion

It is you who are boring me with statements of my intelligence. I have provided nothing but elementary statements hardly something for me to brag about. If you have feelings of inadequecy keep them to yourself. If you find a statement of mine to be *ridiculous* or stupid then I should expect you to say so and *justify* not this absurd rubbish you have provided thus far. I will save you the trouble, there is no way to refute my assertions unless possibly you produced a red elephant, of course, which did not exist in a loaf of bread or you could say "no you are false" but as you have suggested you have no foundation for reasoning therefore anything you say will be unjustified nonsense.

Red elephants existing in loaves of bread defies laws of physics, which I accept as true, there fore, I do not need to produce a red elephant to show you it is false. Even if I was to follow your logic here, that would not make your statement 'true', at best it would be 'mystery', and that is giving you the benifit of the doubt in the matter.

Even so you have no provided any relativistic justification only lamented "objetive co-ordinates" but it simply shows that you do not understand the problem nor if nothing unless you statements only prove the validity of mine. Would you also argue the mathematical validity of the statement "2+2=4," although you have asserted that you do not accept "1=1."

I do accept that 1=1. when did I say that I did not? please copy and paste, thank you

2+2=4 is an objective co-ordinate that all agree on, it does not carry the same weight as 'red elephants'

Previously, you stated that I have not corrected anyone and was incorrect in my original post entirely, if that is the case why is the only point you are bringing up the one you do not have mental ability to understand? Obviously, you should be able to reufte the other original points. Stop this nonsense; I have given you a chance and you have fallen short.

You say, using a logic set, that red elephants is true using the deductions of tautology. I say that is is FALSE, not true, yet, it is a 'vacuous truth' in logic but that is the same thing as FALSE and does not help to define what 'true' is.

If that is not your argument, I am sorry, I am only going on the words you write and nothing else.

-- I will provide a summation. All you have proven in all your responses to me is that you did not understand my original post and you don't know anything about logic or philosophy

yeah, you said that about 20 times so far, and saying that 50x does not make it true. Although I do have much to learn about systems of logic, I do understand them when I come across them, and nothing you have said so far in this discourse to me defines what 'true' is. I understand what 'dialectic' is very clearly, and use my system to refute your system, that is my summation, and you still have not taken one statement of mine and held it up and picked it apart like I have of yours.

Red elephants is not a true statement, it is a false statement. it may be called a vacuous truth is logic, but that is the SAME thing, and you cannot admit that nor distinguish that yet in conversation...


Moonrat

 

[Moonrat]

I have grown sick of your accusations. Vacuous truths are well documented and the example I gave is very well known. I have not taken anything from wikipedia.com; you can't even spell it correctly. Why would I bother with some unscholarly hack of an encyclopedia such as that? No I am an academic so I am very familiar with all those. Keep the accusations to yourself. Again you simply prove that you don't know anything about this, you look it up on *wikipedia.org* and you think "Oh well I have never heard of this so Nico must have just stolen this from them." That does not logically follow either.
*Nico

:surprise: :surprise: :surprise:


I was KIDDING...do you know where humor plays into the conversation? can you use logic to understand humor? No I don't think so and perhaps you need to step outside of your logic box, have a beer, and laugh at the jokes, I mean, come on Nico, yer funny!

However, using the pristine dialectic that I use, I CAN understand humor and can even quanitify it!

Love

Moonrat...

 

[Nicomachus]

Vacuously true statements are true stop being ridiculous. If you do not accept tautologies as true, which is what you have done and you have admitted you did not accept any of my original statements ergo you do not accept tautologies ergo you have no justification to use logic. I freely admit you may use logic and arrive at proper conclusions but you have no way to justify it under you relativistic system.

When I wrote that you haven't refuted anything I have written is because you haven't. What you have provided are naked assertions "no that is false." You have not justified it. When you keep referring to pink elephants and the fact that you have never seen a red elephant you only show that you don't understand the problem. The reason it is true is because there are no such things, the set is nothing and nothing has no potentiality. You should look this up on wikipedia or consult a real handbook on logic or some other such resource if you still do not understand it, I feel rather embarrassed for you. They are not false simply because you say they are there is some argument to be made about vacuous truths but you have not made any only "I'm too dense to know what the statement means" assertions. Nevertheless, obviously my original post was not about vacuous truths, have you no reading comprehension? Go back and read. As well stop asking me if I know "how" I know a proposition is true it is pedantic. Are you sure you do not deny axioms?

Truth is a relational property of propositions but this is not this relativism you are droning on about " the phrase 'Jesus is God' is true for a Christian" is not a truth in the way that you think it is. The particular statement has no real meaning but that is another matter. My original post was to show people how silly they were being by not accepting tautologies, misunderstanding the nature of truth, employing the Stolen-Concept Fallacy in order to deny truth, and so forth. Look, I don't care of you are an OS12 or an OT12 and you've met John Travolta you don't know what you are talking about. Simple. The fact you keep responding to tell me to use "my own words" is just another one of your ad hominem accusations that I am employing plagiarism. I have done nothing of the sort.

You have provided no refutations, just naked assertions. Furthermore what you are trying to do is to remove any justification for logic by denying tautological truths, which is what you have been doing this entire time though pompously deny it. I don't care what your cult has to say about this you are simply wrong. Honestly, I don't even know what you are trying to argue. You did not have the reading ability to understand what I posted and you blasted into this tirade not knowing anything of what I was talking about and you keep going on and on. I repeat myself because you repeat yourself the only difference is that I provide justification and I show you the ramifications of your nonsense.
*Nico

 

[honestrosewater]

My middle name is Alethea. What kind of truth is that?

 

[Rick Sobie]

This thread reminds me of the kind of thread you might find on GLP.

(Godlikeproductions.com)

Everything but the dancing bananas.

 

[honestrosewater]

Rick, where can we get these dancing bananas?

The visionary is the only true realist.
-Federico Fellini

 

[Moonrat]

Nico, I promise you will get tired of this much faster than I will. I want to thank you, for I needed the practice, and each post of yours helps me and my ability to discern with complete clarity.

Vacuously true statements are true stop being ridiculous.

If this statement is 'true', then that means that there is no distinction in the following:

2+2=4

The Sun

This sentence begins with the word this.

Red Elephants exist in loaves of bread.

If you do not accept tautologies as true, which is what you have done and you have admitted you did not accept any of my original statements ergo you do not accept tautologies ergo you have no justification to use logic. I freely admit you may use logic and arrive at proper conclusions but you have no way to justify it under you relativistic system.

yes, nico, I see where you make your error. Thank you for finally admiting it. I accept tautology as a objective perspective to arrive at truth, but it is NOT a definition of 'how' truth is arrived at for all. Objective reality does not follow the laws of Tautology, and I think that is where you are making your error.

It is as if you are saying that all laws that govern reality must fit inside of elemenatary logic, and if they cannot, they must not exist! (that's where YOUR, not elementary logic, irrational)


So, forcing this logic on everything and everyone, let's also accept all of these statements as true too, shall we?

Nico is a squiggly chicken frog that jumps and cackles blueberry songs.

Jesus is God.

God is Jesus.

Using and forcing elemenatary logic on this statements, we can now end the grand discussion!

Yet perplexingly we are left with NOTHING! (ahh, vacuous, yes, I agree!)

You cannot understand universal and quantum reality using symbolic logic, sorry. You cannot wish away that which you cannot define on the 'faith' you are rigidly placing on logic.

When I wrote that you haven't refuted anything I have written is because you haven't.

Is that also a 'tautological statement'? :surprise:

I most certainly have, your just a little pokey. Red Elephants existing in loaves of bread does NOT share the same qaulity of truth that '2+2=4' does. One statement exists and FUNCTIONS in objective reality and the other is poetry.

You are confusing 'axiom and proposition' with laws of reality..opps!

What you have provided are naked assertions "no that is false." .

please copy and paste which naked assertion you are referring to. thank you.

You have not justified it. When you keep referring to pink elephants and the fact that you have never seen a red elephant you only show that you don't understand the problem.

there is no problem other than the one you have created in your mind. I am not in conflict with pink elephants, nor symbolic logic, only your assertions that pink elephants is indistinguishable from '2+2=4'

The reason it is true is because there are no such things, the set is nothing and nothing has no potentiality.

it is not 'true' it is 'vacuously' true, which is the same thing, as you just mentioned, as FALSE.

you are saying

TRUE= Vacous truth.

and it does not. true exists in objective reality and that which we all can agree on. Like this sentence is truly a sentence, there is no argument or point of view that contradicts that. that is true for CERTAINTY...

you are making things 'true' in your mind that do not exist for all of us. you have trained your mind to no longer distinguish objective reality but symbolic logic.

now, axiom and proposition is a true logical order, yes, but it is not magick! just because you place your words inside of such axiom or proposition does not create them into a reality!

come on man, this is simple stuff!

You should look this up on wikipedia or consult a real handbook on logic or some other such resource if you still do not understand it, I feel rather embarrassed for you.

hehe, well I sure hope they can do a better job than your doin' here!

They are not false simply because you say they are there is some argument to be made about vacuous truths but you have not made any only "I'm too dense to know what the statement means" assertions.

Things are false when they do not objectivly or scientifically represent our environment outside of us. Like art is false. Spiderman does not really exist, and King Lear does not speak in Iambic Pentameter.

Nevertheless, obviously my original post was not about vacuous truths, have you no reading comprehension? Go back and read. As well stop asking me if I know "how" I know a proposition is true it is pedantic. Are you sure you do not deny axioms?

quite sure. I just deny that the laws of physics follow the laws of axiom and proposition.

Truth is a relational property of propositions but this is not this relativism you are droning on about " the phrase 'Jesus is God' is true for a Christian" is not a truth in the way that you think it is. The particular statement has no real meaning but that is another matter. My original post was to show people how silly they were being by not accepting tautologies, misunderstanding the nature of truth, employing the Stolen-Concept Fallacy in order to deny truth, and so forth.

propositions do not create truth, they can only contain or describe a specific quantified truth. Jesus is God is not an objective truth, but a personal one for Christians. In objective reality, 'Jesus is God' is also not false either. It is a mysterious statement in which one can have no proof one way or the other, therefore, it is up to the subjective environment of the individual to accept or not accept it as such for them. It is not a one for all truth.


I don't think, based on our discussion, that you are capable of showing people that they are misunderstanding the nature of truth, because still, after this long debate, you STILL cannot define what makes something 'true'

you may understand symbolic logic, I do not deny this, but you use it rather subjectivly and deny that which exists outside of it..which is irrational.

Look, I don't care of you are an OS12 or an OT12 and you've met John Travolta you don't know what you are talking about.

this is another irrational and quite illogical thing you do in discussion. you try to define your opponent so you can make their ideas false. First I was a nihilist, then a relativist, now I must be a scientologist, right?

Yikes! well the real moonrat please standup!

I suggest stop discussing with the silly versions of Moonrat in your head and address the ideas in this discussion. Your being a politician pretending to be a philosopher and I am sorry, that just does not work inside of rational discussion.

Simple. The fact you keep responding to tell me to use "my own words" is just another one of your ad hominem accusations that I am employing plagiarism. I have done nothing of the sort.

I already said I was joking TWICE about that, yet you still use this inside of discussion!

please try to focus and stay on point.

answer this question please.

are you saying there is NO disctinction between the following statements


2+2=4

This sentence begins and ends with the word this.

Red Elephants exist in loaves of bread.

answer the question, please,using what methodology you wish.

You have provided no refutations, just naked assertions.

your repeating yourself inside of the discussion again. sorry, doesn't work.

Furthermore what you are trying to do is to remove any justification for logic by denying tautological truths, which is what you have been doing this entire time though pompously deny it.

I do not deny that they serve a function. I deny that they function in all enviroments all the time.

I don't care what your cult has to say about this you are simply wrong.

Um, I would be very careful about slander in a place of public media, little politician man. I am not involved in any organisation, group, club, cult, or anything of the sort. I am challenging your ideas and you keep finding the need to define 'me' so my ideas will be false in return.

sorry, does not work, won't save you, and won't make red elephants appear in objective reality.

Honestly, I don't even know what you are trying to argue. You did not have the reading ability to understand what I posted and you blasted into this tirade not knowing anything of what I was talking about and you keep going on and on.

well if that is true, I certaintly hope you are having as much fun as I am then...

 

[Moonrat]

My middle name is Alethea. What kind of truth is that?

hehe, assuming you are not lying and you are being honest, that would just make that a simple 'truth' in objective reality that any and all can see by reading your birth certificate!

we do not need to run to our nearest community college and sign up for a course in symbolic logic to say that...

 

[Moonrat]

Rick, where can we get these dancing bananas?

they are in the loaves of bread with the red elephants, hurry, quick, before they get squashed!

The visionary is the only true realist.
-Federico Fellini

I commend you on your choice! My favorite filmmaker...

 

[Nicomachus]

You continue to be ridiculous. The problem still lies in the fact that you do not have the mental capacity nor the reading comprehension to understand any of the assertions that have been presented. You saying that I making an equivocation between all propositions. Honestly, I don't know where you are getting this, you are being a moron. This is a non sequitur:

If this statement is 'true', then that means that there is no distinction in the following:

2+2=4

The Sun

This sentence begins with the word this.

Red Elephants exist in loaves of bread.

Are you really this ridiculous? Now you are saying that all truth propositions are identical because a statement you don't want to be true is true. The reason I say you have no justification for anything is because you have denied tautologies, obviously tautologies do not lead to further deductive conclusions but it is a frame work from which to build a system of logic. Without such system you can gain no meaningful conclusions and if you deny the axioms of logic but continue to use logic you simply have no justification for doing so and are most probably a hypocrite. You are out of your league; stop this.

yes, nico, I see where you make your error. Thank you for finally admiting it. I accept tautology as a objective perspective to arrive at truth, but it is NOT a definition of 'how' truth is arrived at for all. Objective reality does not follow the laws of Tautology, and I think that is where you are making your error.

The laws of tautology? huh? Stop being ridiculous. I suppose you mean the laws of logic, I guess, if you think logic does not represent reality then you are being a moron and further deny axioms because you do not accept as self-evident and therefore do not accept them. Look, I can define you however I want, you haven't provided anything substantive in way of refutation just naked assertions. You ask me to tell "what naked assertions" nearly every thing you have used to contradict me has been naked assertions. If they have not been naked assertions then they have just been more of your ignorant nonsense displaying you don't understand anything about philosophy, i.e. your rubbish about poetry.

It is as if you are saying that all laws that govern reality must fit inside of elemenatary logic, and if they cannot, they must not exist! (that's where YOUR, not elementary logic, irrational)

The laws of logic are self evident if you do not accept them then fine but do not continue to use them nor say that you accept them. Although, I freely admit that you deny logic as you have contradicted at least the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. You have said you do not accept "a cow is a cow" and you obviously agree that something can "both be A and not be A within the same respect." It appears you are even more ridiculous than even I suspect.

So, forcing this logic on everything and everyone, let's also accept all of these statements as true too, shall we?

Nico is a squiggly chicken frog that jumps and cackles blueberry songs.

Jesus is God.

God is Jesus.

Other than the last two which are not really meaningful the first one is false. What you have done is equate "Nico" with nothing, while that may be amusing, you still don't understand. It does not follow the principles you think it does. You cannot say any nonsensical statement and expect it to be vacuously true, you still don't get it. Obviously you are not educated. Yes I am defining you and it is not an attempt to show that you are wrong it is simply side commentary. But in all reality you have defined yourself.

Red Elephants existing in loaves of bread does NOT share the same qaulity of truth that '2+2=4' does. One statement exists and FUNCTIONS in objective reality and the other is poetry.

Stop being stupid. Yes I have admitted the vacuous truth is more a tautology, and OBVIOUSLY you cannot compare a vacuous truth with a synthetic statement. Why are you being so ridiculous as to compare something that is really tautological with a synthetic statement? But yes you are not educated enough to know what that means either. By definition a tautological statement cannot be a synthetic statement, you are absurd. I don't see why you think tautological, analytic, and synthetic propositions cannot all have truth values, it does not follow. Basically what you have said is "0=0 cannot be true if 2+2=4." Ridiculous, your cult can't save you from that.

please copy and paste which naked assertion you are referring to. thank you.
[/quote

I have told you repeatedly that all of your say-so's are naked assertions. When you say it is "false" with no justification then it is a naked assertion.

it is not 'true' it is 'vacuously' true, which is the same thing, as you just mentioned, as FALSE.

you are saying

TRUE= Vacous truth.

You keep saying that something that is true is false, how much more in denial of reality can you be? When you say that I making the equivocation "TRUE=Vacuous truth" you only show that you have no reading comprehension. I have never equated a truth proposition with the concept of true. Obviously an instantian of a property is not the same thing as that property. Go learn something.

you are making things 'true' in your mind that do not exist for all of us. you have trained your mind to no longer distinguish objective reality but symbolic logic.

now, axiom and proposition is a true logical order, yes, but it is not magick! just because you place your words inside of such axiom or proposition does not create them into a reality!

No, you still don't get it. I am not attempting to "Create them into a reality" you are not making any sense. It all stems from the simple fact that you don't get it and you are out of your league. I really hate to so arrogantly put it that way but that is the simple fact of the matter.

Things are false when they do not objectivly or scientifically represent our environment outside of us. Like art is false. Spiderman does not really exist, and King Lear does not speak in Iambic Pentameter.

You are making a faulty equivocation.

quite sure. I just deny that the laws of physics follow the laws of axiom and proposition.

Then you are a moron. You don't even know what you are saying. And curiously when you say "the laws of axiom" you make yourself look even more ridiculous. Axioms are not predicated on anything, stop being so pompously ridiculous.

propositions do not create truth

Wow, you said something that wasn't ridiculous. Too bad the rest of that sentence was silly.

this is another irrational and quite illogical thing you do in discussion. you try to define your opponent so you can make their ideas false. First I was a nihilist, then a relativist, now I must be a scientologist, right?

My commentary is not my argument, I have provided sufficient justification. I think you are probably a hypocrite of a relativist but not a scientologist, but cultist? Most certaintly; more of the Gene Ray variety though.

Um, I would be very careful about slander in a place of public media, little politician man. I am not involved in any organisation, group, club, cult, or anything of the sort. I am challenging your ideas and you keep finding the need to define 'me' so my ideas will be false in return.

Again no. I know your ideas are ridiculous; you really haven't presented much other than a denial of axioms while you pompously misunderstand all of my assertions.

And that concludes yet another needless rebuttal.

In closing.

well if that is true, I certaintly hope you are having as much fun as I am then...

No Bubblefish, I'm not having fun. I think you are a moron with the foolosophy of a gas station attendant and you may think the same about me but I have demonstrated that I am nothing of the sort.
*Nico

 

[Moonrat]

hehe, glad to see we are finely getting somewhere!

You continue to be ridiculous. The problem still lies in the fact that you do not have the mental capacity nor the reading comprehension to understand any of the assertions that have been presented. You saying that I making an equivocation between all propositions.

Nico, I do admit that I am playing with you , yes, but it is YOU who are telling me that there is an equivocation between all propositions, I am only going on your words. You say that red elephants is a true statement. If you were to say that it was true based on the axiom and proposition of it's structure, that is another story, but you use the quality of truth arrived at in logic to state that is a 'true statement' in the objective sense of the definition of the words.


I do not reject logic, I follow the axiom and proposition, I only go on the words you write, and based on the words you write, you don't seem to make the distinction in your own words...

this thread is about what 'truth' is. True is a category, not an object. It is a category where we place information that can be independently verified. It is not an esoteric concept, a religious concept, or even a concept that can only be arrived at using symbolic logic

Are you really this ridiculous? Now you are saying that all truth propositions are identical because a statement you don't want to be true is true.

see? here is where you make it so easy for me to play with you. really. I cannot make something in objective reality true or not. it exists or it does not exist. when you write 'true' in regards to red elephants, please write 'vacuous truth' and make the distinction. If you do NOT make the distinction in your dialouge, I therefore can only assume you cannot make the distinction in your mind.
keep it simple. 2+2=4 is a true statement, with or without symbolic logic. "red elephants exist in loaves of bread' needs it's axioms and propositions to be true inside of symbolic logic, no symbolic logic, NO TRUTH, just poetry...

Red Elephants exist, she said, in loaves of bread
she said, as her eyes turned to the left and to the right
playing in a circus, they must exist
in loaves of bread, as do all creeping things large and small...


I can use that as prose, I cannot use that sentence to explain the laws of physics or the universe around me. I can use axiom and proposition to understand what is true, or how I can come to understand where the truth lay, but it is not permanent! axiom and proposition are a formula, they are not God, reality does not bend around them...

it is the distinction that I request you make, and nothing more

The reason I say you have no justification for anything is because you have denied tautologies, obviously tautologies do not lead to further deductive conclusions but it is a frame work from which to build a system of logic. Without such system you can gain no meaningful conclusions and if you deny the axioms of logic but continue to use logic you simply have no justification for doing so and are most probably a hypocrite. You are out of your league; stop this.

Again, and this is why I continue to play with you, I do not deny tautologies, I just deny that they exist in all enviroments all the time.

I don't deny addition, but I don't use addition when I need to use subtraction...subtraction does not negate the laws of addition, it is just they they are MOOT when in this enviroment...

I suppose you mean the laws of logic, I guess, if you think logic does not represent reality then you are being a moron and further deny axioms because you do not accept as self-evident and therefore do not accept them.

they do not represent ALL of reality. Like they fall apart in quantum physics. and when they tell me that "Red Elephants' is a true statement, well, that is absurd! Unless you STATE the axiom and proposition, i.e it's 'formula' is true, while the 'words' have no bearing in objective reality.

it is only a formula, it does not MAKE it true...

 

[Moonrat]

Look, I can define you however I want, you haven't provided anything substantive in way of refutation just naked assertions. You ask me to tell "what naked assertions" nearly every thing you have used to contradict me has been naked assertions. If they have not been naked assertions then they have just been more of your ignorant nonsense displaying you don't understand anything about philosophy, i.e. your rubbish about poetry.

Ok, I know NOTHING about ANYTHING. Now, explain to me again how Red Elephants are true OUTSIDE of axiom and proposition again? Explain how tautology defines what is 'true'? Explain to me what makes something 'true' for ALL? This sentence begins with the word this, what makes this sentence 'true'? axiom? or honesty?




(the thing is, Nico, is you cannot define the inherent paradox. Am I incorrect in stating that symbolic logic will not allow for paradox? Well, paradox is a component of reality, and if you reject paradox, you find yourself insisting that red elephants are true, without even realising it)

The laws of logic are self evident if you do not accept them then fine but do not continue to use them nor say that you accept them

huh? ( please read that statement again and catch your own contradictions. You just told me that the laws of logic are self evident when I do not except them, which is fine as long as I do not continue to use them or say I accept them. that makes no sense. Please calm down and think rationaly about what you are writing, you make it even easier for me to play with you.)

Other than the last two which are not really meaningful the first one is false. What you have done is equate "Nico" with nothing, while that may be amusing, you still don't understand. It does not follow the principles you think it does. You cannot say any nonsensical statement and expect it to be vacuously true, you still don't get it. Obviously you are not educated. Yes I am defining you and it is not an attempt to show that you are wrong it is simply side commentary. But in all reality you have defined yourself.

well, they are all NOT TRUE. which leaves us with two alternatives only. either false, or mystery.

If it is not an attempt to show that I am wrong, why is it that I need to be uneducated, ignorant, a scientologist, a relatavist, a cult member, or a nihilist for you to be right?

Stop being stupid. Yes I have admitted the vacuous truth is more a tautology, and OBVIOUSLY you cannot compare a vacuous truth with a synthetic statement. Why are you being so ridiculous as to compare something that is really tautological with a synthetic statement? But yes you are not educated enough to know what that means either. By definition a tautological statement cannot be a synthetic statement, you are absurd. I don't see why you think tautological, analytic, and synthetic propositions cannot all have truth values, it does not follow.

aiyee! good, we are getting somewhere, only you are half right, for that is ALL I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS WHOLE TIME, that they share 'truth' , or that which is TRUE, but you have to DISTINGUISH THEM in discussion...

which leads me back to my question to you which you still fail to answer, what then is the 'true' that they all share? ONE component shared amongst THREE distinct propositions...what is then the definition, or what defines that which is shared?



whew! finally, I will even let you take the credit for that if you want! good show.

Basically what you have said is "0=0 cannot be true if 2+2=4." Ridiculous, your cult can't save you from that.

I have NOT been saying that. it is you who have interpreted that because you are locked inside of your logic box. please stop with the silly cult refrences, they won't help you. Let's assume that I am a mooney manson family member with ties to scientology and the Masons, that still does not help you define what true is, nor does it negate what I have said about what makes something 'true'

"Things are false when they do not objectivly or scientifically represent our environment outside of us. Like art is false. Spiderman does not really exist, and King Lear does not speak in Iambic Pentameter."

You are making a faulty equivocation.

o my god, is that a naked assertion or is that a naked assertion!

I have never equated a truth proposition with the concept of true. Obviously an instantian of a property is not the same thing as that property. Go learn something.

hehe, then why do you keep writing that vacuous truths are true? shall I find where you wrote that and copy and paste it? Ok, here goes...

Originally Posted by Nicomachus
Vacuously true statements are true stop being ridiculous.

My commentary is not my argument,

then why introduce irrelevant and false information into the discussion?

I have provided sufficient justification. I think you are probably a hypocrite of a relativist but not a scientologist, but cultist? Most certaintly; more of the Gene Ray variety though.

who is Gene Ray?

define cult

I must be a cult of one, I guess...

No Bubblefish, I'm not having fun. I think you are a moron with the foolosophy of a gas station attendant and you may think the same about me but I have demonstrated that I am nothing of the sort.
*Nico

*sniff* awww, you called me bubblefish, *sniff* that is so cute! the rest was kind of funny, 'foolosophy'..haha, I like that, what a (pardon the pun in relation) what a gas!

I do not think you are a fool, I think you are an educated man and I thank you for the discussion and I have learned from it. I just don't think you understand yet how to fully distinquish between true and false, objective and subjective, and you have some deep seated issues with paradox, but that is quite a common problem. You also could use a bit more humor, and you WAAAAY over use the word 'rediculous', but hey, we will just stick with 'truth' in this thread and not your poor usage of prose or poetry...


Moo'rat

 

[honestrosewater]

Moonrat, Nico *did* distinguish vacuous truth from other truth. Do you not see the word "vacuous"? You are only playing with yourself.

 

[Moonrat]

Moonrat, Nico *did* distinguish vacuous truth from other truth. Do you not see the word "vacuous"? You are only playing with yourself.

well that seems to be a matter of controversy then... he did not define truth other than 'vacuous' in my discussion with him, however, I did not read the whole thread or other things that he wrote other than where I started with him...

and yes, I am playing with myself *and* him, you know, it takes two to tango...

 

[Nicomachus]

Alright, this has moved beyond the point of any possible fruitful discussion. You basically hijacked this thread to erroneously crticize a small point of mine because you are ignorant. I have explained this more times than is necessary and you act is if I am just repeating myself and you do not understand the substance of my assertions. I will say this before I continue, what you have failed to do is understand the differences and the commonality of necessary, analytic, logical, and contingent truth propositions. This is all over your head.

However, I have taken a little look at your website Moonrat/Bubblefish and I now see the error of my ways everyone. I was "arguing" with an idiot. I decided to, instead responding to your repitive nonsense (and if you don't see how "art=false" is a faulty equivocation than you are an absurd little person) I would share some new found knowledge of your perspective and your highly irrational and chaotic mind.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this Moonrat, is actually an agent of an absurd Internet cult/movement or whatever you want to call it spawned out of some anti-war agenda or something. Here is the website so everyone can follow along:

http://www.highintelligence.com/

This the home page but to save you the trouble please look here:
http://www.highintelligence.com/bubblefish.htm

Yes everyone, this is why I call him/her bubblefish. Actualy the reason Moonrat is on this board is because of this "infiltration," see here:

"Bubblefish infiltrates Internet BBS! [lurk.withdraw.upon them] "
Please don't think this inane; we haven't gotten to the good stuff yet.

Moonrat’s cult is more properly referred to as “OS 012,” which I have gathered to mean some kind of new software for one’s brain, whatever that is. This is the “global dialectic” he/she keeps spouting about as if he is continuing some noble Greek tradition. But enough build up. From what I have found there are two supposed version of OS12 and they are “user” and “basic” though I don’t know what any of that poppycock means but let’s take a look at what the mind of Moonrat has in store for us in Basic. URL=http://www.highintelligence.com/versionBASIC3.0.htm]Click here.[/URL] Let’s see what this most curious mind has in store for us:

“Begin here: O = mystery. 1 = true. 2 = false. “ Ok …

I’ll save some trouble, the first few paragraphs are just about that memetic garbage anyway carrying on.

“Ideas are the seed of ALL action {Ideas are nouns that are the potential of verbs}” Well, as profound as that is …

“ALL IDEAS CONFLICT. [This is the very nature of the universe itself]” … uh huh … wow …

“All ideas [in conflict] seem to be one or the other. Good/Bad. Right/Wrong. Male/Female. This/That. Light/Dark. Strong/Weak. Yin/Yang. Me/You. Us/Them. Oppo/site. “

I wonder if Moonrat/Bubblesfish knows what a false-dichotomy is?

“All ideas can also be true or they can also be false [This is an important thing to observe]” I almost lost my lunch to this one, what a laugh this guy, he was talking about humor, wow. Despite being barely intelligible this is absurd.

“[OS 012 can either be true, or it can be false, right?]” Well that’s right, if it were meaningful.

“A ‘King’ idea is what we all bring into the conversation. However, if we are to agree, there can only be one true ‘King’. Therefore, discussion becomes an art and a game of strategy, for one of us has to lose a ‘false’ idea that we believe to be true. When we lose a false idea or a false king that we have, we only have lost by winning a new and better idea or King that will serve us better.Both sides come to the table with a different King, but leave with the same one. Both sides then can both win in every discussion. Both sides leave in synergy.
King against King!
{By letting them fight, we learn that when one of them wins, it does so only because it serves BOTH SIDES better. King ideas fight to make BOTH SIDES WIN} “

Wow, I don’t know if this is idealistic gibberish or if it is completely unintelligible maddening nonsense.

“ON GUARD!” Yes …

“OS 012 is an ©I-dea whose time has come. ©OS 012 is a collection of IDEAS that have been hard won in the field of ‘battle’. [Ideas that have been fought and discussed for thousands of years] Through these battles, OS 012 has had and will have many more contributors.
[OS 012 is created through internet discussion] ©OS 012 BASIC has been formulated by many people. Many of them may never even meet. “

blah blah blah. Other than some anti-war tirade I couldn’t find anything of substance in OS12.

“[The ‘battle’ however, has just begun. Many more challenges lay ahead] OS 012 will ‘win’ all of them.” Delusions of Persecution and Delusions of Grandeur.

“OS 012 is an *OBJECT that we all can agree on.” Well isn’t that sweet. Sounds like relativism to please the dumb masses.

“OS 012 is a simple way to understand the true nature of all our ideas and words that we think or speak, privatly or openly.” People, tell me this doesn’t sound like a cult.

“When we understand the nature of all our ideas, we understand ourselves from a much larger and more interesting perspective.” Many a fortune cooke have we eaten, eh?

“We have to know the difference between what we say is a [true] idea, a [false] idea, and an idea that is [both] true& false. [True/False] = Mystery “
Wow, put the pipe down.

“0 is mystery. It is when something is both true and false at once. This is the UNKNOWN. No-thing. 1 is True. Mind. Science. Objective. Honesty. 2 is False. Feelings. Art. Subjective. Inspiration.”
What is this, a game of Yahtzee?

“These are the only categories your mind can ever understand. All ideas and thoughts and words and memes are either true or false or mystery.”
False dichotomy.

“The 0, the 1, and the 2 That’s all there is to it. Smile. That is OS 012 BASIC “ What is L. Ron. Hubbard going to jump out of the cubbard now?

“When you can understand how to operate this as an effective tool, you will always be able to tell when others are lying. You will always be able to see when others may be hiding. You will win in every conversation and discussion all the time. You will become a master in communications and negotiations in ways that may utterly astound you.”

And we will have mind-meld session and Commander Spock will … yeah.

“[This is only accomplished in one way and one way only]” I’m just ticking off the boxes next to my cult checklist.

“False information never works inside of math and science.” Well, that’s just wrong with respect to science. I don’t know what you mean by “work” but it doesn’t sound like you know much about science or the history of science. Well, if you have been following along you have seen there is nothing of substance here, let’s “install” and see what we get.
Click here to begin Mind Melding Installation.

“Mystery can never be defined.Yet it is always right above and behind you. TURN AROUND! QUICK!“
Despite being absurd you do not fail to be completely insane. Amazing.

“There is always a factor infinite and unknown. This is 0. “ You should ask for your money back from whoever taught you math, if anyone ever did.

“OS 012 IDENTIFY:POLITICIAN://.read.below. When.people.deceive.themselves.and others.they.become.‘politicians’.”
I see, that’s why you keep calling me that it’s the vernacular of your cult. Well whatever. If you are following, I didn’t post it, but there is an interesting discourse about how 2=1 or some deceptive nonsense or something or other, blah blah blah. Do check it out everyone it is very interesting, in the way that you stare at the crazy man pillaging through the garbage dumpster.

“You have completed a full install.” um … Ok.

“[Resistance is futile]” Alrighty. (another checkmark) … “OS 012 High Intelligence Productions, all RITES REVERSED.” Not a cult? You sure?

Well that was interesting. You sir are a madman. Let’s see what some others have had to say about Moonrat/Bubblefish, don’t just take my word for it.
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...4463&goto=nextnewest+"OS+012"+dialectic&hl=en
A forum member of Philosophyforums.com writes:

“I've never been more confused after visiting that website. Just tell me what it is and how it works, no more vague mysterious adjectives to get me to try it out from curiousity.”

I couldn’t agree more. Also, take note that Bubblefish was banned from the philosophy forums, gee I wonder why? And yes Bubblefish and Moonrat are the same entity/thing whatever.

Even the George Carlin forum people think Moonrat is crazy, and that is an accomplishment. See here.

What did that one person say “you are some spaced out mf’ers” or something to that effect? Yep.

Apparently the George Carlin don’t think much of your recruitment tactics. More.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:7y6bauXWFxgJ:occultforums.com/viewtopic.php%3Ft%3D9830%26view%3Dprevious+site:[url

Well there is much more I could post but I am bored and I think this is sufficient. Honestly, Moonrat/Babblefish/whatever you are a madman and I will not continue any discourse with you as I do not converse with madmen. You can think of this however you want. As well I know you will say I am trying to “define” you or something but you have defined yourself, I am more like “reporter.” Have fun with your cult.
*Nico

 

[Nicomachus]

Moonrat, Nico *did* distinguish vacuous truth from other truth. Do you not see the word "vacuous"? You are only playing with yourself.

Thank you honestrosewater =). I'm glad someone else is paying attention. I miss LifeGazer, if any of you remember him. He was wrong but he was for the most part knowledgeable of intellectual matters!
*Nico

 

[Moonrat]

Well thank you nico!

Yes, I was playing with you, for a reason. and the reason was that I was trying to instigate an OS 012 discussion, which I was unable to start earlier here...

Part of what I do is half-theatre, and for a purpose. Now that you have finally come along, let's get to it for real shall we?

Many people at first glance misinterpret OS 012 and the purpose of those discussions. I would say let's start a new thread over this, so I shall start one in response.

I have much to learn about symbolic logic, and YOU, nico, are my new teacher in this, I will learn from you, and you, whether you like it or not, will learn from me...

I do not claim to be what I am not, I am no scholar, I am mainly an artist and a writer who has studied a variety of subjects of intellectual nature since I was about 8 years old, or for over 27 years now...

so, let's carry on! i was depending upon some bright minds here to challenge OS 012, and I am glad that Nico finally did it!

(it is through the conflict of idea that any understanding is ever had)

So, I am going to respond to this on a new thread as to not hi-jack this one..

Thank you so much NIco, really.

the discussion and my reply is here




Discussion

 

[olde drunk]

Macho Nico & Moonie!

Gentlemen:

With many fewer words, you both prove my original point. You guys can't agree on HOW to define truth, let alone "TRUTH" itself.

true statements and truth are two very different animals.

Again, "THERE AIN'T NO TRUTH, EXCEPT THAT ALL TRUTHS ARE RELATIVE". i don't care where you go or how you choose to slice it, you will have a personal qualifier which is subjective, which leads to relative truth.

no matter what the area of examination, the incoming data will pass through your individual, personal filters (bias, belief, expectation, etc) making it subjective - relative.

it don't matta 2 me, i got mine!


love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Moonrat]

Gentlemen:

With many fewer words, you both prove my original point. You guys can't agree on HOW to define truth, let alone "TRUTH" itself.

true statements and truth are two very different animals.

Again, "THERE AIN'T NO TRUTH, EXCEPT THAT ALL TRUTHS ARE RELATIVE". i don't care where you go or how you choose to slice it, you will have a personal qualifier which is subjective, which leads to relative truth.

no matter what the area of examination, the incoming data will pass through your individual, personal filters (bias, belief, expectation, etc) making it subjective - relative.

it don't matta 2 me, i got mine!


love&peace,
olde drunk

Olde drunk, I invite you to carry on this on the other thread. your 'exception' is they key. that is an objective truth, that all truth is relative to a point of view, yet 'truth' still remains...

we all look at the sun in the sky from different degree on earth, but the sun is still true, and we all agree that it is the sun we are looking at. we cannot separate the objective from the subjective. subjective points of view do not negate the objective, just give our own unique spin on it...

this thing that you touched upon is the main source of conflict, we confuse our unique spin with the objective truth. when we can see the distinction, there is no conflict between people, just ideas...

thanks olde drunk, I always liked your style!

 

[olde drunk]

my kind sir, we do not know the sun is in the sky!

it is highly, probable that the sun we experience is an energy - idea construct that we telepathically agree exists as physical. we AGREE the sun is there, we do not know in the absolute that it is REALLY there.

if you want to say that these agreements are objectively true for the purpose of conversation, fine. TRUTH, however can not be defined because it is 'experienced' not defined. We each learn our own individual truth through experience (relative/subjective).

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Moonrat]

my kind sir, we do not know the sun is in the sky!

it is highly, probable that the sun we experience is an energy - idea construct that we telepathically agree exists as physical. we AGREE the sun is there, we do not know in the absolute that it is REALLY there.

if you want to say that these agreements are objectively true for the purpose of conversation, fine. TRUTH, however can not be defined because it is 'experienced' not defined. We each learn our own individual truth through experience (relative/subjective).

love&peace,
olde drunk

ahhh, I like where the conversation is going now. Yes, I agree with what you are saying, but there still is another layer or twist that you are not defining, is that we are still referring to the same 'energy' of what the sun is. It is still one point of refrence.

For example, you know, a very popular almost cliche used in hip philosophical discussions such as we all create are own reality. Well, who is to say one way or another, but if so, then there still is the reality we all create in synergy, such as the sun in the sky. All of us are receiving the same signal, energy, or what have you. even if our collective interpretation is artistic (false), we are still referring to the same thing. One cannot 'free will' away this signal, nor can they debate it away, nor can they rationalise it's non existence

There is not one human being who denies the existence of the 'sun', whether they look at it as God, Gas, Star, or illusion. It is still a functioning 'illusion' for all, and the absolute reality outside of that of our contruct is 'mystery' for all as well. Mystery is the ultimate 'truth' we all are faced with. It is true that there is mystery, and the sun is a mysterious object that we have come to understand objectivly over the centuries, but there is still much mystery about it that is left unanswered scientificaly.

Like you put it earlier, you said all truth is relative, and you ended your post with saying 'and I already got mine'.

where OS 012, or any idea or dialectic or system that is like OS 012 comes into play, is finding where there is 'our' truth as opposed to or in union with 'my' or 'your' truth.

so, our objective environment outside of us that we all participate in together, where the 'sun', whatever it turns out to be, resides. this is 'our' truth, and the quality of truth here is quite distinct from our 'inner' enviroment, which is our feelings, opinions, ideologies and the like.

so, there is only ONE environment outside of us, easy to see, this is the ONE simple objective truth. This we can say is true for certain. This is represented by the number 1 for obvious sake in OS 012. Or, like in a Math set, one is the only 'true' number.

we are always in agreement, or, to use Hegel's model, we already have an inherent synthesis of idea that we all agree to, no matter how heated our debates become. We are universally more in agreement than not. We all agree that this environment outside of us is the one where we all participate in together. anything outside of this is 'relative' and subjective, and when you can see this at play, you can see the natural synergy that exists between objective and subjective, unique quantum point of view with universal point of view. This is only an observation, outside of the world of opinion, metaphysics, or subjectivity. Yet we can only see 'it' from our unique and subjective point of view. built in paradox that the mind struggles with because it believes in a false dichotomy of true VS false. Once the mind can see that there exists another category for information that is equal to true and false, which is mystery, then the mind can expand and integrate deeper layers of information. This is only a natural process and not some technique taught in yoga schools, logic classes, or scientology ;-)


To us, our unique point of view always dominates all other points of view. But that is only to us as individuals, not for all collectivly. Therefore, all subjectivity, art, feelings are FALSE in objective environment (true in subjective enviroment, always a perfect mirrored 'reverse')

hehe, but don't trust me, I am a internet cult leader who wants to sleep with all of your women and siphon your cash! Best yet to see it for yourself for certainty and not trust my take on the matter...


Moonrat

PS, by the way, your other post title "macho nico VS 'moonie' hehe, that was funny!