The Truth Paradox: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » The Truth Paradox » The Truth Paradox

The Truth Paradox

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Truth Paradox

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1185

Posted 03/08/07 - 06:59 PM:	#21
Becket wrote: If truth is what we use to prove something's true, then the only way we can prove something's true is to already have truth. But if we do not already have truth how can we prove that? I think we should draw the line between having truth and not knowing it AND the idea that there is no truth. The tricky part is knowing what truth is, since how are you supposed to prove something if you don't know what it is? Oh well, the entire concept of truth is tricky. Paradox here, paradox there, paradox everywhere...
Your failure to hit the target does not mean you are aiming at a mirage. Reload. Keep shooting ... - 180 Proof Glorious randomness.

dimka
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 1016

Posted 03/08/07 - 11:21 PM:	#22
Alaric Reinner Truth in itself is false. truth is simply controlled by the individuals reality, for instance if I believe that there is no gravity and I think I am always floating then there is no gravity for me and your claim of there being gravity is false. Are we talking about linguistic confusion here or what? Even if you believe that the truth is that there is no gravity and you're always floating, when you walk up from the ledge, nature will prove how little your truth is worth Unless you're one of those zany Quantum Mechanical zealots who feels that seeing as the wavefunction collapses only when we observe the results (of an experiment), we're all God and reality is the way it is simply because we've collectively decided (as a society) that this is how it should look like. I don't believe I should address the second passage but if you're not affiliated to it in any way or form, then the first one hold zero truth-value as well. I might have misunderstood your point of course in which case I'm sorry in advance

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 03/11/07 - 12:39 PM:	#23
GDA wrote: You aren't neccesarily writing at all, you could be a 'brain in a vat' being fooled into believing that you are writing. When we try to justify something that we feel is true, we make assumptions that we feel are true, but then we would have to justify those, and we would be assuming as we justify that, so we would have to justify those ect. We can only be half-sure of anything, really, we could be sceptical about almost everything around us, so calling something 'true' would require us to redefine true. Unfortunately I have no idea how to redefine it! I realise that most of what I've posted is probably obvious! Sorry about that! Even if I am a vat-brain (which is bizarre), I am writing this post. Notice how quickly your post came to an impasse, when you attempted ubiquitous scepticism? You demonstrate the absurdity of attempting to justify every truth.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 03/11/07 - 12:44 PM:	#24
GDA wrote: If I were a brain in a vat, being stimulated in such a way that I truly feel as if I really exist, I would have no reason to doubt that I exist, however, I would still be existing only as a brain, and not as the human body I feel I am existing as. For example: Although 'Man A' may have no reason to doubt that his wife is remaining faithful to him, he doesn't realise that she is actually cheating on him behind his back. Just because we have no reason to doubt something, doesn't mean that it is true. Follow this line of thought, if you like, and see how far it gets you. "Man A" still works against a background of truth: that he has a wife, that there are other people around him, and so on. Ubiquitous scepticism leads to nonsense.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

GDA
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 56

Posted 03/11/07 - 01:08 PM:	#25
Banno wrote: Even if I am a vat-brain (which is bizarre), I am writing this post. Notice how quickly your post came to an impasse, when you attempted ubiquitous scepticism? You demonstrate the absurdity of attempting to justify every truth. But if we do not justify truth then the alternative is that some things simply are true. How do we decide what simply is true? Do we randomly choose things to be true? Do we rely on our perception, which can be affected by so many subjective factors? True, as defined by the Oxford English dictionary is: In accordance with fact or reality, real or actual. Rightly or strictly so-called; genuine. How certain can we be that we aren't simply being stimulated in a vat, being fooled into thinking we are posting here? We can be reasonably certain, maybe, but not completely certain. To be completely certain we would have to have some kind of completely correct or 'True' knowledge of our own existence, and even then, how would we know if we had that knowledge, how would we know for certain if it was correct? Furthermore, we develop 'facts' by using induction, and induction is highly fallible, thus making facts unreliable, or at least not 100% reliable. Now, truths could exist if 'Truth' meant something very likely to be genuine, but things could not be true if 'Truth' means things that are genuine, as we cannot have that absolute and omniscient knowledge that is required to know whether things are as we see them.

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 03/11/07 - 02:51 PM:	#26
GDA wrote: But if we do not justify truth then the alternative is that some things simply are true. How do we decide what simply is true? Do you honestly wish to maintain that you are not certain you wrote the post I quoted from above?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

GDA
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 56

Posted 03/11/07 - 03:17 PM:	#27
I may well have written that post, but I cannot be sure, what reason do I have to be sure? Someone might have written it for me whilst I was not on my PC and I may be misremembering writing it. There is only one other person who knows my Login Password, and he likes Philosophy too. What is stopping him from logging in as me, and writing an argument for me? Nothing, it could have happened. However, a far better argument is this: Imagine if we were all linked to a supercomputer. Our bodies are sitting in chambers that are lined up in a row, and these chambers are what cause our minds (or brains, to use a better word) to be connected to this supercomputer. Now, when we first connect to this supercomputer, it erases all of our previous memories and creates new ones for us. For example, it erases my memories and gives me a new set of memories that tell me my name is Dave and I live in Texas. Inside this supercomputer is an entire virtual 'universe' (or what we perceive to be one), which is indistinguishable from the real universe; it looks real, smells real, and feels real. (Because the computer can stimulate any part of our real bodies and brains in the real world to create sensations that appear to be felt in the virtual world). And due to the fact that we are connected to the supercomputer, we appear to be existing with other real people, except that they are only perceived humanoids that don't actually exist as they are being perceived. The supercomputer is simultaneously stimulating our brains in such a way to convince us all that we are co-existing. We could both merely be being stimulated to think we are typing out arguments in this virtual world, and we wouldn't actually be physically doing it, in the sense of actually existing, as the real me could be sitting in one of the supercomputer's chambers. But I could never be sure either way, as the realities are indistinguishable from one another. Edited by GDA on 03/11/07 - 03:21 PM

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 03/11/07 - 03:47 PM:	#28
GDA wrote: I may well have written that post, but I cannot be sure, what reason do I have to be sure? That's the point - you don't need a reason. What else could "I'm sure" mean here?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

GDA
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 56

Posted 03/12/07 - 07:13 AM:	#29
"I'm sure" would imply that one has no reason to doubt whatever one is sure about. But, that could be applied to Metaphysics and Philosphy in general; do we really have any reason to doubt atheism? Or any reason to argue about the mind, reality, truth, ect.? Does any of it really matter at all? We're all here, living our day-to-day lives, so why on earth should we even doubt any of it? Let us rely totally on science and empirical facts. But, of course, what makes a kind of absolute atheism or down-to-earth view (believing only in what we can actually measure/see, ect.) any more logical a stance than absolute or complete agnosticism? (Not totally denying reality, or anything in general, but, rather, saying that we simply cannot be sure, and shouldn't assume to be absolutely correct about anything). But we return to the same problem; what things should we simply accept to be true? Government facts, another person's spoken words; believing someone's opinion when they have given no justification? If we were to never question opinions we would not have the diverse political spectrum we have today, there would still be Sexism, as we would not have questioned is accuracy. If my Supercomputer argument were true, we would all be believing false truths right now (i.e we would wrongly think that we actually move around and talk to people in a real universe, and may possibly have different identities than we used to have. But we would be unaware of this, as the simulated reality is perfect and exact, indistinguishable from the real one). Truth is meant to be 'real or actual', how can we prove what is or isn't real or actual? How can we be sure that we are not being simultaneously stimulated? Even if we actually knew the correct truth, how can we tell if the 'Truth' we know is actually absolutely correct or not? Do we simply assume it to be so? What if we're wrong? How could we know if we were right in our assumptions? Edited by GDA on 03/12/07 - 07:28 AM

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 03/12/07 - 11:41 AM:	#30
By all means, doubt whatever you like. But to doubt everything is senseless - literally meaningless. How do you know you have used the correct meaning of the words in which you express your doubt? GDA wrote: Even if we actually knew the correct truth, how can we tell if the 'Truth' we know is actually absolutely correct or not? Do we simply assume it to be so? What if we're wrong? How could we know if we were right in our assumptions? What does "the correct truth" mean? Are you suggesting that there may be incorrect truths? What does it mean for a statement to be "absolutely correct", as opposed to just "correct"? If we were wrong, wouldn't it simply be the case that we were incorrect? That what we thought was true, wasn't? Is being wrong such a big problem that you want to throw out any opportunity to be correct? One cannot believe false truths. Truths cannot be false. One can believe false statements. And I'm not sure I want to be "simultaneously stimulated" with you. After all, we only just met.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.