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

What are some examples of Objective Truth?

what exactly is bizarre about theories that assert the unknowability of the numenal world?
Click to expand...

When I say neoplatonist I meant to clarify that we are talking about contemporary usage of Platonic Forms, or 'Metaphysical realism', which accepts an objective reality as being real and holding some correspondences between certain 'facts' and what we can say about them. Number, time and space, but also the Good (objective moral truths as features of the cosmos, however weird and unique such entities might be,) do have a place at the table of modern epistemology and Ethics.

As for those that reject any correspondence between noumena and phenomena, the adjective bizzare was a poor choice, when my aim was to show that a Platonic cosmos is no less likely as those who choose a supermundane reality that is the source of 'reality' about which nothing can be known - essentially Kant doesn't neccesarily 'best' Plato in ontological, Metaphysical, or even ethical thought, the latter being free to posit a select number of objective truths; oddness and evenness, unidirectional time, and possibly moral objectivity, however 'queer' such a thing might be.

PAX
 
Well, we can assert them without making a knowledge claim. I believe it to be objectively true that triangles have three sides.
Click to expand...

Triangles are a good example of a concept that does not invite subjective language to derive its description. Three abstract zero points in euclidean space 'describe' a triangle, without dismantling the whole edifice of mathematics, one can infer the objective truth of the set labelled 'triangles' leaving little wiggle room for the subjective commentator.
 
"existence is"

even if reading this board were not actually happening, there is some consciousness imagining it

so this imagination exist
there is at least existence
 
^^ vegan is spot on in that the 'Cogito' of Descartes is where debates of this type crop up, the only truth being the existence of some conscious reality, that are personal (when strung together conscious moments can build a perception of 'individuality', and therefore subjective.

'Cogito Ergo Sum' is one of the simplest and Justified truths.
 
There seems to be a sentiment in this thread that that wouldn't count as objective truth as it isn't mind-independent.
 
I think Descartes meditation goes on to explore what might be the source of his reductive claim, positing either a manevolent trickster (a supercomputer in modern parlance), or from God (the natural world), but definitely 'other' than him giving him reason to believe in an objective nature underpinning his sense data.
 
Pythagoras said:
When I say neoplatonist I meant to clarify that we are talking about contemporary usage of Platonic Forms, or 'Metaphysical realism', which accepts an objective reality as being real and holding some correspondences between certain 'facts' and what we can say about them. Number, time and space, but also the Good (objective moral truths as features of the cosmos, however weird and unique such entities might be,) do have a place at the table of modern epistemology and Ethics.

As for those that reject any correspondence between noumena and phenomena, the adjective bizzare was a poor choice, when my aim was to show that a Platonic cosmos is no less likely as those who choose a supermundane reality that is the source of 'reality' about which nothing can be known - essentially Kant doesn't neccesarily 'best' Plato in ontological, Metaphysical, or even ethical thought, the latter being free to posit a select number of objective truths; oddness and evenness, unidirectional time, and possibly moral objectivity, however 'queer' such a thing might be.

PAX
Click to expand...

you're saying that Plato is ontologically, metaphysically, and ethically stronger than Kant as a result of the consequences of his theory, this seems rather backward. i don't think it matters what plato is free to posit under the theory of forms if the theory of forms isn't justified.

i don't see what evidence or argumentation you can provide for the existence of forms. enlighten me?
 
^^Your summary of my position is somewhat misleading.

I was stating that modern Platonists, and Platonic thought could in some regards be seen as equal to anything of Kant's (philosophy tends to lack diachronic uniliniarity of thought, which is why we have modern-day Platonists and modern-day Kantians...its been a long thread and I was merely trying to answer the OPs question, then later indulged yours. It is not through idolatory than Whitehead charecterised the whole of European Philosophy in his time as '...a footnote to Plato'. I think I stated that one's Platonism is generally regarded as a toolbox for certain parts of philosophy (and needn't be accepted wholesale). One can garner the Justifications posited for Plato's arguments from any good anthology.

I find SEP a useful starting point, though metamathematics or Metaphysical realism will lead you to the ongoing debate that contemporary philosophers' are engaged in with regard to Plato's original arguments and later refinements. Become an autodidact for the day. I am sure your capacity for learning far outstrips mine for teaching.

Good luck, and let me know how it goes.

MENS AGITAT MOLEM

errata - my previous post should have read (end of line 2), 'Number, outside of space and time [...]'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top