Quote:

---

Cracka_X said:
knowledge is only so limited as to 'now'.  some people believe cancer is worse now than it hasbeen ever and that's ridiculous, becuase now we're actually documenting cancer more effeciently and health care is able to scren more than just those who had top dollar.  Everything with change in the world has always been going on.  We're here today because we've survived generations upon generations of people surviving. It's funny to think that our ancestors literally roughed it compared to us making posts on a forum catered to growing fungus.  Who'd a thought this would be the way it is now?  I'm sure those have dreamed.  But back to the question, where would the new phenomena bring philosophy and human notion of truth for the future.... 

I believe we try to attain the basics. We work hard so later won't have to work so hard and be sustained.  We need this balance.  Somewhere along the line, humanity has come to a point where it sustains itself to supposedly constant progress.  So much is being taken care for that the balance is out of place.  I say this based on my experiences in life and with all that is given to me I push/give away and want to be basic once more.  Energy is the accomodations/conveniences in life and while I need a certain amount for equilibrium, I feel that many people live their lives as an extreme endergonic reaction with too much energy(accomodations) while there's those in Afric that live highly exergonic constantly using the traces of energy given.  I want equilibrium, but some rich CEO wants a copious amount so we're lost in translation there.  blah, money=evil  doesn't mean I don't need it but it sure does cause a lot of bullshit.  I hope I was on track with what you were getting at.

---

I like this point of view
Other opinions?

Quote:

---

MushroomTrip said:
That does not have anything to do with the topic.
I was taking purely hypothetically and from a philosophical point of view.
I was arguing about the notion of the truth.

---

Quote:

---

Icelander said:

Quote:

---

MushroomTrip said:
That does not have anything to do with the topic.
I was taking purely hypothetically and from a philosophical point of view.
I was arguing about the notion of the truth.

---

As I said We have all the spirituality and philosophy we need right now to be happy. We just have to do the work of using it.

And I would add that we will discover nothing new about truth or philosophy.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, some things will be seen as "crap"...perhaps even your understanding of
"truth", which seems to be blurred with "fact".

---

Quote:

---

As I suggested above I think you should explore "truth" in its historical context.
This is an old philosophical discussion and there is a lot of literature on it.
Martin Heidegger's The Essence of Truth has been an influential book,
but it's probably too difficult to get into if you haven't dedicated a few years to
studying philosophy.

Also, After Philosophy: End or Transformation? edited by Baynes, Bohman
and McCarthy, is a popular anthology that takes up the same questions you
ask. Be prepared though, the answers will be difficult and they will change the way
you formulate your questions. This book is a collection of some of the 20th Century's
most influential philosophers who discuss the future of truth and philosophy.

---

Quote:

---

My opinion is that its connection to philosophy and truth are vague. It invokes
a certain pre-understanding of philosophy and truth and goes from there, instead of
questioning them, which I think is necessary when we discuss "the notion of truth"
and philosophy. What is truth and what is philosophy?

---

Quote:

---

Explain how truth is based on fact.

I'll be analytical here. Let's call your idea of truth, which the thread moves out from,
A. I do not know exactly what A means, but I do know from what you've written that
you assume A is stable and has something to do with facticity. I also know that you imply
this truth is common to us all, because you the way you talk about "it" and because it as a
whole is talked about in the singular.

A different theory truth B could encompass A by taking it into account, but providing a
larger scheme for what is called truth.

Another theory of truth C would not resemble A or B, except
that it would be called a theory of truth.

All other possible theories of truth we'll call AO.

Thus I wrote: Assuming that A remains the same and B doesn't come along and
explain not only A but things A can't explain, and as long as C doesn't become generally accepted, then
A will change. BUT this change is not change into another theory such as
B, C or AO, but only change relative to itself. That is, facts
will change, but the grounds of truth won't.

So, why don't you take consideration to the ontological change of the theory of truth, such
as B, C or AO, instead of assuming it (truth) will always
be a neat and stable basis of A.
Continuing I said: Yes, some things will be seen as "crap"...perhaps even A if
truth change too much. Also A seems to be blurred with "fact" ("...some
truths will become crap seen and proved as being invalid. It already happened in the past,
more then a lot, it does now even more in such a manner that we get to be witnesses to these
changes within our lifetime and even from decade to decade, and if it's going to keep up that
way which I'm almost sure it will, these changes will occur even from month to month").

---

Quote:

---

Well, I thought a bit of reading could help you along the way. What is one to think "freely" about
if one doesn't access more of what there is to think? Thinking isn't done alone.

---

Quote:

---

I haven't presented my view on truth. I've said that there are several ways of approaching truth. If
I was forced to give an answer I might say: truth is a nasty word and I don't like it very much,
it's too universalist and there are too many competing theories (and these hardly consider one
another); I can hardly take the idea(s) of truth as my groudig understanding of truth. However,
I do like the Ancient Greek idea of truth []aletheia. My view on truth is definitely not
universalist.

If something were incommesurable to me, how would I even detect it?

---

Quote:

---

FrenchSocialist said:
Well I think a lot of what we consider more fundamental truths will remain less changed. But I think a lot of truth based on what we call science may change radically, perhaps not so much the content as the methodology.

I think the peer reviewed process may be supplanted as people are able to modify themselves so as to become individually more objective or connect to each other's thoughts/minds/personalities more directly. Also machines will begin making a lot of intellectual advances as well. What we call science may become one methodology among a variety.

---

Well put

Quote:

---

I'm not using quotes, because it can get out of hand. I hope you know which things I'm
referring to anyhow.

Is it so that that what I wrote gives you no impression or point of criticism other than
that I didn't sufficiently take up blurring fact and truth?

How did you take those points into account? Give me a link to that entry.

---

Quote:

---

Please define fact and truth so I know what you're talking about.

---

Quote:

---

What you say is not a solid argument is not a solid argument. It was not meant to be an
argument, but simply a pointer--you can look there for some answers and more thoughts. It
was a suggestion, not an argument. What is in that book is not necessary for me to
summarize, because it my arguments are not based on it. Once again, it was suggested reading
material that might help you develop your thoughts in the first post in the thread. And it
seems that you take this up, only because you don't want to discuss my arguments, but rather
would like to show why I can be dismissed. In other words it's a red herring since it's not
do directly related to the grounds of the topics of my arguments.

---

Quote:

---

Please, define incommensurable and Universe. As I understand it what is incommensurable is not
measurable and is unlike anything else. Incommensurable does not mean irreducible or everything-
is-relative. There is a philosophical question that goes: If sentient beings made of silicon
came to earth and spoke an incommensurable language would we be able to call this a language?

---

Quote:

---

After all it's incommensurable, thus we wouldn't detect, couldn't measure it and its structure
would not be anything like what we know of as language, so why would we call it language? If we call
it language it must be commensurable, i.e. it must have something detectably similar to human
languages. And would they be living beings? They are made of silicon, our definition of life
includes only carbon-based beings, are they recognizable as living beings? So what's life...
there are many more questions here and many answers have been proposed.

---

Quote:

---

However, I can crudely summarize the subjects of this 500 page book. Hans-Georg Gadamer
truth by inquisition into the activity of human understanding. This article deals with
the tension between illumination and concealment--two modes of how truth is shown and
so on. However, the theory of truth that underlies this is not a correspondence or
universalist theory. There's also Charles Taylor and he discusses what is to come now that
the philosophy debate is in crisis, or ending, as many philosophers are now saying...some even
talk about post-philosophy. Taylor's article deals with the end of traditional epistemology,
which is the norm here in P&S.

---