|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Killing Truth
#5508688 - 04/12/06 03:47 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Truth exists. Because, suppose truth does not exist (Suppose it!).
Then, this is true. (The fact that truth does not exist).
Therefore, truth exists.
Okay, so I'm going to claim that this proof for the existence of truth is wrong; even more so, it is outright bullshit. I am going to argue that truth does not exist, that it is not necessary, that it is wrong thinking at the most basic level.
I wonder if anyone is interested in epistomology at the most basic level - that is, I'm going to argue that TRUTH STINKS.
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 1 year, 18 days
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5508929 - 04/12/06 04:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
truth is truth.. ...even as lies! :p
|
RedNucleus
Causal Observer
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 4,103
Loc: The Seahorse Valley
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5509159 - 04/12/06 05:44 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Let's have a discussion about this. I'm interested. I love the original argument. Please refute it. You said you don't agree with it. Why? Back it up.
-------------------- Namaste
|
I_was_the_walrus
eggshells
Registered: 05/01/02
Posts: 11,887
Loc: next door
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5510207 - 04/12/06 10:15 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I am going to argue that truth does not exist, that it is not necessary, that it is wrong thinking at the most basic level.
If this statement is true, then youve created and oxymoron. Your going around in circles.
It makes sense, then it doesnt make any sense at all.
What came first...the chicken or the egg?
Heres one for ya.. A rooster is sitting at the top of a barn..the kind that comes to a point at the top. The sun is shining from the east..HOWEVER the wind is blowing from the west. An egg is layed..what side will it go down? The east side or the west side?
Roosters dont lay eggs. Alright, Im done. Sorry for wasting your time.
|
David_Scape
Anti Genius
Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 878
Loc: U.S. of muthafuckin A.
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5510231 - 04/12/06 10:18 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
A good refutation of the argument you posted would be that it tries to pick itself up by its own bootstraps. It's refering to itself. You could use the same argument to say that truth doesn't exist, and it would be just as valid.
If nothing is true, then nothing would be true. If nothing is true, then nothing exists. 'Nothing' like before spacetime. any attempt to prove truth doesn't exist would be nothing more than an attempt at sophistry.
The 'ettiquette' in argumentative reasoning is that there is no true argument, only arguments that are more truthfull than others.
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
|
Let's have a discussion about this. I'm interested. I love the original argument. Please refute it. You said you don't agree with it. Why? Back it up.
I was quite drunk when I discovered that truth does not exist, and I had some kind of elaborate and beautiful proof, involving the statement that "falsehood does not exist" and an argument of analogy, that is, if one accepts the original proof as valid, one would have to accept another one as valid, too, by which you would end up with the fact that all things are true, which seemed like a good thing to me, but I was quite drunk. I don't get it anymore.
Anyway, there's this "pulling up by its own bootstraps" thing someone else noted. Here's how to refute the original argument, as formal as I can get to.
Assume truth does not exist. Then, this is true. Therefore, truth exists.
The problem is that the second sentence uses an unstated assumption, namely, that truth exists. Stating all assumptions explicitly, the original proof looks like this:
Assume that truth exists. Furthermore, assume that truth does not exist. Then, this is true. Therefore, truth exists.
It doesn't work, because you cannot state that truth does not exist under the assumption that it does. It's like:
Assume x = 2. Look at two cases: Case 1: Assume x = 2 and y = 1. (...) Case 2: Assume x = 3. (...).
That kind of thing is formally wrong. It's nothing, not a proof at all. It's not mathematics or anything.
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Gomp]
#5511438 - 04/13/06 08:29 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
truth is truth.. ...even as lies! :p
Here's the problem. People say: It is true that there is a bottle on this table. But this is just saying that it is true that it is true that there is a bottle on this table. To claim a statement as true is just another statement. The notion of truth involves the idea that there is something else than statements - namely, true statements, but that is just a statement. To say that something is true is to make the statement that it is true that it is true. There is nothing else but statements, statements everywhere. One can do away with truth: There is a bottle on this table.
That is why truth stinks. It is saying that there is something else than what there is (statements). It is losing the Tao.
Better be a Zen Master. The girls love it.
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
|
A good refutation of the argument you posted would be that it tries to pick itself up by its own bootstraps. It's refering to itself. You could use the same argument to say that truth doesn't exist, and it would be just as valid.
Indeed. That is what I do - claiming that truth does not exist, and that it is valid. Because although the argument seems like a purely logical one, it is not. It takes reference to the world. It is looking at a thing and discerning a quality of it - looking at the assumption "truth does not exist" and saying it is true. This is nothing else than looking at a bottle and saying it is shiny. There is no reason to accept that. It doesn't look shiny to me. I claim that truth does not exist, but I do not claim that this statement is true (or that it is false, for that matter). Truth and Falsehood are nonsensical concepts to me. The statement "truth does not exist" has four words and seventeen letters, it is black symbols on white ground, but it is not true, nor false.
If nothing is true, then nothing would be true. If nothing is true, then nothing exists. 'Nothing' like before spacetime. any attempt to prove truth doesn't exist would be nothing more than an attempt at sophistry.
More exactly, I do not actually claim that truth does not exist, although I must admit that I state that regularly - I can do that, because I am operating under the assumption that truth does not exist, and it is all just words with some loose meaning to me. I claim that the concept of truth is nonsensical. It is like making the statements "Qweghrat exists", or "Qweghrat does not exist". This is silly, because a Qweghrat is just a word I made up. It is nonsensical.
If one accepts that "truth does not exist" is not a valid statement (because of self-recursion), then it follows that the negation - "truth does exist" - is not a valid statement, too. If the concept of truth makes sense, it must be something which does not have the quality of existance. To claim that truth exists is like claiming that truth is green, in that case.
I don't buy that. Something which does not have the quality of existance is nonsensical to me. We are humans; we hide in caves from lions. There are places where lions exist, and there are places where caves exist. There are also places where lions exist, and caves don't - you better stay away from them.
|
RedNucleus
Causal Observer
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 4,103
Loc: The Seahorse Valley
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5512539 - 04/13/06 02:32 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"'truth does not exist' has four words and seventeen letters"
"'truth does not exist' has one word and one letter"
You know one of these phrases has a quality that the other does not. You can't deny that that quality, called "truth", exists for one statement, but not the other.
-------------------- Namaste
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
|
'truth does not exist' has four words and seventeen letters"
"'truth does not exist' has one word and one letter"
You know one of these phrases has a quality that the other does not. You can't deny that that quality, called "truth", exists for one statement, but not the other.
They are different phrases, they have different qualities. The first phrase has ten words and fifty letters, the second phrase has ten words and thirty-nine letters. If I show you the first phrase, you will say it is true. If I show you the second phrase, you will say it is wrong. That is all to me; it is nothing different from counting the letters. It is taking an object, putting it in the world somewhere, and watching how the world reacts. Does it drown or does it swim? I cannot discern any quality called truth or falsehood in the phrases, it is just that the world reacts differently to them. Mathematics is but the manipulation of symbols.
I do not claim that this post contains any true statement. If I write stuff like "hagdsgfdjsdjdj hgdghf erz hdhd hdgdgh", I will not get replies. That is the only reason why I write this way.
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5514565 - 04/14/06 12:53 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I guess what I am arguiung for is some branch of nihilism, minus the insanity.
|
David_Scape
Anti Genius
Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 878
Loc: U.S. of muthafuckin A.
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5514704 - 04/14/06 02:41 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I do not claim that this post contains any true statement. If I write stuff like "hagdsgfdjsdjdj hgdghf erz hdhd hdgdgh", I will not get replies. That is the only reason why I write this way.
You wouldn't get any replies, because what you just typed was nonsense. It corresponds to nothing. And if it did, what it corresponded to would probably not interest the people of S&P.
However, the actual words you chose to type, corresponds to something in a meaningfull way. If a symbol corresponds to something, the symbol is automatically imbued with meaning. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a symbol.
And, yes, you do write that way just to get replies. But how do you write that way? By using symbols that have meaning. Meaning that you know exists. If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to communicate.
You are trying to prove truth/meaning doesn't exist using the very same concepts to navigate conceptually. You can't attack a self-evident axiom such as this and not fold in on yourself. It can't work.
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero
Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
i wonder how many groundbreaking theories were created by drunks.
-------------------- No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
|
If a symbol corresponds to something, the symbol is automatically imbued with meaning. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a symbol.
Assuming this is correct, the statement that "a symbol corresponds to something" must correspond to something. But I cannot see anything it corresponds to.
And, yes, you do write that way just to get replies. But how do you write that way? By using symbols that have meaning. Meaning that you know exists. If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to communicate.
I question that meaning is a quality of a statement. There is nothing to lose, for it is not possible to think meaningless - it is not posssible to do this with the faculty of thinking, in the very same way as you cannot walk with your head. It does not work.
You can't attack a self-evident axiom such as this and not fold in on yourself. It can't work.
What I am saying is that it is not a valid axiom. It is using itself as an assumption. Since it has an assumption (itself), it is not an axiom.
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5514836 - 04/14/06 05:42 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
When you say that a statement is true, you are really saying something about the world, not the statement. However, the notion of truth entails that it is in the statement. It is not true that the lion eats the antilope - that is, the statement "the lion eats the antilope" is not true (nor false). It is just that the lion eats the antilope.
Unknow truth. And what is unknowing truth? It is the ability to claim that truth does not exist, and claim it with conviction.
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5514837 - 04/14/06 05:43 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This is the beast of rationalism, the oldest enemy of mankind. Slay it.
Kill truth!
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5514841 - 04/14/06 05:48 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
For something to be a quality of something, it must be possible to state that it is not so. White horses exist. Green horses do not exist. That is why white and green are valid qualities of horses.
For truth to be a quality of a statement, it must be possible to at least state that it is not a quality of a statement. This is not possible - it is not possible to state that "true statements do not exist".
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5514843 - 04/14/06 05:52 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The man at the marketplace, shouting out that "Truth does not exist!", will be insane by any of your standards, for he claims a truth (you say). Adopting the concept of truth makes it not debatable. It is, therefore, to be dogmatic, ideological, and ignorant, for you claim something which you will not - you cannot - debate. Your opponent may write a thousand pages of arguments, but he cannot convince you, for you are right in and of yourself. This is to be someone who burns books.
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5514844 - 04/14/06 05:53 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I will continue forever.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
David_Scape said: And if it did, what it corresponded to would probably not interest the people of S&P.
What the hell is "S&P"?
Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
RedNucleus
Causal Observer
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 4,103
Loc: The Seahorse Valley
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5515864 - 04/14/06 12:30 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Sentence one: 'Truth does not exist' has four words and seventeen letters.
Sentence two: 'Truth does not exist' has one word and one letter.
I took a long time to get back to you on this, but here I am.
The first sentence contains an area enclosed in single quotation marks. The area of the sentence after the enclosed part contains a phrase of words which describes qualities of the enclosed area. This description and the qualities of the enclosed area match. The description has conformity to actuality.
The second sentence contains an area enclosed in single quotation marks. This area is identical to the enclosed area of the first sentence. There is a phrase of words after the enclosed area that describes qualities of the enclosed area. However, this description and the qualities of the enclosed area do not match. The description does not conform to actuality.
There is a word for the relationship in the first sentence. That word is "true". There is a word for the relationship in the second sentence. That word is "false".
-------------------- Namaste
|
David_Scape
Anti Genius
Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 878
Loc: U.S. of muthafuckin A.
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5516537 - 04/14/06 04:32 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Assuming this is correct, the statement that "a symbol corresponds to something" must correspond to something. But I cannot see anything it corresponds to.
If you are looking to get a discourse as to what degree language corresponds to the world. You are going to have to find someone else. Like a person who cares about teaching the subject.
Fact of the matter is, you can see it, and you do it often. Otherwise, you wouldn't be capable of communicating. We wouldn't be able to communicate, unless some type of meaning is being transferred.
Are you going to try and deny this again, by spouting more words with meaning at me?
Quote:
What I am saying is that it is not a valid axiom. It is using itself as an assumption. Since it has an assumption (itself), it is not an axiom.
Look the word "AXIOM" up at dictionary.com.
Anyways, I think I've learned my lesson. I will not try and communicate with you on this subject any further. Good luck on living up to not existing.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
|
This statement is false.
get it?
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
|
If you are looking to get a discourse as to what degree language corresponds to the world. You are going to have to find someone else. Like a person who cares about teaching the subject.
Fact of the matter is, you can see it, and you do it often. Otherwise, you wouldn't be capable of communicating. We wouldn't be able to communicate, unless some type of meaning is being transferred.
I see. The problem is that I can actually accept that (I didn't get that when I first read your post). I claim that truth does not exist, precisely because it does not correspond to anything.
The statement "The lion eats the antilope" corresponds to the lion eating the antilope, I can see that. But the statement "The statement 'The lion eats the antilope' is true" does not correspond to anything. It is merely stating that the lion eats the antilope, that is, it is stating the same correspondence as the first statement, but it does this by claiming some correspondence involving the statement; this latter correspondence does not exist.
Look the word "AXIOM" up at dictionary.com.
Nice. I actually think I know what an axiom is. According to my understanding, there are axioms, and there are statements derived from axioms. The problem with "Truth exists" is that it is, in a sense, both. It is a little arbitrary where you put it in. I claim it is a statement that is derived from an axiom. Here's why. You say it is an axiom. Then, I show you an axiom it is derived from, an axiom which it is using. Note that "Truth exists" is an axiom according to you, not me.
This is a proof by contradiction. Assuming it is an axiom, I derive from that that it is not one.
Now, looking at the definition at dictionary.com, which seems a little fucked up to me. It just isn't self-evident that truth exists. (Unlike dictionary.com, I don't claim that an axiom has to be self-evident - I claim that it is arbitrary, the only requirement being that it is not derived from another axiom). I gave you a couple of very good arguments why it is not self-evident. Here are my two main arguments, again.
1. If the concept of truth is to make sense, it is something without the quality of existance, because it is nonsenical to state that "truth does not exist". (As I already pointed out, I am claiming that truth does not exist in the sense that the concept is nonsensical, not in the sense that it is a sensical concept with no correlation in the world.)
2. It can be done away with completely. You can easily kill it from language, and express all things you could before. Just say "The lion eats the antilope" instead of "It is true that the lion eats the antilope". In a way, the notion of truth is so basic that it isn't basic anymore, it is nonsensical. When everything is green, drop the word.
Good luck on living up to not existing.
I do exist. I just don't adhere to nonsensical concepts.
|
Nomad
Mad Robot
Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
|
There is a word for the relationship in the first sentence. That word is "true". There is a word for the relationship in the second sentence. That word is "false".
I can agree with that, as it does not use "true" and "false" in the nonsensical way it is normally used. (That is: "There is a word for the first sentence. That word is 'true'. There is a word for the second sentence. That word is 'false'.") You put truth into the relationship, not into the statement. Then, "truth exists" is not true or false as it is not green or blue, since it is a statement, not a relationship.
Now, it seems to me that 'true relationship' and 'false relationship' can be reduced to 'relationship' and 'no relationship' - that is, it is not necessary to invent new words here. It is just the same as when a bottle is not there. You would not say that the bottle is false (although you could define the word 'false' that way).
One could define a statement as "true" when it contains a relationship, and as "wrong" when it contains none. However, that does not work (in a very interesting way), because there are statements which are neither true nor wrong - "I lie", "This statement is false", "Truth does not exist", "Existance does not exist", "Statements do not exist", and so on.
It is easy to avoid all these problems by killing truth. For to say that a statement is true is merely to make the statement, while to say that a statement is false is just to claim its negation - to say that it is true that the lion eats the antilope is to say that the lion eats the antilope; to say that it is false that the lion eats the antilope is to say that the lion does not eat the antilope.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Killing Truth [Re: Nomad]
#5518114 - 04/15/06 06:23 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The lie starts with the package.
|
|