Is there a such thing as an undeniably true statement?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Is there a such thing as an undeniably true statement? » Is there a such thing as an undeniably true statement?

Is there a such thing as an undeniably true statement?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Is there a such thing as an undeniably true statement?

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 589

Posted 04/14/08 - 04:27 PM:	#21
Undeniable how? Like undeniable within the confines of rational thought? Or just undeniable in the literal sense that I cannot say "No" to it? "Is there such a thing as an undeniably true statement?" Within the confines of rationality: "Yes". But I can deny the truth of the statement "yes". "Yes" Just saying yes doesn't make it true "Yes" __________________________________________________________________________ I hope that makes things clear. Outside the confines of rationality? Well, I guess you can say "No" to anything you want if you don't really need a reason to do so. But statements are only reflective truth (i.e. they reflect truths about human observation), not "Truth" as in reality and such, in which case statements are only incidentally true. But we can say "no" to just about anything, and where that statement is correct, it is only incidentally correct, without rationality that is.

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 72

Posted 05/09/08 - 05:04 PM:	#22
jerrada wrote: In answer to the original question , if there is no undeniably true statment then a statement such as , "There is no undeniably true statement." would undeniably be a true statment in itself. Meaning that the statement would have to be false, therefore, disproving it through contradiction. Therefore, there has to be an undeniably true statement,the statement in itself P.S. Sorry about the horrible phrasing of my sentences, it is really late in Australia. Well does that mean that the undeniably true statement must be limited to itself, or can it be an independent unrelated statement out there that must exist simply by the linguistics of the phrase there is no undeniably true statement. The very fact that it is contradictory means there must be a true statement, because it cannot be said. We just don't know what it would be, nor can we prove it?

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 72

Posted 05/09/08 - 05:16 PM:	#23
Continuing from my above post.. This is mostly in fun.. perhaps the very sentence itself " there is no undeniably true statement" proves the existance of God, because since it is impossible for "there no undeniably true statement" to be true, so that means that an almighty all knowing being would have to spread his all knowing knowledge to all beings that are capable of denying any statements and possibly eliminate free will with his almighty power to prevent any lying, thus force all beings to not only understand this true statement but make it undeniable via force, which, by his almighty ness would not necessarily be force, would be a change in the wiring of our minds, which by his almightiness would be justified. Thus, God exists.

BDSpinoza
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 09, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/09/08 - 11:01 PM:	#24
ade90212 wrote: All bachelors are unmarried. Not since Quine!!! Analytic statements like that are just closer to the center of our web of beliefs. In other words, changing their truth value would require changing so many of the other beliefs in our web that it would be much more difficult to accomplish than changing some of the peripheral statements (the ones more germane to revision). Even modus ponens would be subject to possible (but clearly not likely) revision for a Quinian, hard as it may be to believe.

Frague
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 10, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 05/10/08 - 04:26 AM:	#25
Subjectivity immediately defeats an undeniable truth, so it must be asked if true objectivity is possible. I would restate the question. "Is objectivity possible?" Language is automatically subjective because it demands meaning to be determined (subjective) as was previously stated. Really, deniability is the essence of subjectivity. If something can be denied, it is subjective. Can something be undeniable? I don't believe the arguement "God can make us all unable to deny" adequately defeats the proposal. It is merely a question of the nature of subjectivity. I believe objectivity cannot exist alongside subjectivity, and since we can state that subjectivity exists, objectivity would not be able to in our existence. So asking if objectivity can exist would be to ask if it is possible for subjectivity to not exist. If this were possible, the statement "If something can be undeniable, everything must be undeniable." would have to be true. This is as close to an answer as I can manage without a large amount of thought. It's very late, and certain parts or the whole of this post may be absolutely incomprehensible. What can ya do?

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 313

Posted 05/10/08 - 06:37 AM:	#26
Frague wrote: Subjectivity immediately defeats an undeniable truth, so it must be asked if true objectivity is possible.... Really, deniability is the essence of subjectivity. If something can be denied, it is subjective. If truth is subjectively determined, then undeniable truths can exist and do exist, because that condition lowers the standard for which something may be classified as "undeniable". For a religious zealot going to blow himself up in a mosque, it is undeniably true that a Supreme Being exists and that entity will reward him upon his sacrifice. I pick this example because few here will agree that this can be true, yet it is clearly, undeniably, but ultimately subjectively true to the person who thinks it, ultimately subjectively false to any rational persons. Frague wrote: Language is automatically subjective because it demands meaning to be determined (subjective) as was previously stated. If I read this correct, this statement says that a bit of language is meaningful only because the speaker/thinker finds meaning in it, subjectively. I urge you to look at the arguments for semantic externalism, which says that the meaning of language is, at least in some ways, contained within things external to the speaker/thinker. There is a thread called "Narrow Mental Content" (http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/narrow...) in this Metaphysics/Epistemology forum that deals with the Twin Earth thought experiment and support for semantic externalism.
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

Frague
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 10, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 05/10/08 - 01:15 PM:	#27
The_Rational_Animal wrote: For a religious zealot going to blow himself up in a mosque, it is undeniably true that a Supreme Being exists and that entity will reward him upon his sacrifice. He only requires the ability to deny it for subjectivity, and he certainly has the ability. This is what I refer to. Not whether or not somebody does deny, just whether or not the ability is present. The_Rational_Animal wrote: I urge you to look at the arguments for semantic externalism I'm pre-college enrollment, don't be too surprised if there is a great number of arguements I've not heard. P.S. I read the post and I would seem to be an internalist, although honestly I can't see that arguement as having a right or a wrong to it, it would appear to be solely within an individual's own interpretation. Edited by Frague on 05/10/08 - 03:01 PM

philomooseophical
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 05/20/08 - 11:46 PM:	#28
"I exist." Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 05/29/08 - 07:35 AM

Frague
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 10, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 05/21/08 - 03:22 AM:	#29
"Is everything subject to interpretation?" is what is in question. Philomooseophical has the right idea, I believe that there can be an undeniably true statement. You cannot deny that at very least your thoughts exist. There is no skeptical viewpoint that can deny thought, there is no subjectivity to the existence of something. This would stand to defend semantic externalism as well (far better than the thought experiment would). To think, "This thought exists." Is undeniable. There would be no justification in denying it, which is what was likely the intended meaning in the initial question.

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/21/08 - 11:55 AM:	#30
philomooseophical wrote: "I exist" Prove it
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.