True statements: Philosophy Forums

True statements

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 615

Posted 07/10/09 - 12:23 AM:	#441
I find this funny. Banno instead of helping us in this quest of The truth you daunt and poke us with pleasure. Has philosophy made you an angry and warped man? Just burn the straw man. EDIT:...and no, you don't have to be nice if you see a newbie. Edited by Willowz on 07/10/09 - 12:28 AM
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 247

Posted 07/10/09 - 01:04 AM:	#442
Willowz, you realise by ensuing this argument with Banno, you fall into his trap. If you indeed hold the notion that there really is no truth, then how can we possibly convince someone of it? If you are strong enough, you do not need someone to agree with you in order that it be the truth... right? The best way to deal with someone obtuse, is to ignore them. Banno could be compared to an idling car with it's engine on, air condition on but not taking the driver to any destination. Edited by Minyun on 07/10/09 - 01:17 AM

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 615

Posted 07/10/09 - 01:47 AM:	#443
Minyun wrote: Willowz, you realise by ensuing this argument with Banno, you fall into his trap. If you indeed hold the notion that there really is no truth, then how can we possibly convince someone of it? The best thing to do when approached by someone obtuse, is to ignore them. Minyun, who is saying that there is no truth, maybe I missed something? I realized that Banno was playing with us, so that he could beat up some 5k posts(he said it himself in "eating babies" ). I am not angry at him for that or anything for the matter. The only thing that is unfair when someone tries to use logical arguments and would expect to be treated the same way. If you are strong enough, you do not need someone to agree with you in order that it be the truth... right? IMO, wrong. Everyone can believe in anything. No human is omniscient so his beliefs are bias. As long as we treat other people more smart than you yourself, you will be lost. Unless if that person really wants to help out. You know, we just might be stupid, irrational newbies... Edited by Willowz on 07/10/09 - 02:14 AM. Reason: Minyun is getting nitpicky :)
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 247

Posted 07/10/09 - 01:53 AM:	#444
Minyun, who is saying that there is no truth, maybe I missed something? My apologies, I have mixed up names, this was meant for Oag.

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 247

Posted 07/10/09 - 01:56 AM:	#445
If you are strong enough, you do not need someone to agree with you in order that it be the truth... right? IMO (In my opinion) wrong

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 615

Posted 07/10/09 - 07:32 AM:	#446
I'll add some more energy to this pointless perpetual mobile. One last question. Fenchurch wrote: If "objective reality" refers to what we agree on, then true statements don't necessarily refer to objective reality. Because even though we agree, we could all be wrong (i.e., we could all agree to a false statement). And if that's the case, why call it objective reality? Am I getting this right? You negate the existence of objective reality...? How do you then understand "that-which-exists-with-or-without-conscious-awareness-of-its-existence"? Is there a difference between truth is the objective and the objective is truth? Thanks for any replies.
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/10/09 - 08:07 AM:	#447
Minyun wrote: My apologies, I have mixed up names, this was meant for Oag. Hold on a minute chief. Where did I ever say that there is no truth? I'm beginning to wonder at the level of reading comprehension on this forum. In order to discuss the nature of truth one cannot start by dismissing the possibility of it can one? If you honestly believe that this was my starting point you have misapprehended what I've written most foully.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/10/09 - 08:14 AM:	#448
Willowz wrote: I'll add some more energy to this pointless perpetual mobile. One last question. Am I getting this right? You negate the existence of objective reality...? How do you then understand "that-which-exists-with-or-without-conscious-awareness-of-its-existence"? Is there a difference between truth is the objective and the objective is truth? Thanks for any replies. It wasn't directed at me but if I may. It is no more possible to negate the existence of objective reality than it is to confirm it. As far as, "that-which-exists-with-or-without-conscious-awareness-of-its-existence", is concerned what might that be? In order to posit the existence of something there has to be conscious awareness of it. To elaborate, lets say that thing X exists out there beyond the reach of our telescopes. No human as yet has conscious awareness of its existence. By positing the hypothetical existence of X I am taking the God's eye view and saying that it does in fact exist. Let's step down from Heaven though and go back to the practical, non-hypothetical POV of actual human beings. To every single living human being X does not exist. The point is that we must first have conscious awareness of something to ever posit that it does exist. Therefor the existence without conscious awareness argument is a smoke screen.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 07/10/09 - 11:31 AM:	#449
Fenchurch wrote: No, it wasn't. It was believed to be a fact and asserted as if it were a fact. That's the important difference you are failing to grasp. A fact is a state of affairs. A truth is a statement that accurately describes (and thus corresponds to) that state of affairs. Never was it an actual state of affairs that the world was flat. Therefore, never was it true that the earth was flat. People thought the earth was flat, and felt justified enough to call it knowledge/truth/fact. But they were wrong. People make mistakes, you see. Your right, I don"t know why I get these ideas so confused. I had a bit of a new idea (to me). I don't know if it goes anywhere, but I'd be most thankful for any insights. Thinking about true statements, we use true statements every day in the sense we make decisions. Even without thinking our mind decides "green = true, go=true", with a high degree of accuracy. So, why are these discussions always so grey, when as Banno observed we just "get on with it", because we all really understand it the same intuitively? I currently believe that... A statement is true when all know alternative possibilities are falsified. A statement is true about the future when there is a high degree of probability. To believe something you must think it is possible.
Or not.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 07/10/09 - 11:48 AM:	#450
Hey Willowz, I agree the an objective reality is necessary for the existence of truth. How can there be a true statement if there is nothing to make a statement about? Is that accurate?
Or not.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.