Absolute truth?

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.

Guigus likes confusion. When he is unable to account for his views he usually starts trying to make everything more complicated and confusing. Self-confirmation seems to be of higher value to him than clarity.

I guess the problem is how do you make sure that the first part of 2) up to the comma is true. Here it is:

"the truth of a falsehood is only that falsehood"

Does "falsehood" mean "false statement"? You mentioned something in an earlier post about "the bearer". Here it is: "The truth of a falsehood being the truth of the circumstance of something being false depends on the falsity of that something: without being that falsehood itself (and not its bearer, which you are mistaking it for), its truth cannot be true. " This makes me think that "falsehood"="false statement" is wrong because the false statement is the "bearer" and the falsehood really means something like "false circumstance" in your use.

I will proceed first 1) assuming falsehood=false statement then assume that 2) it doesn't:

1)
Ok let me take the example and see if it parses. The falsehood is "My computer is floating over my desk". The truth of that falsehood is a different statement "It is true that it is false that my computer is floating over my desk". If that is right then the truth of a falsehood is not that falsehood because the statements are not the same.

2)
falsehood = false circumstance
Perhaps in this case it gets resolved by a prohibition of anything being a false circumstance - in reality - as opposed to in the sense of a false statement? Something like "there are no false circumstances". If we use correspondence then whatever is corresponds with itself - it is identical with itself and therefore cannot *be* false. Rather the term *false* would then be limited to statements as in 1)

I am thinking of the Viceroy butterfly which mimics the Monarch so that it will not be eaten. Is it false? No I think not - it is a viceroy that resembles a Monarch. But it is designed (has evolved) so that a predator will form the opinion (statement) that it is a monarch. So it is not a false circumstance it creates a false opinion (statement).

So I am at a loss in finding any false circumstances. If there are no false circumstances what happens to your argument?

I unfortunately am sure of none of what I wrote above...

What do you think?

The truth of a falsehood is only that falsehood.

...what is false is the assertion...that which does not exist is not to be falsified if not to be propositionally asserted in the very first place...once asserted the assertion itself is at check, the thing if not existing is not at check nor ever was...can you grasp the meaning of this words ? Read carefully and you just might get it for once...

The assertion it is a true assertion, it exists as an assertion... but it does not refer! What it says is what is false! The falsity is in the assertion and not in what does not exist you dumb ass!

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 the nothingness of whatever it falsifies, for any truth to be true, it must have itself as a truth of which it is different.

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.

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 the nothingness of whatever it falsifies, for any truth to be true, it must have itself as a truth from which it is different.

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.

Small correction:

Quote:

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 the nothingness of whatever it falsifies, for any truth to be true, it must have itself as a truth from which it is different.

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.

You know the basic reply to this entire question doesn't really have anything to with truth or untruth. In a general sense everything is plausible. We only classify is as such within our minds to help explain the world around us. It all branches from the same exact thing (or nothing as it may be), however.

Quote:

You know the basic reply to this entire question doesn't really have anything to with truth or untruth. In a general sense everything is plausible. We only classify is as such within our minds to help explain the world around us. It all branches from the same exact thing (or nothing as it may be), however.

Even if we accept such for a moment...the lack of context resides in the insufficient clarification on the assertion itself...the fault is in the proposition and not in nothingness...

You have a funny way of trying to explain somethings you deem as impossible to comprehend.