Anti-realism about truth and facts

[AmbiguousGuy]

So is any of this true, or not?

Any of what? What are you referring to?

You do realize the implication here right? If you're correct about this, it follows that you're incorrect, and if you're incorrect, then you're just incorrect. Talk about a rock and a hard place.

Can you define 'correct' for me, in your own words?/

When you are correct, it means that God/TheUniverse agrees with you?

Or does it means something else? I'd be curious to hear you talk about it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You didn't address what I said in post 19, and that may have some relevance here. And no, skepticism or outright rejection of what some claim is "reality" is not anti-realism. It's just a matter of understanding reality on different terms. To me, I'm sure what you call reality, I might call an illusion.

You're missing the point; its simply a matter of classification- in general, the position or view which holds that some X does not exist is called "anti-realism about X" or "X anti-realism"- this is simply a common and accepted practice, and its not even objected to by moral anti-realists, anti-realists in ontology, truth-value, and so on. You're reading too much into the terminology.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Any of what? What are you referring to?

The things you said in your post.

Can you define 'correct' for me, in your own words?/

When you are correct, it means that God/TheUniverse agrees with you?

Or does it means something else? I'd be curious to hear you talk about it.

Well, you said those things, what was the point? Do you not think the things you said were accurate, or were correct, or were true? Do you believe what you said? Do you think you are right?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It can be stated to say there there has yet to be demonstrated any truth that can be stated absolutely. So therefore, anyone claiming such and such as a fact, that how they perceive the truth of it is the only reality of the thing, are making a claim not supported evidence.

Well, but that wouldn't quite follow, at best it would be rendered probable. Even if, hitherto, nobody has done X, it doesn't follow that anyone claiming to do X henceforth is mistaken.

Or you could just take a shortcut using language and say, no can say anything absolutely

But now you've already opened the door for the problem; you're substituting "absolutely" for truth here; and if this statement is itself not "absolute", then you leave the door open for the possibility that you're mistaken, and that you can say something absolutely.

Another factor to add to this, is that if we begin to approach topics approaching an absolute, such as God, or infinity, language and logic will naturally begin to break down as it unavoidably sets up contradiction.

Um, why?

Language is based upon a dualistic view of reality, and if you move into the nondual, language using subject/object relationship with break apart. It's like the novel flatland. How do you describe three-dimensional objects in a two-dimensional language?

Please elaborate on how/why "language is based upon a dualistic view of reality".

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The things you said in your post.

You want to know if the things I said in my post are 'correct'?

Curious question. What does 'correct' mean to you?

Well, you said those things, what was the point? Do you not think the things you said were accurate, or were correct, or were true? Do you believe what you said? Do you think you are right?

I see you are not going to answer my direct questions. If you should ever feel ready to do that, please let me know.

 

[bobhikes]

Some people, in their inattention to language, will sometimes put forth the sophistical doctrine that there are no truths, or are no facts. Of course, unbeknownst to them, they have already contradicted themselves; asserting X is equivalent to saying X is true, and so, if "there are no truths" is not simply mistaken, then it follows that there is at least one truth, and the claim is self-contradictory.

Some posters here are so confused about the matter that they think vague comments like "language is a tool" somehow help to dispel this contradiction. This thread is their opportunity to make this view seem less laughable. Wish them luck.

Everything is unique and constantly changing so if you define truth as an absolute it is impossible to know in the now.

But in reality I have no problems with what people call truths. What I don't understand is why they get all hung up(arguing or fighting) over things that are supposedly true. If it's true, it's true there is nothing anyone or anything can do about it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Dear Lord.

cor·rect
kəˈrekt/Submit
adjective
1.
free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.

ac·cu·rate
ˈakyərit/Submit
adjective
1.
(of information, measurements, statistics, etc.) correct in all details; exact.

true
tro͞o/Submit
adjective
1.
in accordance with fact or reality.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You want to know if the things I said in my post are 'correct'?

Curious question. What does 'correct' mean to you?

Not a very curious question at all; in fact, a pretty darn commonplace and mundane one. And I'd imagine "correct" means more or less the same thing to me as it does to you and every other English speaker. But if you're still confused, I provided some helpful indications from our good friend the dictionary.

But if thats not what "correct" "means to you", then please explain what it does mean to you. Or, stop playing this childish game and answer the question; do the things you say describe any reality, state of affairs, actuality, or truth? If not, then it follows that there ARE truths/facts. If so, then there are. As I said, rock+hard place.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Dear Lord.

cor·rect
kəˈrekt/Submit
adjective
1.
free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.

ac·cu·rate
ˈakyərit/Submit
adjective
1.
(of information, measurements, statistics, etc.) correct in all details; exact.

true
tro͞o/Submit
adjective
1.
in accordance with fact or reality.

I have a dictionary. If you'd like to answer my direct questions, let me know.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Why did you tell me to start a thread when you had no interest in participating like a serious adult?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Actually, given that you're here, by your own admission, to defend sophism, I don't know why I'm surprised at your evasiveness. But even that is instructive here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So if they had just kept their mouth shut, they'd be right.

For academic philosophers, it's all about manipulating words. No wonder some of them come to worship words.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why did you tell me to start a thread when you had no interest in participating like a serious adult?

No time for a ******* contest right now. Sorry. I still love you and all.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

In other words, you're bowing out already? That may be a new record...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If not, you could pick up where you left off-

You want to know if the things I said in my post are 'correct'?

Curious question. What does 'correct' mean to you?

Not a very curious question at all; in fact, a pretty darn commonplace and mundane one. And I'd imagine "correct" means more or less the same thing to me as it does to you and every other English speaker. But if you're still confused, I provided some helpful indications from our good friend the dictionary.

But if thats not what "correct" "means to you", then please explain what it does mean to you. Or, stop playing this childish game and answer the question; do the things you say describe any reality, state of affairs, actuality, or truth? If not, then it follows that there ARE truths/facts. If so, then there are. As I said, rock+hard place.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I still love you and all.

That's due to my warm and cuddly personality, no doubt.

 

[Willamena]

Please elaborate on how/why "language is based upon a dualistic view of reality".

Subject-verb-object.
or subject-object-verb.
or verb-subject-object.

 

[Windwalker]

Um, why?

I explained why in that post. Because the Absolute, cannot be either a subject or an object and still remain Absolute. So the closer you move towards that, subject/object dualities begin to blur and all truths are seen and understood as relative truths, belonging to the world of duality, setting up contradictions in any attempt to qualify what is unqualifiable, even that qualifying statement. Both the theist position of God creates self-contradictions, and the atheist position of no-God likewise creates self-contradiction. The Absolute cannot be known or stated propositionally.

Please elaborate on how/why "language is based upon a dualistic view of reality".

I explained this. Language inherently is speaking about a view of reality rooted in subject/object relationships. What if reality isn't that?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I explained why in that post. Because the Absolute, cannot be either a subject or an object and still remain Absolute. So the closer you move towards that, subject/object dualities begin to blur and all truths are seen and understood as relative truths, belonging to the world of duality, setting up contradictions in any attempt to qualify what is unqualifiable, even that qualifying statement. Both the theist position of God creates self-contradictions, and the atheist position of no-God likewise creates self-contradiction. The Absolute cannot be known or stated propositionally.

I still fail to see what you're saying here; what exactly are you referring to by "the Absolute", and why is it capitalized? I also don't see (although this is no doubt related to the ambiguity I just mentioned) why contradictions are necessitated, or how any of this helps alleviate self-contradiction (particularly a contradiction at the very root of propositional language use, as in this case, where one wants to assert- i.e. claim the truth of the proposition that- there are no truths)

I explained this. Language inherently is speaking about a view of reality rooted in subject/object relationships. What if reality isn't that?

Then I missed it; and this isn't true of all language, nor is it obviously necessarily true of all propositional language- but clearly there is plenty of linguistic practice that has nothing to do with the subject/object propositional form (think of expressions like "hello", "ouch", and so on, as the most obvious examples). This is basically the pre-20th century linguistic/analytic turn view, before we realized that language is a bit more diverse than this.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In other words, you're bowing out already? That may be a new record...

I like to debate and discuss. Listening to the other guy rant about my ignorance and confusion? Hey, I can get that down on any streetcorner. And those guys at least do it interestingly.

If you want a serious dialogue with me, you'll have to be willing to open yourself up and answer my questions about your view of things.