Nick Treklis wrote:What is wrong with the definition of Reality being the culmination of all things that are real or in other words true?
What's wrong with that?.. Well, how about the fact that this statement is either circular or presupposes a certain specific perspective on epistemology and the nature of truth?..
You act as if the last few centuries of philosophy never happened, the years which have given us some of the most brilliant philosophers of all time -- Kant, Hume, Spinoza, Quine, Carnap, etc.
And what kind of answers would this kind of question presuppose?
Inasmuch as it's not a nonsensically circular statement, it presupposes epistemic realism and correspondence theory of truth.
We are all seeking to understand Reality in one way or another. It is what we as humans have been doing since we took our first steps. It's just a matter of fact that some people are better at it than others, and most will never have more than a vague conception of it.
hahaha. You should work as a stand-up philosopher. you are hilarious!
There is no distinction. When you realize what is false you are automatically and simultaneously realizing what is true.
No. You should have studies math better. oh wait, real philosophers don't care about math...
Near the top of the computational complexity hierarchy (don't presume this has anything to do with
computers) are two very interesting compelxity classes: recursively-enumerable and co-recursively-enumerable. They are both
partially decidable. if a proposition is r.e., what that means is that if it's true, it can be demostrated to be true -- but if it's false,
it can never, ever, in principle be demonstrated to be false. Co-r.e. is the same in reverse.
Obviously, since r.e. and co-r.e. truths exist, you cannot assume that to discern falsehood entails discerning truth, and vice-versa.
See? There's some philosophical benefit to all that fancy-schmancy grad school math!
When I realized my belief in Santa Claus was a false belief, I was also at the same time realizing that to not believe in Santa Claus is a true belief.
That's a trivial example having nothing to do with the point. Any r.e. question can be reversed into a co-r.e. question, but that doesn't help you deal with its partial undecidability.
For example, recognizing the idea of
empirical proof as nonsensical, does not automatically entail understanding how we should go about acquiring empirical knowledge instead of seeking 'proofs'. The very quality of being a true idea seems to resemble co-r.e. -- we can discern bullshit, easily enough, discerning truth is a wholly different matter. if you are familiar with falsificationist epistemology, this is basically falsificationism applied to the philosophical inquiry itself.
