Anti-realism about truth and facts

[Badran]

***Mod post***

Please keep rule 1 in mind while posting:

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I've proven, thoroughly and exhaustively, that there is no contradiction in the statement that "There is no truth."

On another thread, apparently. Please provide a link or a post # if you believe you've done this, because the post(s) I'm guessing you have in mind did no such thing; and, unsurprisingly, you failed to respond to any criticisms of the post in which you make some vague claims about contradictions existing in minds not words (true, but irrelevant) and baldly asserting that there can be true contradictions (waiting for an argument on this count- not holding my breath), if that is indeed the post in which you think you've done this.

And your pretext for not responding to my posts (due to some fictitious incivility) is pretty obviously just that; a pretext to get you out of responding to points you have no good response to. Nobody has been anything but civil on this thread, as we all can see (you seem to keep forgetting that these threads are a public record available to all, and that making dishonest claims about them and their contents is a pretty silly strategy since we can all easily and readily check these claims and see them to be false).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

On another thread, apparently. Please provide a link or a post # if you believe you've done this...

I did it in this thread. So just re-read my messages in this thread. You'll see. I nailed all contrary arguments to the wall like skint hides to the side of a barn.

If you walk past this thread, you can still smell them stinking up the place!

And your pretext for not responding to my posts (due to some fictitious incivility)...

Fictitious incivility. Right. So you would argue that calling one's dialogue partner a moron is an example of good old-fashioned civility?

Whatever we want to believe, I guess that's what we'll believe.

 

[raw_thought]

One, but not both. If both words are used in the same sense (i.e. not equivocating), then it is indeed a contradiction. Now, perhaps he's an accomplished poker player and can maintain a straight face while asserting a self-refuting self-contradiction, I don't know; but it is nevertheless a self-contradiction. This vague plea "language is a tool" doesn't help.

See post 124 for context
Contradictions can exist if one is speaking literally. Contradictions are problematic if one is trying to show a contradiction in a metaphor. For example, if I say,metaphorically, " Its as cold as a witch's tit" and I say,"a witch is a warm blooded female that practices magic",I am not contradicting myself.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Contradictions can exist if one is speaking literally.

Yeah. And how interesting is it to declare that "a chicken equals a chicken, but only if both chickens are the same chicken."

I don't think we could make a headline out of that.

 

[raw_thought]

I agree. Wittgenstein would also agree. Witt had many words about identity. For example, he said that A=A is a tautology and gives no knowledge. Witt would also say (actually he did) that just because a proposition is imprecise does not mean that it is meaningless. For example,if I say,"stand approximately over there" what I just said is not meaningless.

 

[Slapstick]

[FONT=&quot]

I agree. Wittgenstein would also agree. Witt had many words about identity. For example, he said that A=A is a tautology and gives no knowledge. Witt would also say (actually he did) that just because a proposition is imprecise does not mean that it is meaningless. For example,if I say,"stand approximately over there" what I just said is not meaningless.

Yes it is! Using exact terms for precision and accuracy as synonyms with vague or indiscrete terminology is an overstatement for where that person should actually stand.

The following have not yet been describe or explained: [/FONT]

• Over There --> Where is that person to stand?
• Stand Approximately --> Approximately where?
• Approximately --> In relation or comparison to what?
• There --> What is meant by there?

[FONT=&quot]The main point with the OP is that saying: "There are no truths" is a false statement. Why? Because even the statement “There are no truths” is considered false by that same logic. [/FONT]

 

[raw_thought]

The statement "there are no truths" was mundanely put forth by enaidealukal as a futile attempt to make his opponents look foolish. See "straw man fallacy".

 

[raw_thought]

[FONT=&quot]
Yes it is! Using exact terms for precision and accuracy as synonyms with vague or indiscrete terminology is an overstatement for where that person should actually stand.

The following have not yet been describe or explained: [/FONT]

• Over There --> Where is that person to stand?
• Stand Approximately --> Approximately where?
• Approximately --> In relation or comparison to what?
• There --> What is meant by there?

[FONT=&quot]The main point with the OP is that saying: "There are no truths" is a false statement. Why? Because even the statement “There are no truths” is considered false by that same logic. [/FONT]

I'm confused. Are you saying that if someone asked you to stand approximately over there, that would confuse you? Or are you being sarcastic?

 

[Slapstick]

I'm confused. Are you saying that if someone asked you to stand approximately over there, that would confuse you? Or are you being sarcastic?

I wasn’t being sarcastic. Approximately would be followed by a description. As in “Stand approximately two feet from the oak tree then turn around with a goofy look on your face and kiss the puppy on the butt."

That is a lot more proximate than saying stand approximately over there.

[FONT=&quot]Also, if someone was a photographer and wanted a perfect picture they would use more descriptive language. Especially if they were shooting a swimsuit model calendar. They wouldn't tell a model to "stand over there".
[/FONT]

 

[Slapstick]

The statement "there are no truths" was mundanely put forth by enaidealukal as a futile attempt to make his opponents look foolish. See "straw man fallacy".

I don’t view it as a fallacy because I understand the point the OP is trying to make or convey.

 

[raw_thought]

No one said that there are no truths. Wittgenstein would say that a word's meaning is its use. Enaidealukal is creating a strawman to make his opponents look foolish.
As for the statement " there are no truths " being self contradictory, true but not even first year philosophy * .Unfortunately, it is totally unrelated to anything anyone said. I say we stand at a distance and watch enaidealukal wrestle with his straw men.It might be amusing!
Wittgenstein said that words do not require precise definitions. That is where I got that "stand approximately over there". So you would be confused if someone said "stand over there"?
You should read the OP again. It is just a tirade caused by losing a debate. Instead of continuing the debate enaidealukal chose to hide and throw his missiles from what he thought was a hidden position. He thought that I would not find the new thread and so he thought he could put words in my mouth.
* Next we will hear about how a proposition cannot be true and false simultaneously!:yes:

 

[raw_thought]

Because we humans can make knowledge appear out of thin air?

See posts 115 and post 116 for context.
Knowledge, its all in the mind!
As I said previously, 1+1=2 is only an ink pattern until understood by a mind (consciousness ). See posts 102,104 and 105 for a deeper explanation of what I just said.

 

[Curious George]

Knowledge, its all in the mind!
As I said previously, 1+1=2 is only an ink pattern until understood by a mind (consciousness ).

Is it? I would have thought it was the other way around. Sure 1+1=2 is an ink pattern, but it is expression of an abstract pattern that the mind perceives.

 

[raw_thought]

I cannot put thoughts on paper. All I can do is put ink patterns on paper. For anyone to see meaning in those ink patterns requires that they be conscious.

 

[Curious George]

I cannot put thoughts on paper. All I can do is put ink patterns on paper. For anyone to see meaning in those ink patterns requires that they be conscious.

But those ink patterns are likely an expression of something, unless you were merely putting ink blots down. Others interpretations certainly require thought but that is likely because you tried to communicate some thought to them. In other words people see more than just inkblots because you likely meant more than just inkblots. And meaning and intention make a pretty big difference. Since we do not have telepathy we must rely on less perfect ways to communicate. since our thoughts are also reflective of the real world, there is likely a real world correlation to those inkblots. Thus the inkblots have meaning beyond just their status as inkblots.

 

[raw_thought]

Meaning is not something we take out of our mind and install into the ink. * Knowledge, it's all in the mind!
Meaning requires universals. Universals can exist in a conscious mind but not in a physical object, such as a pattern of ink. For example, consider the word "book". The concept "book" lacks a specific title, language, size,number of pages...ad infinitum. There is nothing physical that resembles that.
Benjamin Franklin used the following analogy to explain a philosophical point. Imagine a code machine. You type in a letter and the machine spits out another letter to replace it,in the coded message. The code machine is like "enigma ". It changes the code after each letter. You type in,"the cat". Out comes," xxxxxxx". Is "xxxxxxx" meaningful?
* Even if we caused that pattern of ink, cause is not the same as meaning. For example a bullet may break a glass. The bullet caused the glass to shatter. However, it would be absurd to say that the shattered glass is the meaning (definition ) of the bullet.

 

[Curious George]

Meaning is not something we take out of our mind and install into the ink. * Knowledge, it's all in the mind!
Meaning requires universals. Universals can exist in a conscious mind but not in a physical object, such as a pattern of ink. For example, consider the word "book". The concept "book" lacks a specific title, language, size,number of pages...ad infinitum. There is nothing physical that resembles that.
Benjamin Franklin used the following analogy to explain a philosophical point. Imagine a code machine. You type in a letter and the machine spits out another letter to replace it,in the coded message. The code machine is like "enigma ". It changes the code after each letter. You type in,"the cat". Out comes," xxxxxxx". Is "xxxxxxx" meaningful?
* Even if we caused that pattern of ink, cause is not the same as meaning. For example a bullet may break a glass. The bullet caused the glass to shatter. However, it would be absurd to say that the shattered glass is the meaning (definition ) of the bullet.

Written patterns can correspond to the physical world. Therefore the meaning of one mind can transfer to another mind. That meaning is stored in the patterns it just takes another sentient mind to extract the meaning.

 

[raw_thought]

Written patterns do not only correspond to the physical world, they are part and parcel of the physical world. They cannot partake of meaning. Why? Because meaning involves predicates (universals). To speak in predicates (to speak meaningfully ) =to use universals. And universals are not concrete particulars.
However, I agree. It requires consciousness to extract meaning. Knowledge, (meaning) its all in the mind!

 

[raw_thought]

What does "correspond " mean? That an abstraction corresponds (instantiates) to reality?
That involves an infinite regress(as Plato's rebuttal to his own theory of forms,third man shows.).
For example, lets take the correspondence theory of truth (from now on referred to as CTT). The CTT is common sense. Truth is what happens when a concept corresponds to reality. Is the CTT true? Well according to the CTT nothing is true unless it corresponds to reality. Is the CTT true? According to its own definition, if it is true it must correspond to a reality. What is that reality? Another CTT? Hence another infinite regress!
The paradoxs of the CTT were the downfall of logical positivism.