The necessary truth of any truth

@kennethamy,

inside yours... Laughing

0 Replies

consistancy

no matter the angle

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

guigus wrote:
Is "bats have wings" and instance of the principle of identity? How is that?

No, but it is an example of a contingent truth. You know, the sorts of truth people think you're claiming do not exist.

guigus wrote:
What I mean is "necessarily, all truths are true" or "all truths are necessarily true," which are the same to me, and not "all truths are necessary," which would be a form of determinism.

This is the problem. You're not understanding why "necessarily, all truths are true" and "all truths are necessarily true" are not identical. They are not identical because the different positions of the modal operator, "necessary", change the meaning of the sentence.

The first sentence, "necessarily, all truths are true" is tautologous, and Swartz calls the necessity in this first sentence "relative" necessity, and what he means by this is that the necessary condition in that sentence is, the truth is true. Given that condition, the truth is true! And that's all that sentence means. The second sentence, "all truths are necessarily true", however, means, as you say, "all truths are necessary". It means that contingent truths do not exist, and that every truth is a necessary truth. And this is false.

The problem seems to be not that you believe that all truths are necessary, but that you cannot understand the difference between these two sentences. I have no clue how the discussion got this out of control, especially if this is the only issue. There's no need to talk about possible fathers, actual fathers, fat fathers, thin fathers, or sex with fathers.

Being a little more brief: although there is indeed a difference between "necessarily, A is B" and "A is necessarily B," there is no difference at all between "necessarily, A is A" and "A is necessarily A." The latter two sentences differ in syntax alone, while the first two sentences differ also in semantics. The reason is that "A is necessarily A," as I already pointed out, is the logical foundation of "necessarily, A is A." And "every truth must be true" is an instance of "A is A."

although there is indeed a difference between "necessarily, A is B" and "A is necessarily B,"

Hallaluja! There is a God! But there also is a Devil, for he takes it all back in the next few sentences. "Neither "every truth is true" nor "every truth must be true" are instances of A is A. Necessarily, If p is true, then p is true" and " if p is true, then p is necessarily true" are instances of A is A. Of course, it they were, then they would be equivalent sentences since "things equal to the same thing are equal to each other" and that would contradict your God-given admission. And that is why I said you took it all back in the next few sentences.

I always knew you were a believer. Unfortunately, I cannot say hallelujah, since, besides my not believing in any god, you still misunderstand identity. Is the sentence "a truth is a truth" an instance of the identity principle to you? If it is, then the sentence "a truth is true" must also be, since to be a truth is to be true. And could you admit that "A is not A"? If not, then the principle of identity also reads as "A must be A," as thus "a truth is true" also reads as "a truth must be true." Finally, since "a truth" means "every truth," we have "every truth must be true" as an instance of "A is A." This is very simple, and has nothing to do with "A is B," which is what I have been trying to make you see for a long time now.

Let me give you another example, which I hope will make things easier to you. Take the mathematical expression, "1 = 1," which is a mathematical instance of the principle of identity. Could it be true that "1 = 2"? I believe not. So in mathematics, 1 must be identical to 1. Could 1 be identical to 2 instead? In fact, it could, but it would destroy mathematics. Let me show how 1 must be identical to 2. Take the expression "0 / 0 = 1." Is it true? Sure it is, since 1 multiplied by zero equals zero. And "0 / 0 = 2"? True as well, since 2 * 0 = 0. The division of zero by zero makes any quotient equals any other one, which is why it was banished from mathematics. The reason for this banishment is that it is not enough that "A is A," as if it could be something else: A must be A. Then, just replace "A" for a truth, and you have that "every truth must be true," as I have already explained.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Necessarily, If p is true, then p is true" and " if p is true, then p is necessarily true" are instances of A is A. Of course, it they were, then they would be equivalent sentences since "things equal to the same thing are equal to each other" and that would contradict your God-given admission.

The statements "necessarily, if p is true, then p is true" and " if p is true, then p is necessarily true" have different meanings, just as much as "p is true" and "p is necessarily true" have different meanings. You are mistakenly assuming the expression "must be true" in the statement "every truth must be true" as referring to whatever is true (p), rather than to its truth: it is not "every p that is true must be true," but rather "every truth must be true." The correct statement would be, "if p is true, then 'p is true' is necessarily true," rather than "if p is true, then p is necessarily true": the truth of something is never identical to that something, so although anything that is true is not necessarily true, its truth is.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Of course, it they [the statements "necessarily, if p is true, then p is true" and " if p is true, then p is necessarily true"] were [both instances of "A is A"], then they would be equivalent sentences [...].

Although sometime ago you accused me of reifying the meaning of a "possible father," now it is you to reify the meaning of a "truth," by mistaking it as referring to anything that is true, rather than to the circumstance of its being true: the meaning of the statement "every truth must be true" is not that everything that is true must be true - a reification of all truth - but rather that every circumstance of anything being true must be true.

2 Replies

@guigus,

I "gaze and amaze" with your infinite supply of patience...you nail it in that last post ! Well done ! Wink

0 Replies

The principle of identity as originally formulated by Aristotle states that everything exists in its own way, which is its identity. However, if we take the word "existence" to mean precisely the way by which anything exists, which is the same as its "being," then we have that anything must be the same as the way of its being, hence that anything must be identical to itself. And since the principle of identity refers to anything, which includes falsehoods, what is the necessary identity between a falsehood and itself? What means the statement "a falsehood must be precisely that falsehood"? First of all, we have an ambiguity here, since a falsehood can be taken as meaning:

1. Something false.

2. The circumstance of something being false.

If a falsehood is taken as meaning something false, then that something becomes the same as its own falsity, so:

1. If we take what is false as a being, then being false becomes the same as just being, so everything becomes false, including the falsity of everything.

2. If we take what is false as a nonbeing, then being false becomes nothing, being destroyed altogether.

To escape such unsolvable contradictions, we must rather choose the meaning according to which a falsehood is the circumstance of something being false. A circumstance that must be true since, if it were false, then it would be the circumstance of whatever is false being true rather than false: the circumstance of something being false is true as the falsity of that something, independently of the truth or falsity to which it applies -- it is a truth rather than a falsehood. Hence, the only way for us to affirm the principle of identity regarding falsehoods -- without running into unsolvable contradictions -- is by taking any falsehood as meaning rather a truth -- the true falsity of the truth it falsifies -- by which that principle becomes "every truth must be identical to itself." However, to be faithful to the original meaning of such an identity, which is that anything exists in its own way, we should rather say that "every truth must be true," since the way of a truth to exist is to be true.

0 Replies

@guigus,

Nothing wrong with your understanding of philosophy. Good show!

1 Reply

@guigus,

Truth is the state of being true.
Two or more things are said to be true when by some means of measure no difference is found between the measures.
Truth is not a thing, it is the results of a comparison. One cannot predicate of the predicator. Try this both true and = means the same, sub them in your argument and see if it still makes sense to you.

One of the topics on predication in Parmenides.

Plug and play synonyms,
true, is, same, not different, equal, etc.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

NoOne phil wrote:

Truth is the state of being true.

Oh, now truth is a "state"? And what kind of state would it be? A physical state? It amazes me how people try to define truth without having a clue of what it is, as if it were that easy to define. It is not. If you read my post with enough attention (which you didn't), you will see that it contains no definition of truth whatsoever: it just asserts that the way of being of a truth is to be true. Do you disagree?

NoOne phil wrote:

Two or more things are said to be true when by some means of measure no difference is found between the measures.

And what about the measures? Are they true? And how do you know you are truly measuring things? Or measuring things that even truly exist? Truth does not depend on measures or comparison: it is the other way around.

NoOne phil wrote:

Truth is not a thing, it is the results of a comparison.

I never said truth was a thing. But neither is it "the results of a comparison." Stop trying to define truth at a point you have no means to do so.

NoOne phil wrote:

One cannot predicate of the predicator. Try this both true and = means the same, sub them in your argument and see if it still makes sense to you.

One of the topics on predication in Parmenides.

Plug and play synonyms,
true, is, same, not different, equal, etc.

Sorry, but you'll have to write that one better, it is not making any sense.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Nothing wrong with your understanding of philosophy. Good show!

Tell me: what is the difference between philosophy and the understanding of it?

0 Replies

@guigus,

Seems you have not done any homework. A first principle, an element, as I said, cannot be defined. A definition is the social convention which equates the name of a thing with the names of that things forms and the various material differences in those forms.

I.e. A thing equals its form and the material in that form. I.e. A thing equals its two Elements. The Two Element Metaphysics. Since niether form nor material difference are things, they cannot be defined. Or again, one cannot predicate of a first principle.

Search archive.org johnclark8659 free audiobooks Works of Plato.

True means no difference. Try a dictionary. It is one of the two elements. You can only say like Euclid did, is that the one is not the other. Binary

The point (form, boundary, etc.)is that which has no part. (material difference.)

And if you wish to see original work in Geometry, My work is online also. If you can not understand simple things, you will be a long time getting through that stuff.

Search the Net, I am the only one who can demonstrate how to multiply a line by a line, or divide a line by a line in geometry. Or to solve the Delian Problem. See. Delian Quest.

1 Reply

is that it always is

hydrogen is always hydrogen , is hydrogen , is hydrogen

now can anybody tell me this is false ?

2 Replies

@north,

Since true means no difference, and is also means no difference, cannot you see that you are chasing your own tail?
I suggest you might research language theory, you will find at least a dozen or so theories, but the only right one will be woven into the Platonic dialogs.

2 Replies

@NoOne phil,

NoOne phil wrote:

Since true means no difference, and is also means no difference, cannot you see that you are chasing your own tail?
I suggest you might research language theory, you will find at least a dozen or so theories, but the only right one will be woven into the Platonic dialogs.

perhaps I look to the physical , the eviroment in which we live and what our make is

that is the , the most fundamental , basic to truth , before thought

and that is what we not tend to discuss when we talk about truth

when it comes to truth , it is always about " thinking upon truth "

for me truth is not about thinking so much as the awarness that truth is all round us

a tree is a tree , not a rock , a bird , a wolf , water , grass , they are all truth because they are what they are because they could be nothing else , thats the key to truth

the relisation that truth is not necessarily about language but about observing Nature and the Nature of things

2 Replies

@north,

You confuse perception with conception.

A thing, in of itself, can never be true--nor false. True is the lack of difference between two things.

You have regressed into mysticism, such as exampled in the question,

What is the sound of one hand clapping?
A mystic can never answer that question, a rational man would say that the question violates the definition of clapping itself, and is thus non-sense.

A primer in first principles of grammar can be found in Language and Experience, on the internet archive. Downloads there are free. search johnclark8659

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

NoOne phil wrote:

Seems you have not done any homework. A first principle, an element, as I said, cannot be defined. A definition is the social convention which equates the name of a thing with the names of that things forms and the various material differences in those forms.

I.e. A thing equals its form and the material in that form. I.e. A thing equals its two Elements. The Two Element Metaphysics. Since niether form nor material difference are things, they cannot be defined. Or again, one cannot predicate of a first principle.

Search archive.org johnclark8659 free audiobooks Works of Plato.

True means no difference. Try a dictionary. It is one of the two elements. You can only say like Euclid did, is that the one is not the other. Binary

The point (form, boundary, etc.)is that which has no part. (material difference.)

And if you wish to see original work in Geometry, My work is online also. If you can not understand simple things, you will be a long time getting through that stuff.

Search the Net, I am the only one who can demonstrate how to multiply a line by a line, or divide a line by a line in geometry. Or to solve the Delian Problem. See. Delian Quest.

Sorry, but all this is far too confuse and truncated to me. You must make at least one clear statement of what you are trying to say, otherwise I will be unable to answer you.

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

is that it always is

hydrogen is always hydrogen , is hydrogen , is hydrogen

now can anybody tell me this is false ?

Hydrogen is deuterium, as it is also tritium, and since tritium is not deuterium, it is false that hydrogen is hydrogen.

0 Replies

@NoOne phil,

NoOne phil wrote:

Since true means no difference, and is also means no difference, cannot you see that you are chasing your own tail?
I suggest you might research language theory, you will find at least a dozen or so theories, but the only right one will be woven into the Platonic dialogs.

There it is, truth for you means "no difference." No difference between at least two things, right? And what about these two things? Can't they also be true or false? Then what is the possible difference?

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

NoOne phil wrote:

Since true means no difference, and is also means no difference, cannot you see that you are chasing your own tail?
I suggest you might research language theory, you will find at least a dozen or so theories, but the only right one will be woven into the Platonic dialogs.

perhaps I look to the physical , the eviroment in which we live and what our make is

that is the , the most fundamental , basic to truth , before thought

and that is what we not tend to discuss when we talk about truth

when it comes to truth , it is always about " thinking upon truth "

for me truth is not about thinking so much as the awarness that truth is all round us

a tree is a tree , not a rock , a bird , a wolf , water , grass , they are all truth because they are what they are because they could be nothing else , thats the key to truth

the relisation that truth is not necessarily about language but about observing Nature and the Nature of things

I congratulate you for not being stuck in the linguistic reductionism that seems to prevail in this forum. Whatever truth is, it goes beyond language.

0 Replies

The necessary truth of any truth

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know