• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Truth ,What is your Source

Oh, I wasn't saying that establishing consensus or observing mental states does anything to explain why something is beautiful. One can observe the brain activity that correlates with perceiving beauty, observe the symmetry of a face that is seen as beautiful, but that does nothing to explain aesthetics.
I'm sorry, I didn't quite grasp what you meant by this last sentence:
the essential nature of its truth is synthetic-idealistic (difference in identity), as opposed to analytic-objective (identity in difference).
Click to expand...
I don't think you can really say whether a proposition like "X is beautiful" is true or not. Propositions like "X is beautiful to most people" can be true, as beauty is a secondary property, which an object only possesses in relation to its observer. Without a subject, propositions about the beauty of objects become meaningless".
 
Last edited:
Jamshyd said:
The word "Not" and its derivatives.
Click to expand...

quite.

to yerg: i edit-added a clarification of what i intend with that sentence. does it do the job?

i don't think you can really say whether a proposition like "X is beautiful" is true or not. Propositions like "X is beautiful to most people" can be true, as beauty is a secondary property, which an object only possesses in relation to its observer. Without a subject, propositions about the beauty of objects become meaningless".
Click to expand...

my point being that there isn't any proposition at all without a subject. the subject is as essential as the object in making any proposition at all. even a tautology is incorrect without an implicit subject. my point is: as much as an object (as pure object) has an analytic-objective (correspondence/syntactic) truth in a proposition as you intend above, so does the subject (as pure subject) have a synthetic-idealistic (coherentist/semantic) truth. every object of a proposition has part in an ideal they implicitly refer to. which is about the idea(l) truth of the concepts employed. for example: "a tree has branches". a particular tree out there may not have branches at all. yet this does not make the proposition untrue.
 
Last edited:
azzazza !? said:
i can't see your point in your example of utility?
Click to expand...
The utility I had in mind was simply as an explanation of the scientific method - How does one evaluate a theory? How does one evaluate scientific evidence? What is the relationship between science and objective truth? Are there scientific proofs?

I was having a discussion along these lines this afternoon. I was trying to explain why, for me, scientific enquiry is the only method that can provide us with meaningful predictions, explanations and (a certain kind of) knowledge about the physical world.

As it happens, the topic we were discussing was whether scientific predictions of man made climate change could be trusted. My answer was along the lines of 'is there an alternative intellectual framework for predicting real world phenomena?'. In order to further explain my position - essentially science is the only show in town - I appealed to Popperian epistemology (with a side helping of Kuhn).
 
one doesn't exactly pick the study of philosophy for reasons of utility. a philosopher has a love of knowledge itself, it is not viewed as an means to an end. a technè. it itself is the end. you wouldn't believe the times i heard "philosophy? what a pile of useless whining. you should do something real with your life." when i told people i was going into philosophy.
 
azzazza !? said:
one doesn't exactly pick the study of philosophy for reasons of utility. a philosopher has a love of knowledge itself, it is not viewed as an means to an end. a technè. it itself is the end. you wouldn't believe the times i heard "philosophy? what a pile of useless whining. you should do something real with your life." when i told people i was going into philosophy.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course.

There's nothing wrong with studying knowledge for it's own sake. Just the same as there's nothing wrong for appreciating objects for their aesthetic appeal.

I'd still choose the spanner over the juicer. ;)
 
When Pilate asked Jesus, "What is Truth?" (John 18:38) Jesus didn't answer. Probably because Jesus (the Logos/Logic, John 1:1) previously said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) I.e, no one comes to God except through Logic.
 
^That doesn't make sense, if there is no ultimate truth then the propostiion "The only truth is that there is no ultimate truth" cannot be an ultimate truth.
 
I'm not a logical positivist at all. I was just pointing out a blatantly self-contradictory statement. One cannot claim that "there is no truth" is a truth.
 
All matter and form is in a constant state of change.....

nothing is ultimately true in this sense, however, this process of change is unavoidable.

It's a paradox...

some times one must consider the entire coin rather than it's two opposing sides.

take a theoretical step back and you should see my point.
 
Is it ultimately true that the proposition "all matter and form is in a constant state of change" then? If so, your claim that "nothing is ultimately true" falls apart. It's not an unavoidable paradox, it's just two contradictory statements. The coin analogy went over my head I'm afraid.
 
^except that one? If no truth evades change, the truth value of the statement "no truth evades change" will also change.
 
^Yeah, I did, because I believe that there is truth. The proposition "there is no truth" is self-contradictory, kind of like the Liar's Paradox-its equivalent to saying "this sentence is not true". The proposition "one cannot claim that 'there is no truth' is a truth" is consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top