0
   

The necessary truth of any truth

 
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 04:37 am
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:

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


The only possible lack of difference between two things is one, same thing, so you are back to the question: what is the truth of such a thing? Difference alone will get you nowhere.
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 05:40 am
@guigus,
Sorry, it is not possible for me to understand that nothing (lack of difference) is a thing. See both Plato and Aristotle on people who confuse "is" with "is not".
Plato--asleep.
Aristotles- a vegetable.
Scripture--dead.
Science--dysfunctional.
etc.,
The binary foundation of language, as has been pointed out since before Aristotle, you only have two choices, no difference and difference, true and false. Is and is not. Absolute and relative.

And since they are first principles, they cannot be predicated of, they are, in ancient terms of the Two-Element Metaphysics, Elements. As, as Euclide pointed out in the first definition in The Elements, all one can do is say that the one is not the other.

Consequently, the title of this post is gibberish. I was being nice.
Unlike the intellectuals of today, it was realized that there are three, and only three primitive categories of names, only one of which can be defined--names of things, the other two, the elements had to be abstracted, i.e. one has to participlate in the naming convention to understand the name and the associate abstraction (or Aristotle, induction.) If you are unable, due to lack of environment, or of intellect, to make the abstraction, you could never manipulate the word in accordance with the principles of grammar--unless you did so by rote.
Any one of intelligence should have figured this out since perception determines conception, conception determines will. In plain terms, we learn by experience, in mysticism the Father (perception), the Son (conception) and the Holy Spirit (will) are One.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 04:53 pm
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:
Sorry, it is not possible for me to understand that nothing (lack of difference) is a thing.


This is just because it is not. The fact that there is no difference between a thing and itself does not mean that there is nothing else (besides that nonexistent difference), including that same thing. On the contrary, for there to be no difference between anything and itself there must be whatever is identical to itself, despite there being no difference: difference is not the only thing that possibly exists.

NoOne phil wrote:
See both Plato and Aristotle on people who confuse "is" with "is not".


Plato and Aristotle have nothing to do with this: the confusion is all yours.

NoOne phil wrote:
Plato--asleep.
Aristotles- a vegetable.
Scripture--dead.
Science--dysfunctional.
etc.,


I have no idea what that means.

NoOne phil wrote:
The binary foundation of language, as has been pointed out since before Aristotle, you only have two choices, no difference and difference, true and false. Is and is not. Absolute and relative.

And since they are first principles, they cannot be predicated of, they are, in ancient terms of the Two-Element Metaphysics, Elements. As, as Euclide pointed out in the first definition in The Elements, all one can do is say that the one is not the other.

Consequently, the title of this post is gibberish. I was being nice.


You have no idea how I am being nice to you.

NoOne phil wrote:
Unlike the intellectuals of today, it was realized that there are three, and only three primitive categories of names, only one of which can be defined--names of things, the other two, the elements had to be abstracted, i.e. one has to participlate in the naming convention to understand the name and the associate abstraction (or Aristotle, induction.) If you are unable, due to lack of environment, or of intellect, to make the abstraction, you could never manipulate the word in accordance with the principles of grammar--unless you did so by rote.
Any one of intelligence should have figured this out since perception determines conception, conception determines will. In plain terms, we learn by experience, in mysticism the Father (perception), the Son (conception) and the Holy Spirit (will) are One.


Hallelujah! Sorry, but it has become impossible to take you seriously.
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 04:58 pm
@guigus,
Does it surprise you that you have no idea? Apparently, you don't even know the foundation of metaphor.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 05:00 pm
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:

Does it surprise you that you have no idea? Apparently, you don't even know the foundation of metaphor.


Apparently. Or perhaps you are a damn bad writer. Or perhaps you have no idea what you are saying. Only speculating.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 05:23 pm
@NoOne phil,
Truth cannot be the absence of difference between two things, because that would make truth either:

1. Nothing, since an absence is nothing (as you noticed yourself).
2. Identity, since the absence of difference means identity (as I brought to your attention).

However, truth is neither nonexistent, since it exists, nor is it identity, which would make all difference a false appearance, hence me and you truly the same person (how do you like that?).
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 06:07 pm
@guigus,
http://www.archive.org/details/Language_and_Experience

The two-element metaphysics that Plato and a few others were working with, a vestege survived as Set Theory. You would have to learn the foundation of grammar from scratch. Try this intro. Otherwise spend a great deal of time with Plato. And the exact sciences, specifically, Euclidean Geometry.

http://www.archive.org/details/Language_and_Experience

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=johnclark8659&sort=-publicdate

You should have known, that someone would finally figure out the foundation of language. After all, it is not that difficult.

However, if you find it too difficult, don't let it worry you. Going from understanding language by rote to craft is a big step.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 04:12 am
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:

http://www.archive.org/details/Language_and_Experience

The two-element metaphysics that Plato and a few others were working with, a vestege survived as Set Theory. You would have to learn the foundation of grammar from scratch. Try this intro. Otherwise spend a great deal of time with Plato. And the exact sciences, specifically, Euclidean Geometry.

http://www.archive.org/details/Language_and_Experience

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=johnclark8659&sort=-publicdate

You should have known, that someone would finally figure out the foundation of language. After all, it is not that difficult.

However, if you find it too difficult, don't let it worry you. Going from understanding language by rote to craft is a big step.


Sorry, but if it is not that difficult, then why don't you explain it yourself? Perhaps your understanding of the foundation of language is not enough so you can effectively use language yourself? Is it possible that someone who figured out the foundation of language and the definition of truth can only copy and paste links? You should begin by answering the objection in my previous post, since this is a forum for discussion, don't you agree? Perhaps you understood the foundation of language, but became stuck in the foundation, so you are unable to do something more advanced, such as writing to others to explain your ideas, or something even more advanced, which is to respond to their objections...
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 04:41 am
@NoOne phil,
So back to the point: if you define truth as being the absence of difference, then you have that either:

1. Truth is the absence of difference itself, hence an absence, by which you are saying that truth does not exist.

2. Truth is the sameness of anything, by which you are saying that truth can only exist within identity, hence that all difference is false.

These are the two possible consequences of your definition: either truth does not exist, for being an absence, or it only exists as identity, hence difference does not exist. Can you see a way out of this conundrum without abandoning your definition of truth? Now is the time for you to demonstrate your understanding of the foundations of language: truth time.
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 03:39 pm
@guigus,
I thought I said an element could not be defined. Reread my post.
Do you know what the difference is between a definition and a description?
One of them preserves a social convention, the other aids in its participation. Plato. The elements cannot be defined, all you can do is name them, for a name is all they have. They must be abstracted, i.e. one must participate in the naming convention. Of the three categories of names, names of things, names of a things forms, and the names of a things material difference, only one can be defined, equating the name of a thing to the names of that things various forms and the material differences in those forms, the elements must be learned, as Aristotle pointed out, by induction, or in some Platonic introductions, sensory abstraction.

Descriptions are aids that will lead one to something from which an abstraction can be made. Thus, if one has the abililty, they can then participate in the naming convention. For example, the so called definition of a circle is no such thing, it is a description.

The Elements have been called, First Principles, even axioms--but I have found no writer who understood the Two-Element Metaphysics better than Plato. Save, whatever it was that had the Scripture written. Since the Book is about Judgment, it uses princples of Judgment to test the reader.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 04:24 am
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:

I thought I said an element could not be defined. Reread my post.
Do you know what the difference is between a definition and a description?


I guess you are talking about truth, by saying it is an "element" and has no definition, despite your trying to define it -- by saying that a truth is the difference between two things you are uttering a definition of truth, no matter if mistaken. A definition, as the name implies, establishes a way to say if something is or is not what you defined, it establishes its limits and its identity, which is precisely what you are trying to do by equating truth with the lack of difference. A description would rather consist in enumerating the features of truth, its possible contexts, and so on. Equating truth with the absence of difference is precisely a tentative definition, which is what you are saying truth cannot have, since it is an "element," whatever that means. You are trying to see truth as undefinable, but you cannot give up trying to define it, hence your conflicted attitude of trying to define it while denying you are doing so.

NoOne phil wrote:
One of them preserves a social convention, the other aids in its participation.


Is your existence a social convention?

NoOne phil wrote:
Plato.


Great guy.

NoOne phil wrote:
The elements cannot be defined, all you can do is name them, for a name is all they have.


Could you please define an element? Or a name is all it has?

NoOne phil wrote:
They must be abstracted, i.e. one must participate in the naming convention. Of the three categories of names, names of things, names of a things forms, and the names of a things material difference, only one can be defined, equating the name of a thing to the names of that things various forms and the material differences in those forms, the elements must be learned, as Aristotle pointed out, by induction, or in some Platonic introductions, sensory abstraction.

Descriptions are aids that will lead one to something from which an abstraction can be made. Thus, if one has the abililty, they can then participate in the naming convention. For example, the so called definition of a circle is no such thing, it is a description.

The Elements have been called, First Principles, even axioms--but I have found no writer who understood the Two-Element Metaphysics better than Plato. Save, whatever it was that had the Scripture written. Since the Book is about Judgment, it uses princples of Judgment to test the reader.


I will not comment your post in further detail, since you didn't answer to my objection whatsoever. I politely ask you to do so, otherwise there is no possible discussion, at least in a meaningful way.
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 04:38 am
@guigus,
I have already referred you to
Language and Experience
On the internet Archive. I did not write it and make an audio book out of it to just to keep repeating it one on one.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=johnclark8659&sort=-publicdate
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 04:32 am
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:

I have already referred you to
Language and Experience
On the internet Archive. I did not write it and make an audio book out of it to just to keep repeating it one on one.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=johnclark8659&sort=-publicdate


And I already said you that you didn't answer to my objection to your definition of truth, or whatever you call it. This is a discussion, so if you keep ignoring what I say we are certainly getting nowhere. Again: if you define (or "describe") truth as being the absence of difference, then you have that either:

1. Truth is the absence of difference itself, hence an absence, by which you are saying that truth does not exist.

2. Truth is the sameness of anything, by which you are saying that truth can only exist within identity, hence that all difference is false.

These are the two possible consequences of your definition (or whatever you call it): either truth does not exist, for being an absence, or it only exists as identity, hence difference does not exist. That is the reason you cannot equate truth with identity. Now please, instead of going again through the mantra of repeating your premises -- which I already know -- please answer to my objection above.
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 05:00 am
@guigus,
Try a dictionary. What does True mean?
Then What is the state of being true?
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 05:28 am
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:

Try a dictionary. What does True mean?
Then What is the state of being true?


Try a dictionary for the meaning of "discussion."

What truth means depends on the theory of truth you embrace. So far, the object of our discussion is the meaning of truth to you, remember? To you, truth means the same as identity. My objection a couple of posts above shows why that equation doesn't work, and so far you didn't address it.

And sorry, but I will not engage another discussion about truth being a "state" before you answer to my objection about equating truth with identity. As I already said, if you do not address my objection, we will not be able to call this a discussion: it will be just a boring repetition of the same posts. So please answer to my objection, will you?
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 05:47 am
@guigus,
Obviously you don't know the first thing about language.
Try some Plato. Cratylus.

Personally, I think when someone is trying to comprehend a simple binary situation and cannot grasp it, is too stupid to even try to converse with.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 06:23 am
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:

Obviously you don't know the first thing about language.
Try some Plato. Cratylus.

Personally, I think when someone is trying to comprehend a simple binary situation and cannot grasp it, is too stupid to even try to converse with.


Perhaps I am stupid for still waiting to have a meaningful discussion with you...
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 06:27 am
@guigus,
Yes, you are entirely correct. Because you cannot grasp meaning, I am stupid. I grant you this premise.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Oct, 2010 04:27 am
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:

Yes, you are entirely correct. Because you cannot grasp meaning, I am stupid. I grant you this premise.


It was you to bring stupidity to our discussion, by calling me stupid, remember? And since you also called Aristotle stupid, I think I am in very good company.

Regarding meaning, I would like to have the opportunity to grasp the meaning of your answer to my objection.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 11:04:49