Absolute truth?

Quote:

Synopsis: It can't be the Absolute Truth unless it can be shown to be Absolutely False.

What are you talking about ?

...if it is true that a falsehood is a falsehood then it is true...just like X is X !
...and of course that a truth does n´t have to be shown false...what is shown false is that which is falsified...

If I say, that the sky is pink is a falsehood, which is an assumed falsehood for the purpose, then it is true that the sky is not pink, or that the truth of what is referred as false is confirmed.

Synopsis: It can't be the Absolute Truth unless it can be shown to be Absolutely False. That which has been shown to be Absolutely False must, therefore, be Absolutely True.

Only after the Truthiness of the Falsiness has been verified by the Falsiness of the Truthiness can the Truthiness be considered as a viable candidate for Absolute Truthiness

Is it Absolutely True that X is X until X has been shown to be not X?

Quote:

Is it Absolutely True that X is X until X has been shown to be not X?

I honestly advise you to take it more seriously since you are having difficulty in distinguishing the problem of what is true with the problem of knowing what is true...

There´s nothing in need of clarification, its simple and plain as water !

Quote:

Synopsis: It can't be the Absolute Truth unless it can be shown to be Absolutely False.

What are you talking about ?

...if it is true that a falsehood is a falsehood then it is true...just like X is X !

...and of course that a truth does n´t have to be shown false...what is shown false is that which is falsified...

If I say, that the sky is pink is a falsehood, which is an assumed falsehood for the purpose, then it is true that the sky is not pink, or that the truth of what is referred as false is confirmed.

...whatever is true is true independently of what I know about it...

1. If any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth: every truth must be true.

2. And yet, since the truth of a falsehood is only that falsehood, for any truth to be true it must have itself as a truth, which must be different from it.

3. So its truth must be different from itself, hence untrue.

4. But if the truth of a truth is untrue, then the truth it makes true is also untrue: any truth becomes its falsity, which makes every truth variable.

I very much appreciate Chights47's response to Hermod: "Everything is originally based on perception and faith that it's true."
This pretty much describes what I consider to be intuition, based on experience but going beyond it.
One of the problems I see in much of the thought in these threads about truth is an over-reliance on logic as a generator of knowledge. To me logic serves mainly to correct thought rather than generate it, i.e., to avoid contradiction in thought. I've no deep aversion to contradiction in descriptions of experience; life generates paradox, but it is unacceptable when it's generated by careless thought.
As I see some of the statements here Naive Realism and Objectivism are clothed in logical formulae that serve little more than dress common sensical conceptions in "philosophical" garb.

I very much appreciate Chights47's response to Hermod: "Everything is originally based on perception and faith that it's true."
This pretty much describes what I consider to be intuition, based on experience but going beyond it.
One of the problems I see in much of the thought in these threads about truth is an over-reliance on logic as a generator of knowledge. To me logic serves mainly to correct thought rather than generate it, i.e., to avoid contradiction in thought. I've no deep aversion to contradiction in descriptions of experience; life generates paradox, but it is unacceptable when it's generated by careless thought.
As I see some of the statements here Naive Realism and Objectivism are clothed in logical formulae that serve little more than dress common sensical conceptions in "philosophical" garb.

JLNobody wrote:

I very much appreciate Chights47's response to Hermod: "Everything is originally based on perception and faith that it's true."
This pretty much describes what I consider to be intuition, based on experience but going beyond it.
One of the problems I see in much of the thought in these threads about truth is an over-reliance on logic as a generator of knowledge. To me logic serves mainly to correct thought rather than generate it, i.e., to avoid contradiction in thought. I've no deep aversion to contradiction in descriptions of experience; life generates paradox, but it is unacceptable when it's generated by careless thought.
As I see some of the statements here Naive Realism and Objectivism are clothed in logical formulae that serve little more than dress common sensical conceptions in "philosophical" garb.

You are heading in the right direction, but you must notice that what you call "logic" is just Classical logic. It its broader sense, logic is not a "tool" external to thought: it is thought itself. Your conception of logic suffers from the same naive Realism and Objectivism you criticize: if you want to really break free of those traps, you must widen you conception of logic by making it embrace contradiction rather than helping you avoid it.

1 - No...not necessarily since I or my brain for the purpose are not confined to my conscious being !

2 - Concerning truth, external or internal for the matter, my only consideration is that a state of affairs is required even to question it !