Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth » Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth

Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 07/12/04 - 01:59 PM:	#51
EntropicOrder wrote: If we are having this argument, then Socrastein and I are right. If we are not having this argument b/c nothing exists, then neither positions nor errors exist either. In neither case is our position erroneous or even capable of error. Belief in "there is something" must be true. You define argument in existence and then since you think your having an argument you think there is existence. But what if "argument" has no foundation, and no "being". This goes around my argument and assume existence where it should be questioned. You assume "thus and thus", and then because of this assumption you assume existence. ThusSpoke, you said you believe in something, just not absolutely (in other words you think you might be wrong). I just showed you how you can't possibly be wrong, so you can now believe "there is something" absolutely. Did I, I don't remember that....Anyway belief is irrelevant to what is actual.

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 07/12/04 - 03:38 PM:	#52
Perception exists. Any objection to the above is likely a result of some corruption of the meanings of "perception" or "exists." I assume you will argue something along the lines of: But what if "argument" has no foundation, and no "being". You should know that your position is rather... unique... and to most people, this is just jibberish, so please clarify what "foundation" is, and why it's relevant. If perception didn't exist, then how can perception be occuring right now, which it is? You will say something strange, I imagine, such as, "it doesn't exist in a real reality, and so nothing exists!" You'll have to explain what you mean by: truth reality logic perception existence something because as it stands, you are not using any accepted English definitions for most of these terms.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 07/12/04 - 03:47 PM:	#53
Careful AKG, you're in danger of being accused of playing the definitions game...
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 07/12/04 - 04:09 PM:	#54
Any objection to the above is likely a result of some corruption of the meanings of "perception" or "exists." I assume you will argue something along the lines of: Glad to have you here AKG "Perception" the word itself implies a certain existance, a certain unquestion existence. So to say "perception exists" is to simply assert that the assumption beyind "perception" is valid. For some reason it is thought that this sentence will justify itself, but if one really looks at it, it only assumes something and that says "it exists" because of this assumption" Doesn't every word we have assume "existence"? You should know that your position is rather... unique... and to most people, this is just jibberish, so please clarify what "foundation" is, and why it's relevant. Yes I know most people think it is jibberish,........foundation I speak of would be an unerring reality or actuality. As opposed to a metaphysical hypothesis that what we think we see is "reality". (I don't see how one can say a human has the ability to know what is true reality v. what is not). If perception didn't exist, then how can perception be occuring right now, which it is? Why do you assume perception is occuring? Can one know for certain that perception is occuring simply because one thinks it is? And can one know for certain that "one thinks it is" just because "one thinks that". And so we get an infinite regress with no foundation. (I guess foundation would be anything that can stop my infinite regress and justify that something has "being"....However this is a tentative definition, so don't be a litteralist with it) Truth: Conformity to fact or actuality. Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences Reality:The quality or state of being actual or true. Logic: (not necessarily relevant to the argument at this point, but alright) The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning. Perception: Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory. (this assumes existence which I deny, keep that in mind). Existence: The fact or state of existing; being. Being: To exist in actuality; have reality Something: Defnition of "thing" can be found above. The progression of my argument is not hard to follow with the definitions, all of which have been copy and pasted except for "being", as I took out the word "life", because that refers to a different type of being, cheifly a sentient being, which is covered in "to exist in acutality; have reality" because as it stands, you are not using any accepted English definitions for most of these terms. These are the terms I've used from the beginning, they have not changed, and they will not change. Soc Careful AKG, you're in danger of being accused of playing the definitions game... IF you want to continue the argument I will, if not please avoid such comments in the future.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 07/12/04 - 04:15 PM:	#55
IF you want to continue the argument I will, if not please avoid such comments in the future. Note to self - TSZ has no humor, never make another joke at his expense Relax guy, you can't even prove I ever made that comment
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 07/12/04 - 04:17 PM:	#56
Socrastein wrote: Note to self - TSZ has no humor, never make another joke at his expense Relax guy, you can't even prove I ever made that comment Damn, I thought you were going to say "okay lets continue our argument"

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 07/12/04 - 04:47 PM:	#57
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: "Perception" the word itself implies a certain existance, a certain unquestion existence. So to say "perception exists" is to simply assert that the assumption beyind "perception" is valid. Huh??? For some reason it is thought that this sentence will justify itself, but if one really looks at it, it only assumes something and that says "it exists" because of this assumption" Doesn't every word we have assume "existence"? What? What assumption? Yes I know most people think it is jibberish,........foundation I speak of would be an unerring reality or actuality. As opposed to a metaphysical hypothesis that what we think we see is "reality". (I don't see how one can say a human has the ability to know what is true reality v. what is not). What you seem to have is a bad version of idealism. The realist assumes that what we perceive corresponds to a reality that exists outside the mind, and the idealist assumes that reality exists only in the mind. Both, however, believe reality exists, and disagree on the metaphysical nature of reality, because they both make assumptions that contradict the others'. Both agree as it is impossible to disagree, that perception exists, one assumes that perception is reality, the other assumes perception "tells us" about reality. Are you simply holding a very poorly expressed version of idealism, or the nonsense concept that not even perception exists? Why do you assume perception is occuring? Can one know for certain that perception is occuring simply because one thinks it is? And can one know for certain that "one thinks it is" just because "one thinks that". And so we get an infinite regress with no foundation. (I guess foundation would be anything that can stop my infinite regress and justify that something has "being"....However this is a tentative definition, so don't be a litteralist with it) This is ridiculous. Either we are certain that I doubt, or I doubt that I doubt. Either way, I doubt. I don't think you understand infinite regress. We start with "I think," then regress to, "I think that I think." You can do this infinitely, but you will always start with "I think... ". That is something you can't escape. Truth: Conformity to fact or actuality. Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences Reality:The quality or state of being actual or true. . . . Existence: The fact or state of existing; being. Being: To exist in actuality; have reality Please note the huge amount of circularity in these definitions. However, the circularity in these definitions is something we all live with. They are circular because we have a more fundamental understanding of these things, one that cannot be expressed in words. Obviously, we have to be able to understand the meaning of some words without defining them in words, i.e. there must be a starting point. We have to know some basic words, and then come up with more complex words, defined by the basic words. Anyways, it seems that you do not understand the meaning of these words. You have rendered all these things useless by your misunderstandings, and used them to suggest that there is no reality, nothing exists, and there is no truth. Whatever you understand about reality, existence, and truth, you either have it that there is reality, existence, and truth, or you're misusing the words. For example, I can say that newspapers don't exists, because newspapers are giant talking purple trees. I've abused the definition of "newspapers" to argue my point that they don't exist. The absurdity of the previous sentence is the same that results from your seemingly unintentional "redefinitions" of the words in question, which is leading to your bizarre results. It is true that perception exists. We have an absolute truth of reality there. It is false that perception doesn't exist. We have an absolute truth of reality there, as well, derived logically from the previous truth. However, we're certainly not ready to discuss logic here, we have some far more basic kinks to work out. Please answer the following: Look, it certainly appears to you that you are reading this post, right? How can it possibly be wrong that it does not appear to you that you're reading this post (ignore the fact that you can leave the computer, I mean right now, it appears that way, right?). Please, if you are going to respond with something so strange as "No, it doesn't appear to me that I'm reading this post," that you keep your answer brief, because the chances are that your assertion will be based on definitions and ideas and assumptions no person here can possibly make heads or tails of. The realist says that it more-than-just appears that way. The idealist says that it only appears that way, there is nothing more than the appearance (perception). You claim that it doesn't appear that way
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 07/12/04 - 06:26 PM:	#58
AKG If you're not going to take what I say at face value, and if you are going to be belligerent and provide no evidence for your attacks, then we should end this conversation now. However if you want to continue this conversation you need to first show how I exhibit a citical misunderstanding of the words in question.....And then show where I redefined terms.......If you do not do this I will assume that you cannot, and assume you were just being an ass See below for more. Huh??? Why is "Perception exist" such an obvious sentence? It is because the word "percpetion" itself assumes existance, and so to say "perception exists" is simply tautology. Ultimately an assumption, but one that is inherent within the word. If this still doesn't make sense I'll have to restructure this point, as complex idea require complex explinations. What? What assumption? to quote myself earlier "Doesn't every word we have assume "existence"? " The assumption of existence. The realist assumes that what we perceive corresponds to a reality that exists outside the mind, and...... Label it however you want, but in the future you might consider providing refutation with the labelling. Tell me why perception exists, if your so sure of it. This is ridiculous. Either we are certain that I doubt, or I doubt that I doubt. Either way, I doubt. I don't think you understand infinite regress. We start with "I think," then regress to, "I think that I think." You can do this infinitely, but you will always start with "I think... ". That is something you can't escape. Okay? It's still infinite regress with no foundation. But then agian even the idea that "you always start with I think" demands an infinite regress. Which creates an infinite regress at another level infinitely. Why you choose to break infinite regress arbitrary and at whims is beyond me. "I think"..... infinite regress. "you always start with I think"..... infinite regress You always start with "you always start with I think"..... infinite regress You are applying the infinite regress inconsistently, it must be applied to everything, including itself. There is no foundation. Please note the huge amount of circularity in these definitions. Noted and recognized in part of my arguments. Which goes to show the the systemic problem with the assumption of existence.....one needs only see the infinite regress to destroy this assumption. Anyways, it seems that you do not understand the meaning of these words. You have rendered all these things useless by your misunderstandings, and used them to suggest that there is no reality, nothing exists, and there is no truth. How can you say this? This is just some wild assumption on your part because you ultimately disagree with my conclusion, this is utter BS that means absolutely nothing. I could easily say the same thing about your understanding, and it would mean nothing. This is not a debate tactic, but a petty attempt at stiffling a position that one does not agree with. NOTE: You ask me to define the terms, and assumed my definitions weren't concurrent with dictionary definitions. And then when i do, and I showed dictionary definitions, you retreat to some unfounded "you just don't understand" BS. Whatever you understand about reality, existence, and truth, you either have it that there is reality, existence, and truth, or you're misusing the words. So show me an example or I will write this off as a fallacy of circular argument. "Anyone with "thus and thus" conclusion cannot possibly understand these words....Your conclusion is "thus and thus" therefore you do not understand these words"....... The absurdity of the previous sentence is the same that results from your seemingly unintentional "redefinitions" of the words in question, which is leading to your bizarre results. Show me one redefintion in your next post or stop this straw man Give me an example of my critical misunderstanding, or stop this straw man. Look, it certainly appears to you that you are reading this post, right? How can it possibly be wrong that it does not appear to you that you're reading this post (ignore the fact that you can leave the computer, I mean right now, it appears that way, right?). It appears that I am reading this post, I only think that I'm reading this post. An infinite regress of both is required if we are being honest. Please answer the following. 4-6 words please 1. How can anything be true if everything requires an infinite regress, that has no foundation? 2. Does infinite regress not imply that an assumption is present? 3. If so is it true that we cannot even locate the assumption that is present. 4. Do you think the assumption is even present there? 5. Is the "assumption" itself an assumption, that demands infinite regress?

EntropicOrder
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 07, 2002
Location: Ohio
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 319

Posted 07/13/04 - 07:14 AM:	#59
TSZ, is there a difference between saying, "There is a (blank)" and "there exists a (blank)"? Do you believe that if something is in any form, then it also exists in those same forms? Is there a difference between the definitions of the words "is" and "exists"? For instance, if God is a delusion, then God exists as a delusion. If an apple is real, then it exists in reality. Do you agree with these statements? Furthermore, in order to have or participate in something, the thing must exist. If the thing does not exist, it is not possible to have it or participate in it.
My game sites: http://www.entropicorder.net, http://www.plushquest.com My giant stuffed animal store: http://www.mybigplush.com "But the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death. For living does not offend him, nor does he believe not living to be any evil." - Epicurus

EntropicOrder
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 07, 2002
Location: Ohio
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 319

Posted 07/13/04 - 07:33 AM:	#60
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: You define argument in existence and then since you think your having an argument you think there is existence. But what if "argument" has no foundation, and no "being". This goes around my argument and assume existence where it should be questioned. We are either having this argument or we are not having this argument. If this argument exists, then we are having it. If it does not exist, then we cannot be having it. I never assumed we were having this argument, I was merely analyzing the different outcomes of there being an argument and not being an argument. In neither situation is our position wrong. It is either a correct position, or it is nonexistent. We either believe there is existence or we don't. If we believe it, then we are right, because a belief exists. Not believing it must be false because if it were true then we could not have the belief. You assume "thus and thus", and then because of this assumption you assume existence. I have avoided assuming there is existence because you asked me to. Instead of assuming there is existence, I merely analyzed the possible outcomes of the two positions: "there is something" and "there is nothing". If there is a position that "there is something" (what we claim to have) then we must be right because we have the position (which means the position must exist for us to have). The position "there is nothing" must be false, because if it were true you could not possibly have the position, because neither you nor the position would be possible. Did I, I don't remember that....Anyway belief is irrelevant to what is actual. Not when you are analyzing the existence of belief itself.
My game sites: http://www.entropicorder.net, http://www.plushquest.com My giant stuffed animal store: http://www.mybigplush.com "But the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death. For living does not offend him, nor does he believe not living to be any evil." - Epicurus

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 07/13/04 - 09:13 AM:	#61
EntropicOrder wrote: TSZ, is there a difference between saying, "There is a (blank)" and "there exists a (blank)"? Do you believe that if something is in any form, then it also exists in those same forms? Is there a difference between the definitions of the words "is" and "exists"? No there is no difference which was my whole point. Unless you qualify the word as not having existence it is implied that it does, which is why "thus exists" is such a natural statement......It's tautological For instance, if God is a delusion, then God exists as a delusion. If an apple is real, then it exists in reality. Do you agree with these statements? If an apple is real then it exists(Part of my argument that demands a hard reality) and if God is a delusion, if the delusion is real, exists as a delusion, but it demands many things for this qualification. Furthermore, in order to have or participate in something, the thing must exist. If the thing does not exist, it is not possible to have it or participate in it. Causality is a little more complicated...

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 07/13/04 - 09:17 AM:	#62
EntropicOrder wrote: We either believe there is existence or we don't. If we believe it, then we are right, because a belief exists. Not believing it must be false because if it were true then we could not have the belief. All you have done is shifted your argument back to "belief"....Why do you assume belief is real? You assume existence right here.

EntropicOrder
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 07, 2002
Location: Ohio
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 319

Posted 07/13/04 - 11:03 AM:	#63
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: No there is no difference which was my whole point. Unless you qualify the word as not having existence it is implied that it does, which is why "thus exists" is such a natural statement......It's tautological But we can use "is" and "exists" interchangebly though, in the same sense that if something "is not" then it "exists not" in the same context, right? If an apple is real then it exists(Part of my argument that demands a hard reality) and if God is a delusion, if the delusion is real, exists as a delusion, but it demands many things for this qualification. You added the qualification of "if the delusion is real". Why? If God is a delusion, then the delusion is real. If the delusion is not real, then God is not a delusion. God would instead be something else or nonexistent. Do you agree? If "A is B" is actually true (as opposed to apparently true), then A and B exist (excluding A or B being nonexistence or something similar). If A or B do not exist as properties or things, then "A is B" would be false (or meaningless to be more accurate). B cannot be a property of something that isn't, and A cannot have a nonexistant property. Do you agree? For instance, "unicorns have 1 horn" is deceiving at first. "physically manifested unicorns have 1 horn" is meaningless because there are no physically manifested unicorns. "Conceptualized unicorns have 1 horn" on the other hand is true, because both a concept of a unicorn and 1 horn exist. Causality is a little more complicated... An argument must exist for us to have one. I realize that an argument doesn't have to exist in order for us to think we are having one, but that's not what I said. How is it more complicated than that? All you have done is shifted your argument back to "belief"....Why do you assume belief is real? You assume existence right here. Even if I assumed belief was fake instead, I would still be assuming or suggesting or positing, which is itself a belief. Do you at least agree that the point of our argument, even if only in our subjective realm, is to decide what is correct to believe? Also, do you agree that meaningless statements are grounds for deciding to not believe?
My game sites: http://www.entropicorder.net, http://www.plushquest.com My giant stuffed animal store: http://www.mybigplush.com "But the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death. For living does not offend him, nor does he believe not living to be any evil." - Epicurus

EntropicOrder
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 07, 2002
Location: Ohio
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 319

Posted 07/14/04 - 02:37 PM:	#64
I figured it out. The infinite regresses do not collapse into nothingness, they collapse into "I think". (I'm bringing this over from the infinite regress topic.) If you question, "I think" then you might say, "I only think I think." But if that is true, then the answer to the question of "Do I think?" is "Yes, I think". In other words, "I think I think" is equal to "I think", all the way to infinity. It's the same way with "I believe I believe" and "It's apparent that there are appearances." If you think, then there are thoughts, which means there is something.
My game sites: http://www.entropicorder.net, http://www.plushquest.com My giant stuffed animal store: http://www.mybigplush.com "But the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death. For living does not offend him, nor does he believe not living to be any evil." - Epicurus

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7871

Posted 07/20/04 - 11:28 PM:	#65
Could the statemant "There is Something" be addressed by pointing out that it is circular reasoning, and therefore unsound. The word 'is' presupposes something, and the word 'something' presupposes is. see: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html No?
Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 07/20/04 - 11:45 PM:	#66
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Could the statemant "There is Something" be addressed by pointing out that it is circular reasoning, and therefore unsound. The word 'is' presupposes something, and the word 'something' presupposes is. How is that circular reasoning? You can say that the statement is redundant, and that's characteristic of our language, but it's not an argument being used to prove that there is something. Another problem is that if "is" pressupposes something, then what would, "there is nothing" mean? Finally, how do you address the fact that there seems to be a post you're reading, and maintain there is nothing? You're not arguing for any sort of relativism here, in which you say that the post seems to be there only to me, relative to XYZ or anything like that, you say that there does not seem to be a post at all. A realist says that there seems to be a post, and what we see is a perception of reality. An idealist says there seems to be a post, and this post is nothing but an idea. Do you say that there doesn't even seem to be a post? If you say, "there is nothing," then that's what you say. If "there is nothing" is false, then there is something.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7871

Posted 07/21/04 - 12:25 AM:	#67
AKG wrote: How is that circular reasoning? You can say that the statement is redundant, and that's characteristic of our language, but it's not an argument being used to prove that there is something. Thank you for responding to my question. I will consider it. Another problem is that if "is" pressupposes something, then what would, "there is nothing" mean? Finally, how do you address the fact that there seems to be a post you're reading, and maintain there is nothing? You're not arguing for any sort of relativism here, in which you say that the post seems to be there only to me, relative to XYZ or anything like that, you say that there does not seem to be a post at all. A realist says that there seems to be a post, and what we see is a perception of reality. An idealist says there seems to be a post, and this post is nothing but an idea. Do you say that there doesn't even seem to be a post? If you say, "there is nothing," then that's what you say. If "there is nothing" is false, then there is something. This has nothing to do with my question.
Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 07/21/04 - 07:27 AM:	#68
Reformed Nihilist wrote: This has nothing to do with my question. Sure it does. You said, "'is' pressuposes something." I don't know where you got that from. Moreoever, how could "is" pressupose something while we can still say, "there is nothing." If there is nothing, then what happened to the something "is" was presupposing? As for the rest of it, it was a general defense of "there is something."
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7871

Posted 07/21/04 - 08:08 AM:	#69
Not to go to far down the garden path (because if I am improperly applying circular logic, then the rest of my point is irelavent) But 'is', as i understand it in this context, presupposes existence. No? If you choose to use is in the same way with the phrase 'there is nothing' then you have a contradictory statement. If is does not presuppose existance, but is just a modifier, then 'There is something' is an incomplete or nonsensical statement. 'Something' decribes that which exists, 'is' described the process of existing. As to the general defense, I read the debate thread, and am aware of those points. I was trying to test a different approach which you have helped me do.
Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 07/21/04 - 08:20 AM:	#70
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Not to go to far down the garden path (because if I am improperly applying circular logic, then the rest of my point is irelavent) But 'is', as i understand it in this context, presupposes existence. No? If you choose to use is in the same way with the phrase 'there is nothing' then you have a contradictory statement. If is does not presuppose existance, but is just a modifier, then 'There is something' is an incomplete or nonsensical statement. 'Something' decribes that which exists, 'is' described the process of existing. I think if you try to parse this sentence word for word, you're bound to confuse yourself. I don't think we need to get into a discussion about language. We know what is meant by "there is something" even if it's hard to break it down word for word. "There is something" is essentially answering "yes" to the question, "does anything exist?" "There" can mean so many different things, so this sentence may seem to have ambiguous or even incomplete meaning if you're not familiar with English, but if you are, you know what is meant. Perhaps, I'll attempt at breaking it down a little, and suggest that "there" is referring to, "in the set of all things." If the set of all things is empty, just like the set of all negative positive numbers (just to show that there is no contradiction in saying all = none), then there is nothing, because in the set of all things is nothing, or nothing is in the set of all things, the set of all things is empty.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7871

Posted 07/21/04 - 09:03 AM:	#71
AKG wrote: I think if you try to parse this sentence word for word, you're bound to confuse yourself. I don't think we need to get into a discussion about language. We know what is meant by "there is something" even if it's hard to break it down word for word. "There is something" is essentially answering "yes" to the question, "does anything exist?" "There" can mean so many different things, so this sentence may seem to have ambiguous or even incomplete meaning if you're not familiar with English, but if you are, you know what is meant. Perhaps, I'll attempt at breaking it down a little, and suggest that "there" is referring to, "in the set of all things." If the set of all things is empty, just like the set of all negative positive numbers (just to show that there is no contradiction in saying all = none), then there is nothing, because in the set of all things is nothing, or nothing is in the set of all things, the set of all things is empty. I don't know why we would have to discuss 'there' It was never challenged. I also see no reason that I'm "bound to be confused". My confusion is now is whether the contention is that: 'there is equivalent to something' or 'something exists'. These statements have two different meanings. We can break it down word for word, even if it is hard. If 'something exists' is the connotation you mean, then I reffer you to my post explaining why 'is' and 'something' presuppose each other. If not, then let us address the other connotation. I would ask you to clarify this first, so we don't stray to much further off topic (as I have still not had time to review your assertion about my inncorect application of circular logic yet)
Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7871

Posted 07/21/04 - 11:03 AM:	#72
I accept that whether 'there is something' is circular logic or not is not relavent to the stated arguement 'there is absolute truth'. If you would like to discuss this from the affirmative I would ask that we come to an agreement on what truth is. Specifically, is it independant of the human (or any other) mind?
Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 07/21/04 - 12:45 PM:	#73
The stuff about "is" and "something" presupposing each other doesn't really make a lot of sense, if any at all. "There is something" means "something exists" or the number of things in existence is greater than zero. "There is nothing" means that zero things exist; nothing exists. "Something exists" is the negation of "nothing exists." Are you confused as to what "nothing exists" means? Forget the language being used in saying, "there is something" and understand the meaning behind it. You say that truth is something dependant on the mind. Then there must be a mind, and that mind is something, so the mind exists, by your reasoning. And yes, truth is independent of the mind. Truth, is roughly, "the way things are." Consider, "X exists." Now, if "X exists" is true, then X exists, and if it is false, X does not exist. Whether the mind knows that X exists doesn't change whether or not X exists. That is, X's existence is independent of the mind's knowledge of X's existence. Do you think that until we prove X exists to ourselves, there is no truth or falsehood to X's existence? If that's true, then how can we prove X's existence? How can you prove something that's not true? Before we go on, let me know if this is your position.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7871

Posted 07/21/04 - 01:21 PM:	#74
AKG wrote: Do you think that until we prove X exists to ourselves, there is no truth or falsehood to X's existence? If that's true, then how can we prove X's existence? How can you prove something that's not true? Before we go on, let me know if this is your position. I am argueing the negative, right? My position is that the statement truth is independent of the mind is by definition, unsupportable useing logical means. I understand the thesis, and upon clarification of the meaning of the word truth, I cannot accept it without support, or an alternate definition that can be logically supported. If the thesis is based upon an illogical concept, the the thesis is illogical. Argueing beyond that would be futile.
Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 07/21/04 - 01:31 PM:	#75
Reformed Nihilist wrote: I am argueing the negative, right? My position is that the statement So answer the questions. How do we prove something that isn't true? is by definition, unsupportable useing logical means. Not at all. I don't think you understood what I said about truth. Truth is the way things are. Saying truth is independent of the mind means that the way things are is independent of the mind. And to clarify, we're talking about the aspect of the mind that is responsible for knowing and proving. Okay, here's an example. We have a video recorder watching a room. It records something fall in that room. Later on, you watch the tape, and learn the truth that the object fell. Before you watched the tape, before you knew it was true that the object fell, did it fall? If so, then it is true that the object fell, and this is so without proof or without the mind (you) knowing it. If not, then how did the camera record the event?
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.