0
   

Every truth must be true

 
 
guigus
 
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 07:35 am
If any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth: every truth must be true. However, we must know how to read this right.

As generally agreed, for the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador" to be true Quito must be the capital of Ecuador. By which we must call that statement a truth insofar as Quito is the capital of Ecuador: once Quito ceases to be the capital of Ecuador we must cease calling the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador" a truth. Hence, what we call "truth" is a true statement (or true idea, true memory, and so on): one that expresses a state of affairs - an expression agent - insofar as that expression remains actual. If truth has this meaning, then the statement "every truth must be true" reads as "truthness must be true," so:

1. It becomes true, rather than redundant or false.

2. The necessary truth of any truth becomes the state of affairs that makes a truth actually true while still doing so.

For that necessary truth to be redundant or false, a truth must be taken as meaning, respectively:

1. The expression itself of a state of affairs - rather than its actual agent - hence an absolute, unary truth, by which our statement "every truth must be true" reads as "every expression of a state of affairs must be the expression of a state of affairs."

2. The state of affairs that possibly makes a statement a truth - rather than that statement as actually true - by which our statement "every truth must be true" reads as "no truth is contingent."

Indeed:

1. A true statement and a state of affairs that are indistinguishable as an absolutely true, unary expression become both necessarily true, making no truth possibly false, or then possibly true, and so actually true. Possible truth is inconceivable without possible falsehood and actual truth is inconceivable without possible truth.

2. A state of affairs that makes a statement a truth by being itself already true becomes itself an equivalent statement. Any state of affairs can only make a statement a truth by being itself truth-indeterminate.

Finally, when a truth refers to an expression agent, necessity becomes a relation instead of a property - a relation between a true statement and a state of affairs, in which the former needs the latter - so the statement "every truth must be true" reads as "necessarily (needfully) every truth is true." Which, in the other two senses, becomes two new tautologies:

1. Once a truth is the expression itself of a state of affairs, the statement "necessarily every truth is true" reads as "necessarily every expression of a state of affairs is the expression of a state of affairs."

2. Once a truth is the state of affairs that possibly makes a statement a truth - rather than that statement as actually true - such a state of affairs itself must be a statement so as to be already true, by which our statement "necessarily every truth is true" reads as "necessarily every self-expressing state of affairs is its own expression."

Hence, the statement "every truth must be true" correctly reads as "every true statement must have a state of affairs making that statement a truth."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 12,184 • Replies: 200
No top replies

 
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 10:06 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

If any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth: every truth must be true. However, we must know how to read this right.

As generally agreed, for the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador" to be true Quito must be the capital of Ecuador.




But not at all. What is true is that it must be that if Quito is the capital, then Quito is the capital. But it is false that if Quito is the capital, then Quito must be the capital. For another city in Ecuador might very well be the capital, and even if it is true that Quito is the capital, that does not preclude the possibility that some counterevidence might arise that would show that it is false that Quito is the capital.
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 10:15 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
What is true is that it must be that if Quito is the capital, then Quito is the capital.
Let's assume that we know that Brussel is the capital of Belgium, how then do we explain the fact that Bruxelles is the capital?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 12:44 pm
@ughaibu,
Hi Ughaibu!

We could say that both are the same word expressed by means of different languages.

Kind regards.
mark...
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 12:50 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
We could say that both are the same word expressed by means of different languages.
No, the capital of Ecuador isn't any word.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 12:55 pm
@ughaibu,
Hi Ughaibu!

The capital of equador is Quito, as pronounced and spelt in english.
What do you mean "It isn't any word"?

Kind regards.
mark...
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 12:58 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
What do you mean "It isn't any word"?
The fact that I wrote this post is independent of the fact that it appears under the name ughaibu.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 12:59 pm
@ughaibu,
Hi Again.

You mean - It isn't any ONE word?

Mark...
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 01:12 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
You mean - It isn't any ONE word?
No, I mean what I said, it isn't a word. The word "ughaibu" means 'a state of absence', I am not a state of absence.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 03:06 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
What is true is that it must be that if Quito is the capital, then Quito is the capital.
Let's assume that we know that Brussel is the capital of Belgium, how then do we explain the fact that Bruxelles is the capital?


One of those sweet mysteries of life. We meet up with them so seldom that you should savor this one. Another one is why Bombay is Mumbai, or why Peking is Beijing.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 04:54 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

mark noble wrote:
You mean - It isn't any ONE word?
No, I mean what I said, it isn't a word. The word "ughaibu" means 'a state of absence', I am not a state of absence.


Hi Ughaibu

But here you refer to it as a word (above red). Am I missing something?

Kind regards.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 05:07 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

mark noble wrote:
You mean - It isn't any ONE word?
No, I mean what I said, it isn't a word. The word "ughaibu" means 'a state of absence', I am not a state of absence.


And, it is said, that The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire. But guess what, it was, nevertheless, The Holy Roman Empire. How do you like that!

A paradox,
A most ingenious paradox!
We’ve quips and quibbles heard in flocks,
But none to beat this paradox!

A paradox, a paradox,
A most ingenious paradox.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
This paradox.


W.S. Gilbert from, The Pirates of Penzance
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 05:13 pm
@kennethamy,
Hi Ken!

So is there any point to this thread then? Sri Lanka - Ceylon, mesopotamia - Iraq. Both and neither. I don't think I'd have any problem explaining to someone the difference thereof though. So, once again - What is the point, to prove a paradox, or to create one where there is no need to?

Kind regards.
Mark...
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 10:20 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
What is true is that it must be that if Quito is the capital, then Quito is the capital.
Let's assume that we know that Brussel is the capital of Belgium, how then do we explain the fact that Bruxelles is the capital?
One of those sweet mysteries of life. We meet up with them so seldom that you should savor this one. Another one is why Bombay is Mumbai, or why Peking is Beijing.
And this applies to Quito too, if my friends and I call it "the never-never bunch" then that's what it's called. So, the statement that Quito is the capital of Ecuador means very little, if anything. I suggest that you look for a better example.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 04:39 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
But not at all. What is true is that it must be that if Quito is the capital, then Quito is the capital. But it is false that if Quito is the capital, then Quito must be the capital. For another city in Ecuador might very well be the capital, and even if it is true that Quito is the capital, that does not preclude the possibility that some counterevidence might arise that would show that it is false that Quito is the capital.


What is generally agreed is that Quito being the capital of Ecuador is the very condition for the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador" to be a true statement. My original post does not assert that "Quito must be the capital of Ecuador," although it refers to that mistaken reading, as well as to its roots.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 04:41 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

So is there any point to this thread then? Sri Lanka - Ceylon, mesopotamia - Iraq. Both and neither. I don't think I'd have any problem explaining to someone the difference thereof though. So, once again - What is the point, to prove a paradox, or to create one where there is no need to?

Kind regards.
Mark...


The point of this thread was in its original post.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 06:15 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

So is there any point to this thread then? Sri Lanka - Ceylon, mesopotamia - Iraq. Both and neither. I don't think I'd have any problem explaining to someone the difference thereof though. So, once again - What is the point, to prove a paradox, or to create one where there is no need to?

Kind regards.
Mark...


The point of this thread was in its original post.


Yes I agree. And it was there that you committed the modal fallacy of confusing: (1) necessarily, if a proposition is true, then that proposition is true with, if a proposition is true then that proposition is necessarily true. But, after that fallacy was pointed out, there was no further point to this thread, and the thread continued only because you did not (and for all I know, still do not) recognize the fallacy you committed at the start.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 06:30 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Yes I agree. And it was there that you committed the modal fallacy of confusing: (1) necessarily, if a proposition is true, then that proposition is true with, if a proposition is true then that proposition is necessarily true. But, after that fallacy was pointed out, there was no further point to this thread, and the thread continued only because you did not (and for all I know, still do not) recognize the fallacy you committed at the start.


It seems to me that you did not read my original post. Even so, your post about Quito as the capital of Ecuador gave me the occasion to rewrite my first post in the following manner, to address the timing issue you raised:

If any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth: every truth must be true. However, we must know how to read this right.

As generally agreed, for the statement “water is liquid” to be true water must be liquid. By which we must call that statement a truth inasmuch as water is liquid: as water ceases to be liquid we must inasmuch cease calling the statement “water is liquid” a truth. Hence, what we call “truth” is a true statement (or true idea, true memory, and so on): one that expresses a state of affairs – an expression agentinasmuch as that expression remains actual. If truth has this meaning, then the statement “every truth must be true” reads as “truthness must be true,” so:

1. It becomes true, rather than redundant or false.

2. The necessary truth of any truth becomes the state of affairs that makes a truth actually true while still doing so.

For that necessary truth to be redundant or false, a truth must be taken as meaning, respectively:

1. The expression itself of a state of affairs – rather than its actual agent – hence an absolute, unary truth, by which our statement “every truth must be true” reads as “every expression of a state of affairs must be the expression of a state of affairs.”

2. The state of affairs that possibly makes a statement a truth – rather than that statement as actually true – by which our statement “every truth must be true” reads as “no truth is contingent.”

Indeed:

1. A true statement and a state of affairs that are indistinguishable as an absolutely true, unary expression become both necessarily true, making no truth possibly false, or then possibly true, and so actually true. Possible truth is inconceivable without possible falsehood and actual truth is inconceivable without possible truth.

2. A state of affairs that makes a statement a truth by being itself already true becomes itself an equivalent statement. Any state of affairs can only make a statement a truth by being itself truth-indeterminate.

Finally, when a truth refers to an expression agent, necessity becomes a relation instead of a property – a relation between a true statement and a state of affairs, in which the former needs the latter – so the statement “every truth must be true” reads as “necessarily (needfully) every truth is true.” Which, in the other two senses, becomes two new tautologies:

1. Once a truth is the expression itself of a state of affairs, the statement “necessarily every truth is true” reads as “necessarily every expression of a state of affairs is the expression of a state of affairs.”

2. Once a truth is the state of affairs that possibly makes a statement a truth – rather than that statement as actually true – such a state of affairs itself must be a statement so as to be already true, by which our statement “necessarily every truth is true” reads as “necessarily every self-expressing state of affairs is its own expression.”

Hence, the statement “every truth must be true” correctly reads as “every true statement must have a state of affairs making that statement a truth.”
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 08:41 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Yes I agree. And it was there that you committed the modal fallacy of confusing: (1) necessarily, if a proposition is true, then that proposition is true with, if a proposition is true then that proposition is necessarily true. But, after that fallacy was pointed out, there was no further point to this thread, and the thread continued only because you did not (and for all I know, still do not) recognize the fallacy you committed at the start.


It seems to me that you did not read my original post. Even so, your post about Quito as the capital of Ecuador gave me the occasion to rewrite my first post in the following manner, to address the timing issue you raised:

If any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth: every truth must be true. However, we must know how to read this right.

As generally agreed, for the statement “water is liquid” to be true water must be liquid. By which we must call that statement a truth inasmuch as water is liquid: as water ceases to be liquid we must inasmuch cease calling the statement “water is liquid” a truth. Hence, what we call “truth” is a true statement (or true idea, true memory, and so on): one that expresses a state of affairs – an expression agentinasmuch as that expression remains actual. If truth has this meaning, then the statement “every truth must be true” reads as “truthness must be true,” so:

1. It becomes true, rather than redundant or false.

2. The necessary truth of any truth becomes the state of affairs that makes a truth actually true while still doing so.

For that necessary truth to be redundant or false, a truth must be taken as meaning, respectively:

1. The expression itself of a state of affairs – rather than its actual agent – hence an absolute, unary truth, by which our statement “every truth must be true” reads as “every expression of a state of affairs must be the expression of a state of affairs.”

2. The state of affairs that possibly makes a statement a truth – rather than that statement as actually true – by which our statement “every truth must be true” reads as “no truth is contingent.”

Indeed:

1. A true statement and a state of affairs that are indistinguishable as an absolutely true, unary expression become both necessarily true, making no truth possibly false, or then possibly true, and so actually true. Possible truth is inconceivable without possible falsehood and actual truth is inconceivable without possible truth.

2. A state of affairs that makes a statement a truth by being itself already true becomes itself an equivalent statement. Any state of affairs can only make a statement a truth by being itself truth-indeterminate.

Finally, when a truth refers to an expression agent, necessity becomes a relation instead of a property – a relation between a true statement and a state of affairs, in which the former needs the latter – so the statement “every truth must be true” reads as “necessarily (needfully) every truth is true.” Which, in the other two senses, becomes two new tautologies:

1. Once a truth is the expression itself of a state of affairs, the statement “necessarily every truth is true” reads as “necessarily every expression of a state of affairs is the expression of a state of affairs.”

2. Once a truth is the state of affairs that possibly makes a statement a truth – rather than that statement as actually true – such a state of affairs itself must be a statement so as to be already true, by which our statement “necessarily every truth is true” reads as “necessarily every self-expressing state of affairs is its own expression.”

Hence, the statement “every truth must be true” correctly reads as “every true statement must have a state of affairs making that statement a truth.”


Perhaps you mean that by the sentence. If you say you do, then I will take your word for it. But that is certainly not what that sentence means. But, in any case, it is not true that for analytic truths that there is some state of affairs that makes an analytic statement true.
Lt me add that it is just false that for water to be liquid, water must be liquid. What is true, and what you are confusing what you said with, is that it must be true that for water to be liquid, water is liquid. What is false is that for water to be liquid, water must be liquid. You are committing the same modal fallacy now that you have committed from your very first post.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 09:10 am
Water must n´t be just possibly liquid, but it certainly must be able to be also liquid given that is one of its intrinsic property´s...what you fail to prove on the fallacy is how could it be otherwise once given the actual state of affairs if such portion of water in such space/time frame is liquid then by fact it could not be a solid or a gas in that given moment...it is what it is is quite simple to get. Or it should be...

Either you break the deeper meaning of causality, or all Truths (in context) are NECESSARY Truths...

Now I can just imagine what you are going to say next...
I read it, I get it, and I still don´t agree.

(...I have this impression that tautology´s are precisely what you don´t understand...)
 

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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Every truth must be true
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 11:31:37