universal truth?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

wayne
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 12:10 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165588 wrote:
How can forgiveness be a truth? A truth is a proposition or a statement, isn't it? ?


I don't know. Is truth limited to statements or does truth exist beyond words?

kennethamy;165588 wrote:
But then isn't it an eternal truth that up to the present time (2010) all known mammals have livers?


I think if you dated it down to the micro second it could be an eternally true statement.
Once again, though, we are limiting truth to statements.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 12:22 am
@wayne,
wayne;165593 wrote:
I don't know. Is truth limited to statements or does truth exist beyond words?



I think if you dated it down to the micro second it could be an eternally true statement.
Once again, though, we are limiting truth to statements.


What else is true but a statement or proposition. My chair is neither true nor false. As Aristotle wrote, to say what is true is to say that what is, is, and to say that what is not, is not. (My emphasis). Isn't the predicate, "is true" a predicate of statements (propositions)?

I think that every statement is an eternally true statement as long as we "eternalize" it. That is, insert parameters of time and place. That is why I think that this controversy about universal truths or eternal truths is, to say the least, very suspect.
 
wayne
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 12:41 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165598 wrote:
What else is true but a statement or proposition. My chair is neither true nor false. As Aristotle wrote, to say what is true is to say that what is, is, and to say that what is not, is not. (My emphasis). Isn't the predicate, "is true" a predicate of statements (propositions)?

I think that every statement is an eternally true statement as long as we "eternalize" it. That is, insert parameters of time and place. That is why I think that this controversy about universal truths or eternal truths is, to say the least, very suspect.


Yes, the proper parameters create true statements.

I think the controversy arises exactly from things like forgiveness, which is , or is not, a truth which cannot be said.
Perhaps the word truth does not mean what it is often thought to mean.

Perhaps the reference I heard about there being fixed points is more relevant . Perhaps the question is seeking a fixed point rather than a truth. In which case the use of the word truth is being confused.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 12:44 am
@wayne,
wayne;165605 wrote:

Perhaps the word truth does not mean what it is often thought to mean.

.


How could that be true?
 
wayne
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 01:00 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165607 wrote:
How could that be true?



When I hear the question about universal truth, I tend to think of things that stand alone, without qualifications or justifications, unalterable and uneffected. Perhaps the word truth is not meant to describe those things.

These things may be better refered to as principles, or fixed points rather than as truths, still I think that is what the question actually refers to.

Which, regardless of definitions, do exist, just as the truth you have described exists so the question is ,as you have said, suspect.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 01:03 am
@wayne,
wayne;165615 wrote:
When I hear the question about universal truth, I tend to think of things that stand alone, without qualifications or justifications, unalterable and uneffected. Perhaps the word truth is not meant to describe those things.

These things may be better refered to as principles, or fixed points rather than as truths, still I think that is what the question actually refers to.

Which, regardless of definitions, do exist, just as the truth you have described exists so the question is ,as you have said, suspect.


I think the answer is that the term, "universal truth" is not the name of anything clear. This is a job for Analytic Philosopher!
 
wayne
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 01:08 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165621 wrote:
I think the answer is that the term, "universal truth" is not the name of anything clear. This is a job for Analytic Philosopher!


That sounds pretty pretty good to me, I am, for one, not very clear about it. Does Analytic Philosopher respond to a signal like Batman? Smile
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 03:22 am
@kplax,
kplax;165505 wrote:
I'm having an argument with my friend about whether or not universal truths can exist. I am saying they can. This was my argument:

What happened, happened. You can't change that. What happened cannot be changed. What is, is. You cannot change what is, only what it can become. Truth is the accurate and precise reflection of what was and what is. What may come is something entirely different. We cannot use universal truth to figure out what will happen, because we don't know.

He kept saying that a lie can be truth and truth can be a lie.

Any input?


"What happened" is made of sentences, some would argue. History is written by the victors. People not only lie, they see things differently. And then words don't have precise meanings.

I think there are universal truths in the weaker sense of the word..and maybe a tiny core of absolute universal truths (the most general structure of human thinking)...but history is not a good example, in my opinion.

Food for Thought-->Richard Rorty
YouTube - Rorty on Truth
YouTube - Rorty on the End of Inquiry
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 06:20 am
@wayne,
wayne;165624 wrote:
That sounds pretty pretty good to me, I am, for one, not very clear about it. Does Analytic Philosopher respond to a signal like Batman? Smile


No, and Shazam! won't do it either. You have to get your Superheroes straight. I am alluding to the first and greatest of the Superheroes. (HInt). (I mean before ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHER).

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 08:24 AM ----------

Reconstructo;165666 wrote:
"What happened" is made of sentences, some would argue.


But SOME would say anything idiotic that crosses his mind. He might say it is made of Munster cheese too, if it occurred to him. So what does that prove? (With that kind of "food for thought", you are well on your way to starvation. Empty calories, at best, better known as junk food).
 
William
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 06:45 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165507 wrote:
What happened, happened is certainly true, just like, all husbands are males is true.


Sorry Ken, that is NOT true. Perhaps at some point in the past it was but when man united with woman we became both.

William
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 06:51 am
@William,
William;165693 wrote:
Sorry Ken, that is NOT true. Perhaps at some point in the past it was but when man united with woman we became both.

William



Hmmm. How is your anatomy? As the salacious but sage Frenchman cried out when someone like you suggested that there was no important difference between man and woman, "Vive la diffe'rence!!".
 
qualia
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 06:53 am
@kennethamy,
Imagine I ask myself, "What is truth?" Well, if I'm going to try and answer that, I need to first investigate what has already been said, before putting forward some other theory or notion of truth.

In whatever manner I go about it, I find myriad discourses: correspondence theory, coherence theory, redundancy theory, semantic theory, pragmatic theory, and so on, and what I'm essentially witnessing are structural discourses in which the sign 'truth' is trying to be nailed, defined, essentialised. That is, what truth is according to the given theory, judgement, and criteria.

So, the next thing I ought to do if I'm philosophically motivated enough is to ask myself, "Well, are any of these theories true?", and I ought to be able to answer that question independently of the theory itself. But is that possible? I don't know.


In light of the theories already mentioned and what has just been said, we can understand truth in at least four manners.



  • Firstly, there are a number of solid theories of truth in the ambient of philosophical discourse, not a single theory/criterion of truth. No big T truth.



  • Secondly, it is possible, in light of the varying theories put forward, that not all senses of 'true' or 'truth' can be tied down to a single theory of truth.


  • Thirdly, in the ambient of text analysis, the best we can hope for is an interpretation of truth, but the interpretation that will bring all the other interpretations to an end seems a little farfetched.


  • Fourthly, the definition of truth is a statement which describes the subject in a frame. In the frame of decimal notation 1 + 1 = 2, in the frame of the Ministry of Love, 1 + 1 = 2 or 3 (I imagine), and in the frame of binary notation 1 + 1 = 10. All are true, in their frame, their context.


Within the context of framing, we can also point out that there are subjective truths, objective truths and truths of a reality being described.

My subjective truth might be "this coffee cup is orange". Or we may try to reflect on the essential truthfulness of my qualia experiencing that 'orange'. A more objective truth may be "this cup reflects a given orange when illuminated by sun light". This may describe a general collective experience. The reality of physics, for example, may be something even stranger, in terms of what is actually taking place, something about waves and particles and the such.


So, each statement may be true within a frame, without necessarily being true in any other frame. For the moment, I can't think about truth in any other manner but this.
 
William
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 06:58 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165544 wrote:
Isn't, all mammals have livers, a universal truth? If not, then why not? It is a truth, and it is universally true of mammals. That is, having a liver is true of all mammals.

So why would anyone say that there are no universal truths?


Yes Ken that is correct but all mammals don't eat the same things and digest them the same way. Because of this some livers if you can call them that, produce more bile than other livers do and unfortunately other livers try to digest that bile harming their own liver's and their standard of living, ha!

William
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 07:03 am
@William,
William;165697 wrote:
Yes Ken that is correct but all mammals don't eat the same things and digest them the same way. Because of this some livers if you can call them that, produce more bile than other livers do and unfortunately other livers try to digest that bile harming their own liver's and their standard of living, ha!

William


So why the "but"? It is still universally true that mammals have livers. You have just admitted that. It is universally true that all men have eyes. That they have different colored eyes is irrelevant.
 
William
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 07:17 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165695 wrote:
Hmmm. How is your anatomy? As the salacious but sage Frenchman cried out when someone like you suggested that there was no important difference between man and woman, "Vive la diffe'rence!!".


you need to do a little more re-search, Ken. My anatomy is well balanced which is more than I can say about some especially those who have no clue as to what their anatomy is. Granted some are more macho and very rarely know what a feminine touch truly feels like. They like themselves to much. It's difficult to know what the balance is as we are now, evident by the many different "genders" we have created in the world. Hopefully one day we will achieve that balance and then we might understand what a universal truth is and what it means.

Men lie when they say they are women and vice versa. We are, as you might say confusingly screwed, ha! Perhaps one day we will unscrew ourselves and begin to know what making love is all about and what men and women should do together. That will never happen until we learn who and how important the child is. Good luck to you in your re-search.

William
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 07:22 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165699 wrote:
It is universally true that all men have eyes.


Except those born with bilateral anophthalmia...
 
William
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 07:33 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165699 wrote:
So why the "but"? It is still universally true that mammals have livers. You have just admitted that. It is universally true that all men have eyes. That they have different colored eyes is irrelevant.


Sorry you missed to point Ken. It surely went over your head. I was, what you might say, playing with words meaning humans are livers too. You might be a mammal, I for one am not that animal nor do I eat what some of them eat. Some mammals eat their own kind and we call those predators and there are humans who do that too. There are human cannibals and their teeth are sharp. I, for one, feed my friend, I don't care to feed on him. One of these days Ken you will figure it out. I have confidence in you in that respect.

William

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 09:11 AM ----------

Night Ripper;165705 wrote:
Except those born with bilateral anophthalmia...


That's not a truth, that's a birth defect which means there was a lie somewhere that caused it. A lie can only be told, a truth can only be offered. There are many who have perfect eyes but have a difficult time seeing anything. They are too busy looking for something and they don't have a clue as to what IT is they are looking for.

William
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 07:41 am
@William,
William;165704 wrote:
you need to do a little more re-search, Ken. My anatomy is well balanced which is more than I can say about some especially those who have no clue as to what their anatomy is. Granted some are more macho and very rarely know what a feminine touch truly feels like. They like themselves to much. It's difficult to know what the balance is as we are now, evident by the many different "genders" we have created in the world. Hopefully one day we will achieve that balance and then we might understand what a universal truth is and what it means.

Men lie when they say they are women and vice versa. We are, as you might say confusingly screwed, ha! Perhaps one day we will unscrew ourselves and begin to know what making love is all about and what men and women should do together. That will never happen until we learn who and how important the child is. Good luck to you in your re-search.

William


And your point?????????????????
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 07:50 am
@William,
William;165709 wrote:
That's not a truth, that's a birth defect which means there was a lie somewhere that caused it.


That makes no sense to me.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 07:53 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;165716 wrote:
That makes no sense to me.


Why would you expect it to make sense to anyone?

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 09:56 AM ----------

William;165709 wrote:
Sorry you missed to point Ken. It surely went over your head. I was, what you might say, playing with words meaning humans are livers too. You might be a mammal, I for one am not that animal nor do I eat what some of them eat. Some mammals eat their own kind and we call those predators and there are humans who do that too. There are human cannibals and their teeth are sharp. I, for one, feed my friend, I don't care to feed on him. One of these days Ken you will figure it out. I have confidence in you in that respect.



---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 09:11 AM ----------




William


Please don't get your hopes up. If I could figure it out, then I would worry.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/19/2021 at 07:41:33