|
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.
|
|