Defining 'Truth': A Puzzling Quandary

[Ebolamonk3y]

truth is that can be defined. Everything else can come from truths. Some can argue sense alter truth and there is no truth. Ahh well.

 

[AlanPartr]

truth is a meaningless concept, there is nothing absolutly true (possibly apart from I exist), all we can do is make observations and describe them in the most logical way, in 200 years these descriptions may be considered wrong after new evidence arrises

 

[Moonrat]

With the new global dialectic of OS 012, we can now find objective co-ordinates for what true really is...

really...

dont take my word for it, see for yourself.

truth is objective, honest, rational, scientific, that which does not depend upon your belief in it to exist or not. true is that which we all agree on, or can all agree on. truth is certainty. true is represented by the only true number, which is the number one. This sentence began with the word this. this is true, certain, objective, honest, and rational. Any argument against this is only irrational and can be exposed for such in an environment of rational discussion...

TRUE.


to find TRUE, one must have it's opposite in sight, that which is false. true is easy to understand..try defining what 'false' means...that one is a kicker!

 

[Moonrat]

truth is a meaningless concept, there is nothing absolutly true (possibly apart from I exist), all we can do is make observations and describe them in the most logical way, in 200 years these descriptions may be considered wrong after new evidence arrises

that is not true!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

there is relative truth (false)
there is objective absolute truth (the sun is in the sky), and there is also mysterious truth, or the truth is that mystery is a constant.

true is perhaps the ONLY meaningful concept...

 

[Moonrat]

This is what I was trying to point out by asking, "Is the statement, "Truth is relative" relatively true?" and "Mustn't you agree before you disagree? Otherwise, what is the basis of your disagreement?"

Happy thoughts
Rachel

to understand precisely and with perfection and perfect clarity what true is, one must understand false and mystery. Until false and mystery is integrated in your understanding, then you can really appreciate the nature of that which is true.

this sentence begins with the word this. this is a true statement.

i really can't stand this conversation, and think all of you are a bunch of wankers (just kidding for the shock value of a relative or personal truth, which is false in objective reality but true for the individual)


TRUE IS ONE FOR ALL. ( the sun is in the sky, on this we can all see for ourselves and agree)
relative truth, or false, is all for one...

Mystery is all for all..

 

[honestrosewater]

( the sun is in the sky, on this we can all see for ourselves and agree)

What if you were blind?

I don't understand what you mean by "all for one" and "all for all"- could you explain?

 

[Moonrat]

What if you were blind?

I don't understand what you mean by "all for one" and "all for all"- could you explain?

if you are blind, then you cannot see the sun in the sky, but that does not mean that the sun is not there and does not supply you with warmth.

Objective reality is true, that is which is the environment outside of us that we all participate in together. There in only ONE environment outside of us, hence, ONE FOR ALL.

after all, the blind man agrees that he cannot see the sun in the sky. true is that which we all can agree on naturally.

Now, on what is false, or subjective reality, or subjective enviroment, that which is your own spin on the one reality outside of us, like, that sun is waaay to hot for me today..there are an almost infinite number of subjective points of view responding to the ONE environment outside of us, this is ALL FOR ONE..

now, the third and the most often missed is mystery, which exists both inside and outside. ALL is mYSTERY for ALL participating, mystery is in all directions, and it is BOTH true and false at once, or, when you can no longer distinguish between that which is true and that which is false.


1=True, Honest, Objective, Science, MIND, Order, unidirectional.
2= False, inspriational, subjective, ART, Feelings, chaos, non directional.
0= Mystery, both subjective and objective, omni directional...

all ideas or concepts will always fall in one of these three natural synergies that can be observed by all and for all.



cool beans and red and blue jeans

Moonrat

 

[Nicomachus]

You people are going around in circles.

Truth is a relational property of propositions. Next question.

As far as the statement "a cow is a cow" this is a tautology, of course it is true, if anyone denies this then that person is probably a nihilist.

This statement is also true: "all red elephants always exist within loaves of rye bread."

For AlanPartr's statement "truth is a meaningless concept, there is nothing absolutly true (possibly apart from I exist)." That is poppycock. You are employing what's known as the "Stolen Concept Fallacy." A similar example is of the professor who says to his student "Nothing is certain, of this I am certain" If nothing was certain then there can be no certain statements thus the statement itself is meaningless.

If anyone of you actually think reality does not exist objectively then you must be a nihilist spinning in a vortex of nothingness. There would be no point in discussing anything with you if you do not accept the objectivity of reality as you would have no ability to justify any proposition or hold any positions. You would just need to remain silent or become a hypocrite.

Most of this sounds like bad poetry lamenting fallibility. Bah.
*Nico

 

[olde drunk]

THE SUN ISN'T IN THE SKY!

it is out in space. all truth is relative!

the only truth that exists it that "THERE AIN'T NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH".

and that's the truth; blaaaaaaaaatt!

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Moonrat]

THE SUN ISN'T IN THE SKY!

it is out in space. all truth is relative!

the only truth that exists it that "THERE AIN'T NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH".

and that's the truth; blaaaaaaaaatt!

love&peace,
olde drunk

hehe, looks like ol drunk challenged one truth with another, but lookee here ol drunk, we still agree it is the SUN we are talking about.

SUN is the objective truth.


TRUE is! that is an absolute truth.

objective reality is always relative to a point of view, but the point of view does not create the truth, just the unique spin on it...

when we die, the Earth still keeps spinnin'. absolutly!

 

[Moonrat]

You people are going around in circles.

Truth is a relational property of propositions. Next question.


This statement is also true: "all red elephants always exist within loaves of rye bread."


*Nico

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

 

[olde drunk]

hehe, looks like ol drunk challenged one truth with another, but lookee here ol drunk, we still agree it is the SUN we are talking about.

SUN is the objective truth.


TRUE is! that is an absolute truth.

objective reality is always relative to a point of view, but the point of view does not create the truth, just the unique spin on it...

when we die, the Earth still keeps spinnin'. absolutly!

i consider these to be agreements about our physical reality.

to me, philosophically, when people talk about truth, they want to know what is the whole of reality and/or a creator, prime source, etc.

for that, we all have an opinion and it is subjective. whatever reality or source is, we can not but opine. QT is showing us that the observered reality IS influenced by the observer and his/her expectations or beliefs.

personally, i like to accept and work with my beliefs as being true for me and listen to other views to see if i need to refine my beliefs. again, these are my (temporal) truths.

this is a more comfortable way to live life. accepting someone or something else's truths only got me in conflict with myself (sex is a sin outside of wedlock = sex is bad = I'm bad, because i want sex). this apparent truth and others only taught me to examine ALL truths and create my own.

i don't know if these ideas are formally presented by a recognized scholar, however, they work for me.

love&peace,
olde drunk
(very olde)

 

[Växan]

Absolute Truth = actuality, whether known or not

Accepted Truth = perceived reality, whether an illusion or not

 

[Moonrat]

hehe, Olde Drunk, I likes yer style...

for that, we all have an opinion and it is subjective. whatever reality or source is, we can not but opine. QT is showing us that the observered reality IS influenced by the observer and his/her expectations or beliefs.

In 'physical' or objective reality, or, the only reality we all can agree on, 'source' or 'God' or 'ultimate reality' is OUR mystery...

See Ol Drunk, we gots our 1, which is TRUE, we gots our 2, which is False, and then we gots our 0, which is Mystery. And our 'physical' reality is made up of all three...with the 0, the 1 and the 2, you can hack it...

 

[olde drunk]

hehe, Olde Drunk, I likes yer style...

In 'physical' or objective reality, or, the only reality we all can agree on, 'source' or 'God' or 'ultimate reality' is OUR mystery...

See Ol Drunk, we gots our 1, which is TRUE, we gots our 2, which is False, and then we gots our 0, which is Mystery. And our 'physical' reality is made up of all three...with the 0, the 1 and the 2, you can hack it...

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

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

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. 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.

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??

das all I'm sayin.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[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: :rofl:

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'!
:rofl: :rofl:

 

[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