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

Is there a such thing as an undeniably true statement?

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 82

Posted 03/25/08 - 08:34 PM: Subject: Is there a such thing as an undeniably true statement?	#1
Undeniably, unchallangably, and absolutely true? Also, one must consider the idea that all 'statements' are inherently subjective due to the interpretation and subjectivity of the 'meanings' of the words that compose that statement. Edited by hyena in petticoat on 03/26/08 - 03:07 AM. Reason: Corrected WSN code.
_____________________ 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?

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 03/26/08 - 03:09 AM:	#2
Can you elaborate? You're asking if there is an undeniably true statement in the context of all statements being subjective?
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

ade90212
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2005
Location: Ex-Exeter
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 343

Posted 03/26/08 - 04:24 AM:	#3
All bachelors are unmarried.
_____________________ "Philosophers often behave like little children who scribble some marks on a piece of paper at random and then ask the grown-up "What's that?" - It happened like this: the grown-up had drawn pictures for the child several times and said: "this is a man", "this is a house", etc. And then the child makes some marks too and asks: what's this then?" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

tomv
Bee Hive Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 19

Posted 03/26/08 - 04:39 AM: Subject: No	#4
I will outrightly answer No to that question. I believe that there can never be an absolute, indefinite, eternal truth. All truths are social constructions, and social constructions change and evolve as societies and people evolve. Even today, I do not believe that there is one universal truth about anything - there are 7 billion truths about equally numbered topics.
_____________________ "The door is open, the road transformed. The exit code to civilisation is hacked beyond despair, chased by the moon toward the freeing sun, on our journey to light. This is an open plea to the beautiful insanity of your hearts. It is time to consummate the kiss of oblivion into the obsidian of love!" - Serj Tankian

ink?
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 07, 2007
Location: Western Australia
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 03/26/08 - 06:07 AM:	#5
Truth only ever exists within certain confines. You could claim that the above statement "all bachelors are unmarried" is a truth, but only if you accept the premise that the given words are being used in a set language and context. If the definition of the word bachelor (or in fact any of the words) is questioned then the truth in the statement becomes questionable. Havn't you basically answered your own question in your second statement?

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 82

Posted 03/26/08 - 02:19 PM:	#6
ink? wrote: Truth only ever exists within certain confines. You could claim that the above statement "all bachelors are unmarried" is a truth, but only if you accept the premise that the given words are being used in a set language and context. If the definition of the word bachelor (or in fact any of the words) is questioned then the truth in the statement becomes questionable. Right, the purpose of words themselves is ultimately to communicate through a matrix of reflexive, cross-refferencing, assigned 'meanings'. In a sense the statement 'all bachelors are unmarried' is true, simply because we have arbitrarily defined it to mean that. But can someone flawlessly communicate and idea or expression without using 'meaning'? It seems impossible. Havn't you basically answered your own question in your second statement? I'd like to believe there are people on this forum who would disagree with me.
_____________________ 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?

Individual
Existentialist Buddhist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 41

Posted 03/27/08 - 06:07 AM:	#7
"Ayn Rand is dead and buried."

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 03/27/08 - 05:37 PM:	#8
Individual wrote: "Ayn Rand is dead and buried." Oh, very funny. But what is this entity you call "Ayn Rand"? Is it a physical being, a spiritual being, a conception of the mind, our impressions of what the essence of "Ayn Rand" is, formal descriptions of a reality which consists of this "Ayn Rand"? The subject can be interpreted in any number of ways, making the truth of the sentences some true, some false, and some utterly meaningless. Bronze wrote: Undeniably, unchallangably, and absolutely true? Also, one must consider the idea that all 'statements' are inherently subjective due to the interpretation and subjectivity of the 'meanings' of the words that compose that statement. Alright, so what you are saying is that anything I write here will never be true at a level where you could accept it as such. So why should I attempt to respond to your question? This is a loaded question fallacy. Well since it would be too easy to reject your question, I'll answer it with another question. You used the quantifier "all" with that second statement ("Also, one must...") That quantifier signifies that "all" instances of a certain property must be universal, or absolute. Thus, if you are going to assert that "all statements are subjective due to interpretation", you are presenting an absolute claim about reality. Your quantified absolute claim about all statements of truth being subjective is necessarily wrong, in that there exists at least one instance in which it is not the case, a contradiction). But if this hasn't convinced you, that's okay. Truth is subjective, you can interpret this clear, logical statement as false, I don't mind. Edited by The_Rational_Animal on 03/27/08 - 05:41 PM. Reason: damn smilies!!
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

Nonblack Raven
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 1234

Posted 03/27/08 - 06:14 PM:	#9
Bronze wrote: Undeniably, unchallangably, and absolutely true? Also, one must consider the idea that all 'statements' are inherently subjective due to the interpretation and subjectivity of the 'meanings' of the words that compose that statement. What a set of criteria! Is it necessary that deniers and arguments be reasonable? Be sane? Be plausible? Represent reasonably likely possibilities? Be logical? What on earth does "absolutely" mean in this context? If your question--is it possible for someone to object to any possible statement--what other answer but yes? But why do you care that someone could object to the truth of any possible statement? Quite curious. Do you actually think that the truth of a statement is affected in anyway by consensus about the truth of the statement or the existence of some person who would object to the statement? Edited by Nonblack Raven on 03/27/08 - 07:18 PM
_____________________ NBR

Jehu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 661

Posted 03/27/08 - 06:34 PM:	#10
�Everything is the same with itself, but different from another thing.� The �Principle of Identity�, the �first principle of thought�, a proposition, the truth of which must be accepted if there is to be any rational discourse at all; and what is the truth if not �rational�.
_____________________ It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is the true reality.

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 82

Posted 03/27/08 - 07:24 PM:	#11
Jehu wrote: �Everything is the same with itself, but different from another thing.� The �Principle of Identity�, the �first principle of thought�, a proposition, the truth of which must be accepted if there is to be any rational discourse at all; and what is the truth if not �rational�. Well, is 'rationallity' itself infallable? How do we know rationallity isn't wrong or flawed?
_____________________ 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?

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 03/27/08 - 07:59 PM:	#12
Bronze wrote: Well, is 'rationallity' itself infallable? How do we know rationallity isn't wrong or flawed? What has your reason ever told you that has been false? Has that falsehood been corrected by some irrational means (e.g. faith, emotion)? It seems that your philosophy is based entirely on "if, then" statements where the "if" antecedents are completely hypothetical statements of doubt. Doubt is appropriate only when there is reason to doubt. If you accept that reason is flawed, then you have no rational reason to doubt and your skepticism is irrational.
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

Individual
Existentialist Buddhist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 41

Posted 03/28/08 - 07:30 AM:	#13
Another one: "The Rational Animal will not agree with anything I say unless it agrees with his own axiomatic conception of rational belief."

Jehu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 661

Posted 03/28/08 - 10:12 AM:	#14
Bronze wrote: Well, is 'rationallity' itself infallable? How do we know rationallity isn't wrong or flawed? It had better not be, for if it is, then all is lost; and we philosophers may as well pack up and go home.
_____________________ It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is the true reality.

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 82

Posted 03/28/08 - 10:23 AM:	#15
The_Rational_Animal wrote: What has your reason ever told you that has been false? Has that falsehood been corrected by some irrational means (e.g. faith, emotion)? It seems that your philosophy is based entirely on "if, then" statements where the "if" antecedents are completely hypothetical statements of doubt. Doubt is appropriate only when there is reason to doubt. If you accept that reason is flawed, then you have no rational reason to doubt and your skepticism is irrational. Until you prove that reasoning and rationallity is perfect and flawless, it's irrelevent that i'm being 'irrational'. My arguement is not based on 'if, then' statements, it's based on 'if' statements, adn they aren't even statements they are questions, although I'd like to believe I don't even have an arguement at all.
_____________________ 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?

JBro
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 16, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 6

Posted 03/28/08 - 05:09 PM:	#16
How could anyone ever answer the question convincingly?

Jehu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 661

Posted 03/28/08 - 05:29 PM:	#17
Bronze wrote: My arguement is not based on 'if, then' statements, it's based on 'if' statements, adn they aren't even statements they are questions, although I'd like to believe I don't even have an arguement at all. Then you believe correctly.
_____________________ It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is the true reality.

a modo
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 06, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 04/06/08 - 03:19 PM:	#18
The_Rational_Animal wrote: What has your reason ever told you that has been false? Has that falsehood been corrected by some irrational means (e.g. faith, emotion)? Of course not, if you define truth in rational terms.

jerrada
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 04/07/08 - 06:31 AM:	#19
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.

Peter_
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/14/08 - 03:52 PM:	#20
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 How about the suggestion that "There appears to be no undeniably true statement that we can be aware of." This weaker refinement of the argument can be applied to itself without the contradiction you highlighted. Furthermore it emphasises a healthy level of uncertainty which might be sensibly applied to almost all assertions / beliefs we make. Clarifying, reducing uncertainty, attempting to increase proximity to truth (whether or not it exists) is perhaps a more realistic goal than searching for absolutes.

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 532

Posted 04/14/08 - 05:27 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: 68

Posted 05/09/08 - 06:04 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: 68

Posted 05/09/08 - 06:16 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 05/10/08 - 12:01 AM:	#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: 2

Posted 05/10/08 - 05:26 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?

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.