Truth and such.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;92773 wrote:

Why not Addis Ababa is the capital of Ethiopia?

I thought that was also the capital of Ecuador.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;92844 wrote:

How is being absolutely true different from being true? What's the difference between an absolute truth and a truth?

Well, I don't myself use the term, "absolutely true" except when I say things like, "Believe me. I saw Sally kissing Mike. It is absolutely true!". So, I am not the one to ask. I do think there is a problem with saying that there are no truths, since that would apply to the statement that there are no truths. But, since I have no idea what absolute truths are, I have no problem with saying that there are no absolute truths. In fact, I think that is probably true.

I imagine, though, that people may have different things in mind when they do talk about absolute truths. But, as I say, you would have to ask them.

@kennethamy,

This in not an uncommon predicament. Some cultures languages have even produced grammatical endings for true and evidentially true. I work on one language that has verb tense endings for things definitley seen with the eyes, and another for things not seen but are evidentially true by means of knowledge through a reliable source. Things aren't necessarily any less true because we didn't see them personally. Its simply that we filter truth through our experience and are suspect of evidential truths. I know that my wife is Blonde I also know that the Earth spins. Truth in my experience is a functional thing. If I adapt my life to accomodate it, I am acting as if it were true, so to me it is the truth. It can't be anything but.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;92861 wrote:

This in not an uncommon predicament. Some cultures languages have even produced grammatical endings for true and evidentially true. I work on one language that has verb tense endings for things definitley seen with the eyes, and another for things not seen but are evidentially true by means of knowledge through a reliable source. Things aren't necessarily any less true because we didn't see them personally. Its simply that we filter truth through our experience and are suspect of evidential truths. I know that my wife is Blonde I also know that the Earth spins. Truth in my experience is a functional thing. If I adapt my life to accomodate it, I am acting as if it were true, so to me it is the truth. It can't be anything but.

Have you any reason for thinking your wife is not a blonde. Do you suspect that she has been secretly dying her hair all this time?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;92868 wrote:

Have you any reason for thinking your wife is not a blonde. Do you suspect that she has been secretly dying her hair all this time?

I figure its more of a carpet and drapes proof.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;93087 wrote:

I figure its more of a carpet and drapes proof.

Glad to hear it. No more nonsense, then, about her not being a blonde. It really isn't nice.

@kennethamy,

The main point of my post was that if the question is so much of a human trait that is has worked its way into grammatical systems, there is likey nothing that will ever adequately answer it. I mean come on isn't that very example alone fascinating in and of itself?

@beforHim,

beforHim;91962 wrote:

My philosophy of Existentialism professor is a 100% die-hard post-modern Nietszchiean (is that a good categorical description?). He brought up the whole, "there is no truth" and it's being logically consistent, and he explained why. I'm going to lay it out, and then just ask for comments.

He said that yes, logically it breaks down. You can say "There is no truth" and then say "that's a self refuting statement" and such. But he said that's one category, one thing, but there's a whole other category or thing- the two don't relate. He said in the other, you look at the set of true things, and it's empty.

So basically, he's saying that logical and "the set of things" are totally different (or are/can be in different categories or realms or something). one doesn't have to do with the other. Hence if that set of true things is empty, then there is no truth. Comments, please. And I'm sure you're wondering how the terms are defined and such, but since I don't have them defined yet, I'm just going with what he stated- remember, he's post-modern and Nietzchiean

Well, Nietzsche makes a distinction, although a buried one at that, in "Truth and Lies in an Extra-moral Sense." There are basically two kinds of truth that 18th century philosophy had. The thing-in-itself truth, and the observational truths that are ever changing based on perspective. Nietzsche denies that there is a truth-in-itself, but affirms the existence of perspective based truth. Nietzsche was denying a transcendental world outside of this one that we do not have access to. Thus, there is no truth in this sense. But as a philosopher that was a champion of the individual, he would think it to be ridiculous to think that there is no truths that individuals perceive.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;96843 wrote:

Well, Nietzsche makes a distinction, although a buried one at that, in "Truth and Lies in an Extra-moral Sense." There are basically two kinds of truth that 18th century philosophy had. The thing-in-itself truth, and the observational truths that are ever changing based on perspective. Nietzsche denies that there is a truth-in-itself, but affirms the existence of perspective based truth. Nietzsche was denying a transcendental world outside of this one that we do not have access to. Thus, there is no truth in this sense. But as a philosopher that was a champion of the individual, he would think it to be ridiculous to think that there are no truths that individuals perceive.

I don't understand what it means to say that there are no truths that individuals perceive. All of us, perceive truths. Do you, maybe mean, "truths that only individuals perceive"? Or, even, that "all truths are truths that only individuals perceive". That is false, but it makes sense.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;96867 wrote:

I don't understand what it means to say that there are no truths that individuals perceive. All of us, perceive truths. Do you, maybe mean, "truths that only individuals perceive"? Or, even, that "all truths are truths that only individuals perceive". That is false, but it makes sense.

There are only truths that individuals perceive. To talk of truth outside of the realm of perception makes no sense because there is no way to verify an objective world to which humans lack access.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;96871 wrote:

There are only truths that individuals perceive. To talk of truth outside of the realm of perception makes no sense because there is no way to verify an objective world to which humans lack access.

I don't agree that we cannot verify an objective world. But, putting that aside, how does it follow from our not being able to verify an objective world that there is no objective world? All that follows is that we cannot know that there is an objective world. It does not follow that if we cannot verify that there are extra-terrestrials that there are no extra-terrestrials. It follows that we cannot know there are.

@beforHim,

Truth is solid, something that you cannot shake, where as something we don't know is simply that, you cannot deny it or verify it until you can prove it either way with solid evidence.
Thanks.
I guess that makes me an empiricist yes?

@Caroline,

Caroline;96885 wrote:

Truth is solid, something that you cannot shake, where as something we don't know is simply that, you cannot deny it or verify it until you can prove it either way with solid evidence.
Thanks.
I guess that makes me an empiricist yes?

No, because an empiricist holds that we can know the truth only on the basis of sense-evidence, and many philosophers have argued that sense-evidence is very unreliable, so that if you are an empiricist, you cannot know the truth with absolute certainty. On the other hand, Rationalists argue the truth can be known by reason alone (as in mathematical truth) and that only reason can give us certainty about the truth (as in mathematics), So, actually, it is the other way round. Empiricism is exactly not the way to have solid evidence of the truth. Since sense perception, which is the basis of Empiricism is, deceptive and unreliable.

@beforHim,

Well thank you for correcting me. I thought it meant that it is what you see.

---------- Post added 10-12-2009 at 09:57 AM ----------

I have to go.
Peace out.

@Caroline,

Caroline;96892 wrote:

Well thank you for correcting me. I thought it meant that it is what you see.

---------- Post added 10-12-2009 at 09:57 AM ----------

I have to go.
Peace out.

Empiricism is the theory that what you think you see is the best evidence you can have for what there is. Rationalists believe that if that is true, then we cannot know what there is.

@beforHim,

I didn't say that it makes sense that there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself, but was only commenting on what Nietzsche said in an unpublished essay, which touches on truth and objectivity, since that is what the OP had asked about.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;96908 wrote:

Empiricism is the theory that what you think you see is the best evidence you can have for what there is. Rationalists believe that if that is true, then we cannot know what there is.

I'm sorry for being a bit dense but I got you up until the Rationlist part, um care to expand please? Thanks.

@Caroline,

Caroline;96939 wrote:

I'm sorry for being a bit dense but I got you up until the Rationlist part, um care to expand please? Thanks.

The Rationalists believe that if sense-knowledge is unreliable, and deceptive, then it cannot really be knowledge. So, if there is only sense-knowledge, as Empiricists maintain there is, there can be no knowledge at all. And if Empiricism is right, then we should all be skeptics, and believe that knowledge is impossible.

So the Rationaists would argue:

1. If Empiricism is true, then all that there is, is sense-knowledge.
2. But sense-knowledge is deceptive and unreliable.
3. But knowledge is not deceptive and unreliable.
Therefore, 4. Empiricism is not true.

@beforHim,

Ok but how would you go about challenging a empiricist, could you give a clear example please, I mean a straight forward one.
Thanks.

@Caroline,

Caroline;96951 wrote:

Ok but how would you go about challenging a empiricist, could you give a clear example please, I mean a straight forward one.
Thanks.

You would, for example, point out that as we look into the distance, railroad tracks appear to converge. But, the railroad track are not really converging, and our senses are deceiving us. Or, a person in the desert may think he sees an oasis. But what he thinks he sees is really a mirage. Not an oasis. His senses are deceiving him. Therefore, we have two examples when our senses do not give us knowledge. Therefore, empiricism, which is the theory that our senses give us knowledge, is wrong.

Philosophy Forum

Truth and such.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know