GENIUS FORUMS

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Neil,

It's inherent in the definition of "truth".

Define truth, please.

I think he was joking.

skipair, that's all the more reason he should take my comment seriously. Having a functional definition of truth is very important when doing philosophy.

Imagine some other animal, like a pig. Imagine that it has some rudimentary form of consciousness and a mind. It likely sees the world very different to us. Imagine that it has developed some unthinkable concepts and notions, even something like a metaphysics to understand it's life. Isn't it tragic to realize that our "truths" are [likely] only ours, as our world [likely] is, that there are [likely] no "absolute truths"? And what is the purpose of it all? So that we continue to roll in the mud as pigs do, most of us believing that we can actually grasp hold of some "absolute truth".

Dave Toast wrote:

divine focus wrote:I would say consciousness is fundamental to truth.

In what sense do you mean fundamental and how so?

You said there could be no consciousness without truth. That may be true in a sense, but the other way around would be more accurate. Truth can be debated, consciousness is. Maybe they're one and the same, consciousness and the truth of consciousness.

What average is saying is that the abstract representations we have of things aren't those things. The chair you're sitting in isn't a concept, but the concept is useful.

Everything is a concept. This is the only thingness there is. Without the conception of the thing, the thing does not exist and therefore has no thingness.

The thing is part of everything, sure, and everything is not a "thing"; but it still exists in itself. It still is, in its own way, as part of everything.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Imagine some other animal, like a pig. Imagine that it has some rudimentary form of consciousness and a mind. It likely sees the world very different to us. Imagine that it has developed some unthinkable concepts and notions, even something like a metaphysics to understand it's life.

Consciousness necessarily distinguishes, otherwise it wouldn't be conscious. Truth is a function of the relationships between these objects distinguished by consciousness (things).

Just as a baby doesn't recognise that it is working with truth when it exploits the relationship between crying and getting what it wants, and yet is undoubtably doing just that; so too a piglet doesn't know that it's working with truth when it exploits the relationship between its relative size in comparison to its peers and securing a greater share of the available resources, and yet is undeniably doing so.

It's very much like the way that you don't realise that you are working with truth when exploiting the relationship between language and communicating ideas with others, yet you are irrefutably doing so.

I asked for a definition, and you give me an example! Have you simply never defined truth? If such were the case, it may explain your fear of the word, and consequently (as Yoda might say) all this misplaced anger, hatred, and suffering.

Neil, you are thinking poorly. An analogy, no matter how colourful or elaborate, proves nothing. Instead of using a hog to prove that truth is false, you may as well have taken one or another passage from Genesis to prove evolution false.

divine focus wrote:You said there could be no consciousness without truth. That may be true in a sense, but the other way around would be more accurate. Truth can be debated, consciousness is. Maybe they're one and the same, consciousness and the truth of consciousness.

It's not a question of whether 'truth can be debated' or whether 'consciousness is', whatever that means. It is a question of which is fundamental to the other. Consciousness distinguishes and draws relationships between the things it distinguishes which can be either true or not true. This is the fundamental nature of consciousness and consciousness could not be what it is without this being the case as there would be nothing to be conscious of.

However, truth is just another thing. Like any thing, consciousness is therefore obviously primary to it. This is why I asked you in what sense you meant fundamental, which you didn't answer. Fundamental can mean 'primary to', or 'serving as an original or generating source', as Websters puts it. But this is not the sense in which I meant fundamental. The sense in which I meant it was, again as Websters puts it, 'of or relating to the essential structure or function'.

Whilst consciousness is without doubt primary to truth, this only illustrates a mere triviality about the relationship between consciousness and truth. Whereas realising that truth is essential to the nature of consciousness shows us all we need to know about the relationship between consciousness and truth. Both observations are accurate but one is far more edifying when it comes to considering what truth is, which was the original thrust of this thread.

DF: What average is saying is that the abstract representations we have of things aren't those things. The chair you're sitting in isn't a concept, but the concept is useful.

DT: Everything is a concept. This is the only thingness there is. Without the conception of the thing, the thing does not exist and therefore has no thingness.

DF: The thing is part of everything, sure, and everything is not a "thing"; but it still exists in itself. It still is, in its own way, as part of everything.

Nothing exists without being conceived of by consciousness (as you tacitly acknowledge when you say that consciousness is primary to truth). This is the only definition of existence that remains consistent.

Truth is not a thing in itself.

truth refers to things like concepts, statements, stories, etc...and if those things share a certain type of relationship to something else, usually reality, but not necessarily.

we say, is this true? And we refer to a proposition or an idea, or something of the sort. Truth isn't some magical thing that floats around in the vacuum of space or in the fabric of reality.

none of the things that truth refers to are absolute or everlasting, so "truth" is transient by nature of its limited ontology.

stop objectifying truth as if it were a noumenon, some abstract platonic piece of shit that floats around and is worth our worship or something.

end.

average wrote:Truth is not a thing in itself.

Nothing is a thing in itself. Truth is just as much a thing as anything.

truth refers to things like concepts, statements, stories, etc...and if those things share a certain type of relationship to something else, usually reality, but not necessarily.

we say, is this true? And we refer to a proposition or an idea, or something of the sort. Truth isn't some magical thing that floats around in the vacuum of space or in the fabric of reality.

You still don't get it. The fabric of reality is purely of consciousness. Truth is essential to the nature of consciousness - the nature of reality.

none of the things that truth refers to are absolute or everlasting, so "truth" is transient by nature of its limited ontology.

Is that true? As I asked you earlier, which you have declined to answer, is the transient nature of truth you refer to transient in nature? Think about it man. You aren't making sense.

stop objectifying truth as if it were a noumenon, some abstract platonic piece of shit that floats around and is worth our worship or something.

You are projecting.

I'm not objectifying truth at all. In fact you objectify it when you say that it must be beyond consciousness in order to be absolute.

Neither do I worship or love truth. I am simply compelled to recognise it for what it is, and what it is not for what it is not.

end.

Mmm, you wish.

Yet again you are acting like a complete intellectual coward. Either go back and specifically address the points put to you or give up the charade of being reasonable and engaging in earnest debate.

Here's the link for you: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3402&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=0#p54458

If you wish to address any point I have made to anyone else, quote it and address it specifically.

Trevor,

I asked for a definition,

I'm not a dictionary!

Neil, you are thinking poorly. An analogy, no matter how colourful or elaborate, proves nothing. Instead of using a hog to prove that truth is false, you may as well have taken one or another passage from Genesis to prove evolution false.

At some point maybe you will see how small our human "truth" is. Small, yet essential to us.

Neil,

At some point maybe you will see how small our human "truth" is. Small, yet essential to us.

When you put truth in quotation marks, it makes me doubt that we are referring to the same thing. The truth I refer to is is the only essential concept; whether it is small or large is inconsequential (since the biggest lie is less useful than the tiniest truth).

I'm not a dictionary!

I fully understand that. But you should still be able to define truth. Otherwise, we are left in the above mentioned quandary: you put truth into quotation marks, and I'm left wondering what you could possibly be referring to. When I write a true/false test, or write a program in Boolean algebra, or when I study mathematics, or when I test a scientific hypothesis, or when I try to defend a moral claim, or when I solve IQ test riddles, or when I read a book, or when I read a religious text, or when I learn a new language, or when I perceive the world, or when I practise philosophy through discourse, or when I deal with logic whatsoever in whatever form it is presented to me, I am forced to make judgements as to the difference between truth and falsehood. Understanding truth is the pinnacle of human achievement, and trying to demean it by calling it "only human" is ridiculous, since by being human yourself, you are restricted by the very thing you try to demean. There is nothing you could ever possibly conceive of that is more all-encompassing than truth, so even making claims about the limitations of this truth is ridiculous. It is impossible for a human being to see beyond the boundaries of truth, since it defines the outermost reaches of thought. There being nothing beyond these boundaries that is conceivable to any human's reason, this truth is best considered completely unbounded. Truth is Infinite.

I don't think you are talking about that.

I would like you to define the truth that you put into quotation marks, since it seems completely different than the truth that I use to do everything I do.

Dave Toast,

It's very much like the way that you don't realise that you are working with truth when exploiting the relationship between language and communicating ideas with others, yet you are irrefutably doing so.

Oh yes, our truth is very important to us. It is required to communicate with each other and for our reasoning. However I am stating that it is likely that truth is simply ours and that it exists only because it has evolutionary advantages.

The whole problem is the apparent contradiction in denying absolute truth. I just want to deny the absolute importance of truth.

Dave Toast wrote:I'm not objectifying truth at all. In fact you objectify it when you say that it must be beyond consciousness in order to be absolute.

Neither do I worship or love truth. I am simply compelled to recognise it for what it is, and what it is not for what it is not.

Perhaps not you, but others on this forum are guilty of the charge.

Trevor,

When you put truth in quotation marks, it makes me doubt that we are referring to the same thing. The truth I refer to is is the only essential concept; whether it is small or large is inconsequential (since the biggest lie is less useful than the tiniest truth).

If truth is the only essential thing then it is an end to you. Ends have no use, only means. How is truth useful for you? Useful... yes I agree that truth is what is useful, it is utility. ;)

And your claim that the biggest lie is not as useful as the smallest truth is highly dubious.

I will define truth later on when I figure some stuff out.

Neil,

Perhaps not you, but others on this forum are guilty of the charge.

Oh no! Guilty of loving wisdom! Did you just accuse some of us of ... being philosophers?

If truth is the only essential thing then it is an end to you.

Is this true or false?

Ends have no use, only means.

Is this true or false?

truth is what is useful, it is utility.

Is this true or false?

And your claim that the biggest lie is not as useful as the smallest truth is highly dubious.

Is this true or false?

I will define truth later on when I figure some stuff out.

Is this true or false?

Dave Toast - Is that true? As I asked you earlier, which you have declined to answer, is the transient nature of truth you refer to transient in nature? Think about it man. You aren't making sense.

Yes, my statements are true and transient. Stop beating a dead horse, I already explained this.


truth and truths are not absolute, since their constituent parts are transient (i.e statements, ideas, stories, concepts, propositions, etc etc)...stop talking about TRUTH as something independent of the concepts and statements it QUALIFIES.

Thats all. This ended a few posts ago,.

average,

truth and truths are not absolute, since their constituent parts are transient

Is this true or false?

stop talking about TRUTH as something independent of the concepts and statements it QUALIFIES.

Does truth always and necessarily only qualify concepts and statements? How could you verify this without appealing to some absolute truth about reality?

Thats all. This ended a few posts ago,.

Your stubborn insistence that you are correct despite all evidence to the contrary does indeed end the debate. But it does not make you correct. It only makes you an ass that shares in all the worst characteristics of fundamentalist Christians.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: Is this true or false?

look above. same shitty questions over and over.
true and transient.

all statements and ideas will lose meaning and truth value.

Does truth always and necessarily only qualify concepts and statements? How could you verify this without appealing to some absolute truth about reality?

Because even that qualification is transient. Yet true.
Since what it refers to will eventually end and change. Whats so hard to understand?

There is no TRUTH, objective or platonic magical thing floating around. And there is no mission for you to go and discover it, and there is no wisdom you can cling to and dress yourself up with and claim you are a wise sage -- this is fantasy.

there are only statements and ideas, and they are true or false as long as they correspond to some other thing. and this relationship IS TRANSIENT. It will change since both the referer and referent will change.

Your stubborn insistence that you are correct despite all evidence to the contrary does indeed end the debate. But it does not make you correct. It only makes you an ass that shares in all the worst characteristics of fundamentalist Christians.

There is no evidence here, just stupid questioning.

Again there is no Truth, or Truths. Only true and false ideas and statements. Since all ideas and statements are transient so is truth

average,

Since what it refers to will eventually end and change.

No, it will not. Although all things are subject to causality (which is absolutely true), the truth-statements about these things never change.

The statement, "I am sitting in a chair" will always be true. If I try to claim that because of the fact that later I am no longer sitting in a chair, that statement changes in truth-value, I will be speaking a falsehood. The claim "I am sitting in a chair" retains quite a few quiet assumptions about, for instance, the time that the statement is uttered, who the "I" is referring to, etc. etc. It is true that I am sitting in a chair right now, and it will always be true that at this time in history I was sitting in a chair. Although the form of the statement changes, the content of the statement does not.

There is no TRUTH, objective or platonic magical thing floating around.

You are a moron if you think that anyone but yourself is talking about either Plato or magic. Truth is not a difficult concept to understand, and I find it tooth-shatteringly idiotic on your part that you are having such difficulty with this, the simplest of all concepts. I feel like I'm trying to explain why 1 and 1, when added together, equal 2, to someone who refuses to believe in numbers.

The person who invented truth, like the person who invented numbers, is irrelevant. You do not need to bring in the names of a single philosopher, since all philosophers, without exception, are already in agreement as to what truth is.

Since all ideas and statements are transient so is truth

Is this always true?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:average,

Since what it refers to will eventually end and change.

No, it will not. Although all things are subject to causality (which is absolutely true), the truth-statements about these things never change.

The statement, "I am sitting in a chair" will always be true. If I try to claim that because of the fact that later I am no longer sitting in a chair, that statement changes in truth-value, I will be speaking a falsehood. The claim "I am sitting in a chair" retains quite a few quiet assumptions about, for instance, the time that the statement is uttered, who the "I" is referring to, etc. etc. It is true that I am sitting in a chair right now, and it will always be true that at this time in history I was sitting in a chair. Although the form of the statement changes, the content of the statement does not.

There is no TRUTH, objective or platonic magical thing floating around.

You are a moron if you think that anyone but yourself is talking about either Plato or magic. Truth is not a difficult concept to understand, and I find it tooth-shatteringly idiotic on your part that you are having such difficulty with this, the simplest of all concepts. I feel like I'm trying to explain why 1 and 1, when added together, equal 2, to someone who refuses to believe in numbers.

The person who invented truth, like the person who invented numbers, is irrelevant. You do not need to bring in the names of a single philosopher, since all philosophers, without exception, are already in agreement as to what truth is.

Since all ideas and statements are transient so is truth

Is this always true?

Will that statement be true forever absolutely? No.

Nothing lasts forever. Is this true? Yes its a true statement, will it be true forever? Fuck no, it won't exist that long. Get this in your tiny pathological schizophrenic skull.

The statement is true now. THATS IT. It won't be false in the future, it will eventually be neither true nor false because it won't exist long enough to have any sort of truth value. Sorry, nothing is forever, specially concepts and ideas. Stop trying to grab the imaginary TIT of TRUTH. IT doesn't exist.


Go do something productive with your time now thinking is definitely not your forte...which is common on this forum

;D

Will that statement be true forever absolutely? No.

False. The content of that statement will always be true, unless the content of the statement is always false.

Nothing lasts forever. Is this true? Yes its a true statement, will it be true forever?

Nothing does not exist, by definition. It cannot last in the first place. Your statement is never true.

Get this in your tiny pathological schizophrenic skull.

This is not funny, and it goes far beyond the realms of civilized debate. Moderators take note: the next motherfucking asshole who feels the need to mention my mental illness in any demeaning way has proven himself to be slime. I humbly request that such insensitivity to all the political affairs of the world (for what is mental illness but a heavily politicized attempt to pretend that policing thought is justified?) be considered trolling, and worthy of ban.

As well, since I have been hospitalized for six months due to my illness, I feel genuinely threatened by such apathy when it occurs in real life. There is no exception when it occurs on a forum.

Sorry, nothing is forever, specially concepts and ideas.

Your apology means nothing to me, since you are going to continue to repeat this idiocy ad nauseum in the future, and will continue to prove nothing in the process (since, of course, you have claimed that truth holds no claims on reality by your nonsense).

Go do something productive with your time now,.

1) Fuck you.
2) Learn to tell true from false.

And, before anyone claims that I over-reacted: schizophrenics are the new niggers. Being called, for instance, lazy and unproductive by the exact same people who refuse to hire you because of something that should not even be considered a genuine classification is raw malice. I will not mince words: when someone uses mental illness in the sense that average used it, they are being bigots. I don't even classify it as "ad hominem", since although this irrelevant fact is being used to disprove an unrelated argument, it is not directed at the person, but rather at an unfortunate condition of society that has removed the person's personhood -- and which allows the non-person to be imprisoned at the leisure of anyone. As such, there is no "hominem".

There is no word in the philosophic lexicon to describe such an argument, since it is not a fallacy. Nor is it an insult, since insults never result in the imprisonment of the person slandered.

If someone can think of a more accurate word than "bigotry", I will be very thankful.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:the next motherfucking asshole who feels the need to mention my mental illness in any demeaning way has proven himself to be slime. I humbly request that such insensitivity to all the political affairs of the world (for what is mental illness but a heavily politicized attempt to pretend that policing thought is justified?) be considered trolling, and worthy of ban.

As well, since I have been hospitalized for six months due to my illness, I feel genuinely threatened by such apathy when it occurs in real life.

gold

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:when someone uses mental illness in the sense that average used it, they are being bigots.

as if it's used in any other way.

If someone can think of a more accurate word than "bigotry", I will be very thankful.

malice is a good choice, or dehumanization, objectification, sadism, schadenfreude. In essense, the darkest parts of the human heart.

Neil,

DT: It's very much like the way that you don't realise that you are working with truth when exploiting the relationship between language and communicating ideas with others, yet you are irrefutably doing so.

NM: Oh yes, our truth is very important to us. It is required to communicate with each other and for our reasoning. However I am stating that it is likely that truth is simply ours and that it exists only because it has evolutionary advantages.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'simply ours'.

If you mean that truth is not fundamental to all consciousness, then you need to provide some reasoning and deal with my reasoning to the contrary.

If you're saying that truth is relative, you know the arguments against that.

Concerning evolutionary advantage being the reason for the existence of truth, I think you are conflating two issues. An appreciation for the utility and efficacy of truth has certainly been selected, perpetuated and improved during our evolution, it's very useful after all. But this cannot be the reason for the existence of truth. That is a far more fundamental matter.

The whole problem is the apparent contradiction in denying absolute truth. I just want to deny the absolute importance of truth.

The importance one places on truth is wholly a matter of one's values. To deny the absolute importance of truth is not some kind of weaker formulation of denying absolute truth. They're not really related.

DT: I'm not objectifying truth at all. In fact you objectify it when you say that it must be beyond consciousness in order to be absolute.

Neither do I worship or love truth. I am simply compelled to recognise it for what it is, and what it is not for what it is not.

NM: Perhaps not you, but others on this forum are guilty of the charge.

I don't understand Neil. Since when has being 'guilty' of loving something been a charge?

In any case, the love of truth is a poetic expression. It should not be imbued with all the qualities one might normally associate with love. Nobody really loves truth in that way. Emotional attachment to and intellectual appreciation of things other than family, partners, offspring, and to a lesser extent friends etc. shares many fundamental characteristics with love. But they're not the same thing. Being emotionally attached to things like a football club, the game of rugby, the ideals of anarcho-syndicalism, listening to or playing music, or even truth; is similar to but not the same thing as love.

Further, I didn't say that I don't deeply value truth and have good reason to do so. Sanity demands it. To not do so is to be unreasonable, foolish and, if you take the definition of sanity to its logical conclusion, insane.

average wrote:

Dave Toast - Is that true? As I asked you earlier, which you have declined to answer, is the transient nature of truth you refer to transient in nature? Think about it man. You aren't making sense.

Yes, my statements are true and transient. Stop beating a dead horse, I already explained this.


truth and truths are not absolute, since their constituent parts are transient (i.e statements, ideas, stories, concepts, propositions, etc etc)...stop talking about TRUTH as something independent of the concepts and statements it QUALIFIES.

Thats all. This ended a few posts ago,.

No, it ends here. I won't be banging my head against the brick wall of your conceptual inconsistency, intellectual cowardice and insanity any longer.