A person's words/beliefs are just part of them. We have been trained to assume a universal, that there is one answer to applies to all of this. Did this come Newton and physical science, which appeared then to be a universal "law?"

Did the middle class invent universalism to tear down the aristocracy? Did the more spirited members of this eventually triumphant class turn universalism against the middle class finally, in the name of the primitive and the proletariat?

Why should there be one answer the question of truth? Is this our guilt shrunken monotheism at play? Oh who shall claim its withered arm to fight beside him in the battle for prestige and natural resources?

What is the question of truth? I guess that if there is more than one question, there will be more than one answer. Wouldn't you. The philosophical question of truth is: what is truth? And Aristotle's answer seems to me right:

To say that what is, is, and to say that what is not, is not, is to say what is true.

Doesn't that seem right to you?

True enough, but not the half of it...

That's right. The other half is: To say what is false is to say that what is, is not, or to say that what is not, is.

That's the entire thing.

At the risk of repeating myself here, truth is life, and we must consider this everytime we are denied truth by fellow citizens, or the government...We will die, and people die every day in this world for the want of truth, and those who deny them truth do them a terrible injustice...Truth is also a form of relationship, and in that sense is very flexible, but without the form of truth, the relationship is doomed...We are so used to being lied to, to being spun, or massaged, that we do not realize how much we can be injured by miscommunication, which is usually deliberate...It is a crime which should have no other penalty but contempt...

At the risk of repeating myself here, truth is life, and we must consider this everytime we are denied truth by fellow citizens, or the government...We will die, and people die every day in this world for the want of truth, and those who deny them truth do them a terrible injustice...Truth is also a form of relationship, and in that sense is very flexible, but without the form of truth, the relationship is doomed...We are so used to being lied to, to being spun, or massaged, that we do not realize how much we can be injured by miscommunication, which is usually deliberate...It is a crime which should have no other penalty but contempt...

Fido, if you could define what truth and life are, by saying more than "truth is life", it would help me understand your meaning...

I mean, this is the epistemology branch of the forum... so when truth is used it is meant in connection to a theory of knowledge in most cases. That's what's confusing...

Sorry O Guise of Epistimology, but truth is as truth does, and life, yours and mine is the result, the proof really, of truth... We survive by what we know...

Sorry O Guise of Epistimology, but truth is as truth does, and life, yours and mine is the result, the proof really, of truth... We survive by what we know...

what happened to truth as correspondence?
or
Truth as consensus?
or
Truth as coherence and consistency?
How do we know there are not eternal truths?

That's really all you're saying? That life is proof of truth?

I'm disappointed...

That's really all you're saying? That life is proof of truth?

I'm disappointed...

I am afraid that it is pretty typical in philosophy that someone says something that sounds really interesting and contrary to received opinion, and then, when we find out what he really means, it turns out to be pretty prosaic, but dressed up in gaudy language. (Either that, or if he really means what he says, it turns out to be clearly false). David Hume pointed this out over and over again about philosophers.

The two are but different sides of the other... Think of logic...Does it not always have to be logical to some body??? Is it not all from a certain perspective, so that what is logical to one may not seem so cut and dried to another...What is the difference...What is reasonable is reasonable in terms of ones own life...People are reasonable in terms of morality, and society seems unreasonable...It is because society has a larger view of life, the life of society, and individuals can only see the truth of the matter through a narrow focus of their individual lives...

---------- Post added 02-06-2010 at 06:39 AM ----------
I thnk

Stuff a cork in it kenny...I have perfectly valid reasons for saying what I say, and you might give me time to reply before spouting off...

I am afraid that it is pretty typical in philosophy that someone says something that sounds really interesting and contrary to received opinion, and then, when we find out what he really means, it turns out to be pretty prosaic, but dressed up in gaudy language. (Either that, or if he really means what he says, it turns out to be clearly false). David Hume pointed this out over and over again about philosophers.

Where did he point that out? Pyrrho mentions this all the time, so I should have guessed that he had it from Hume.

The two are but different sides of the other... Think of logic...Does it not always have to be logical to some body??? Is it not all from a certain perspective, so that what is logical to one may not seem so cut and dried to another...What is the difference...What is reasonable is reasonable in terms of ones own life...People are reasonable in terms of morality, and society seems unreasonable...It is because society has a larger view of life, the life of society, and individuals can only see the truth of the matter through a narrow focus of their individual lives...

---------- Post added 02-06-2010 at 06:39 AM ----------


Stuff a cork in it kenny...I have perfectly valid reasons for saying what I say, and you might give me time to reply before spouting off...

I think what you said is true. Remember? That knowing or believing the truth has survival value. Of course it does. But why say it in a way so that no one knows you are saying that, and no one knows what you are saying? Fancy language (or philosophese) does not help, and is not necessary. Relax. I am agreeing with you. Just giving you a little advice. Say it clearly; say it simply.

I think what you said is true. Remember? That knowing or believing the truth has survival value. Of course it does. But why say it in a way so that no one knows you are saying that, and no one knows what you are saying? Fancy language (or philosophese) does not help, and is not necessary. Relax. I am agreeing with you. Just giving you a little advice. Say it clearly; say it simply.

Well Fido, the point of language is to create a base for discussion, so if you don't think that's a good idea you might want to become a hermit, lol. Logic in language is required for us to communicate, that is why we must all be taught a familiar structure.



Fancy language is the devil... Nietzsche proved that with all his references to french, lol.