The Truth Paradox: Philosophy Forums

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Truth Paradox

Beckett
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2006
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 154

Posted 03/02/07 - 07:10 PM: Subject: The Truth Paradox	#1
The only means by which you can justify a truth, is to already have a truth. In my opinion this paradox is the skeptics best friend as it throws the whole concept of our ability to gain awareness of actual truth into question. But do you want something that will really drive you nuts? How about a paradox of paradoxes? 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? The only way I can think to solve this is to suppose we have inherent truths. But that wouldn't sit to well with empricists. Edited by Beckett on 03/02/07 - 08:16 PM

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 3170

Posted 03/02/07 - 10:07 PM:	#2
Becket has re-discovered the Regress Argument, otherwise Agrippa's Trilemma. Edited by Kali Yuga on 03/23/07 - 01:42 PM
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...

Jehu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 697

Posted 03/03/07 - 02:33 PM:	#3
Beckett wrote: The only means by which you can justify a truth, is to already have a truth. In my opinion this paradox is the skeptics best friend as it throws the whole concept of our ability to gain awareness of actual truth into question. But do you want something that will really drive you nuts? How about a paradox of paradoxes? 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? The only way I can think to solve this is to suppose we have inherent truths. But that wouldn't sit to well with empricists. Clearly, it would not sit well with the empiricists, although this does not preclude its being true. The faculty of reason is that which we use to prove something true, and so the only way we can prove something true is if the faculty of reason is itself the Truth; that is to say, it accords or is consistent with the structure of Reality itself. Perhaps then, the faculty of reason is the inherent truth that we have been looking for?
It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is the true reality.

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 870

Posted 03/03/07 - 06:41 PM:	#4
Some truths must be obviously true without have proof of them otherwise the word truth would be just a silly idea, making falsehood also a silly idea, making a mess of the truths I don't believe anyway. At least I believe that to be true. Was there any truth to what I just said? Damned if this hasn't been a funny day.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Beckett
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2006
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 154

Posted 03/04/07 - 10:36 AM:	#5
Perhaps then, the faculty of reason is the inherent truth that we have been looking for Reason needs a basis to calculate things out. But how do we prove the basis is true? I could say this: Truth rightly applies only to that which affects our lives, and all else is superfluous. Thus truth by its nature is achievable to our minds, as we humans are a species that lives and learns from experience. But here I am assuming that truth rightly applies only to that which affects our lives. So it follows that all reason eventually comes down to assumption. Reason is sort of like the tools to build something without the material to build with.

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 3170

Posted 03/04/07 - 11:49 AM:	#6
Beckett wrote: The only means by which you can justify a truth, is to already have a truth. The assumption here is that we must justify every statement that we wish to claim is true. But that means that it is always appropriate to doubt the statement before you. Is this so? I don't, for instance, have any reason to doubt that I am writing this. Why then should I attempt to justify that claim?
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 03/04/07 - 02:58 PM:	#7
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!

Beckett
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2006
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 154

Posted 03/05/07 - 07:50 AM:	#8
But that means that it is always appropriate to doubt the statement before you. Is this so? Yes. It is invalid to say you've discovered something's true, without a prior truth to discover it with. Knowledge can't come from complete ignorance and truth can't come from complete falsehood. Knowledge can only come from some prior knowledge and truth can only come from some prior truth. "Justify" means to "truthify." The only way you can truthify something is by adding truth into the mixture.

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 3170

Posted 03/05/07 - 12:05 PM:	#9
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. Come on. The Matrix was fiction. Do you have any reason to think you are a brain in a vat? No, I assure you, I am definitely writing this post.
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...

Nonblack Raven
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 1239

Posted 03/05/07 - 12:16 PM:	#10
Becket, it seems to me your claims slide back and forth a bit. First you say that we cannot “prove” a truth without another truth. Well, if a logical proof requires true premises, in order for the conclusion to be true, we cannot undertake logical proofs with out true premises. (Though I would be curious how you can know that we cannot prove a truth without another truth unless you accept the truth of logic.) But then you shift to saying “it throws the whole concept of our ability to gain awareness of actual truth into question” and “Yes. It is invalid to say you've discovered something's true, without a prior truth to discover it with.” But you have established nothing of the kind. I can happen to believe a great many things that turn out to be true without in fact having proved them. I can even have justifications for these beliefs. I could be wrong about some of these thing, but I know of no convincing skeptical argument that I could be wrong about absolutely everything. Therefore I do know some things, and perhaps a great many things, I am at best uncertain as to whether each specific thing I believe are true—a very different proposition. It is an interesting peculiarity of scepticism that it cannot show that we do not know anything, or even that we actually are wrong in any particular case. (Showing either would demonstrate positive knowledge of the kind that skepticism denies.) Scepticism can only show we might be wrong about particular cases and this does not deny the possibility of knowledge. Edited by Nonblack Raven on 03/05/07 - 12:28 PM
NBR

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.