Absolute truth?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Don't need many words to say what I want to say.

0 Replies

@guigus,

You wrote:"...if something were not false, then it wouldn't be true that it is false."

Is this the rest of your argument: "It is true that something is false" therefore "Something is false"?

If so then you are assuming what you must show. I am saying that there are false statements but not false circumstances. You must prove now that there exists at least one false circumstance.

I think you can say: "There are circumstances about which I can make a false statements" But you cannot say: "There are false circumstances" if by "false circumstances" I do not mean "circumstances about which I can make a false statement" but rather "circumstances that are false in themselves". To do so I think you would have to equivocate which is a logical error.

To be a circumstance about which a false statement can be made does not imply that the circumstance need be false.

You say "the truth of a falsehood is precisely whatever is *being* in that falsehood". I suggest you compare the following two paragraphs:

"There is a red balloon on my desk." Certainly that statement is false. The truth is "There is no red balloon on my desk" So it looks as if the truth of the falsity of the false statement is not something being on my desk but something not being on my desk. Now is the truth of the falsehood "There is a red balloon on my desk" "precisely whatever is a *being* in that falsehood" as you said it was? I think not. Rather it is precisely the non-being of the red balloon the same red balloon which is in the statement.

"There is not a pen on my desk" Certainly that statement is false. The truth is "There is a pen on my desk". So it looks as if the truth of the falsity of the false statement is something being on my desk not something not being on my desk. Now is the truth of the falsehood "There is not a pen on my desk." precisely whatever is a *being* in that falsehood" as you said it was? I think not. Rather is is precisely the being of the pen which the same pen that is not being in the statement.

So it is not what is being in the statement but what is not being in the statement. Either the false statement can be about what is not being or what is being. If it is about what is being then the truth is not a being which is in the statement but rather a non-being which is not in the statement. Conversely if it is about what is not being then the truth is a being which however is then not in the statement.

The circumstances that make a false statement false cannot be the circumstances in the statement else it would be true.

2 Replies

@justintruth,

jit, You explained that very well! Wink

0 Replies

@justintruth,

justintruth wrote:

You wrote:"...if something were not false, then it wouldn't be true that it is false."

Is this the rest of your argument: "It is true that something is false" therefore "Something is false"?

If so then you are assuming what you must show. I am saying that there are false statements but not false circumstances. You must prove now that there exists at least one false circumstance.

I think you can say: "There are circumstances about which I can make a false statements" But you cannot say: "There are false circumstances" if by "false circumstances" I do not mean "circumstances about which I can make a false statement" but rather "circumstances that are false in themselves". To do so I think you would have to equivocate which is a logical error.

To be a circumstance about which a false statement can be made does not imply that the circumstance need be false.

You say "the truth of a falsehood is precisely whatever is *being* in that falsehood". I suggest you compare the following two paragraphs:

"There is a red balloon on my desk." Certainly that statement is false. The truth is "There is no red balloon on my desk" So it looks as if the truth of the falsity of the false statement is not something being on my desk but something not being on my desk. Now is the truth of the falsehood "There is a red balloon on my desk" "precisely whatever is a *being* in that falsehood" as you said it was? I think not. Rather it is precisely the non-being of the red balloon the same red balloon which is in the statement.

"There is not a pen on my desk" Certainly that statement is false. The truth is "There is a pen on my desk". So it looks as if the truth of the falsity of the false statement is something being on my desk not something not being on my desk. Now is the truth of the falsehood "There is not a pen on my desk." precisely whatever is a *being* in that falsehood" as you said it was? I think not. Rather is is precisely the being of the pen which the same pen that is not being in the statement.

So it is not what is being in the statement but what is not being in the statement. Either the false statement can be about what is not being or what is being. If it is about what is being then the truth is not a being which is in the statement but rather a non-being which is not in the statement. Conversely if it is about what is not being then the truth is a being which however is then not in the statement.

The circumstances that make a false statement false cannot be the circumstances in the statement else it would be true.

All you are saying is that there is a contradiction in the circumstance of something being false being the nothingness of that something, which is also what I have been saying since the beginning. Unfortunately, you are trying to invalidate that necessary identity between the true falsity of something -- which is a being -- and the nothingness of that something -- which is a non-being -- on the grounds that it is contradictory, which is futile, since it is both contradictory and essential to the very notion of a falsehood.

2 Replies

@guigus,

... ok... I will stipulate that being is both contradictory and essential to the notion of falsehood... but that does not imply that there *is* such a falsehood (if by falsehood we do not mean a false statement but rather a false circumstance). It could very well be that there are none of these contradictory entities that you posit.

1 Reply

@justintruth,

justintruth wrote:

... ok... I will stipulate that being is both contradictory and essential to the notion of falsehood... but that does not imply that there *is* such a falsehood (if by falsehood we do not mean a false statement but rather a false circumstance). It could very well be that there are none of these contradictory entities that you posit.

The contradiction is inherent to falsehood itself, which is only the being of nothing.

1 Reply

@guigus,

So in your mind a vacuum is false?

1 Reply

@justintruth,

By now you should be able to see that you have absolutely no control over your perceptions of this situation and even less of 'his'.

Why not take this 'realization' as an opportunity to 'bow out' instead of just barking at 'him' trying to get your point-of-view accross?

What's going to happen even if you somehow got him to 'think' like you?

2 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

Just a little perspective you might enjoy.

Nobody is capable of 'barking' at anybody. They can only 'bark'.

The only time 'barking' has anything to do with anybody else is when that somebody else tries to get the 'barking person' to stop 'barking'.

Let 'em bark and they'll leave you alone.

Look into the mirror and laugh.

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

One other thing. Normally 'barking' is done by entities at the end of their chain or entities who have a defined territory to protect, surrounded by a fence.

Do you attempt to stop the neighborhood dog from barking or do you just walk by?

2 Replies

@Dasein,

I find all that crap very amusing specially coming from someone who uses a computer and abides by society´s rules...
...move yourself into a mountain and literally undress yourself in a very high place...preach to the snow banks priest ! At least get to be coherent with yourself...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You really should participate in some anger management sessions.

2 Replies

I really think we should bring back the duel.

0 Replies

@Dasein,

I simply detest Hypocrisy...coherence is the heart and soul of an would be philosopher, and I mean practical coherence, not preaching coherence...

0 Replies

@Dasein,

I keep making the mistake of thinking I have something to offer them.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

You really don't have anything to offer you. All you can do is uncover your 'self'. All the rest of it is your desire to be lived by the 'they'.

1 Reply

hmm...

can anyone argue that ice is not an absolute truth ? ( frozen H2O )

0 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

You really don't have anything to offer you. All you can do is uncover your 'self'. All the rest of it is your desire to be lived by the 'they'.

If you had really managed to authentically be yourself, then you would have already noticed within yourself the same contradictions found in those who you, mechanically echoing Heidegger, call "they." Which means you are not as authentic as you think.

0 Replies

@Dasein,

Or, in a little different perspective, since for Heidegger you are among "the 'they'," how can you trust a thinker that puts you within quotes? Likewise, how can we trust you, since you do the same with us?

1 Reply

@guigus,

I don't trust Heidegger. I really don't “trust” any philosopher if “trusting” means to take his conclusions at face value as true. 'Conclusions' are at the end of thinking. Thinking is where the value is. The value has never been in the conclusions. What I'm saying is that I'm responsible for the value in my my own thinking. I think through for my 'self' what Heidegger or other philosophers are saying until I reach the 'value'. In some cases I have read Socrates, Plato, Kant, Descartes, Aquinas, etc. and found great concepts and theories, but no 'value'. 'Value' for me is when I experience having acquired more freedom to 'be' my authentic 'self'.

When I read Heidegger and I am thinking about what he is saying I follow a couple of criteria.

1) If what he is saying causes me to be confused, I know that what I am thinking about is challenging a conclusion or misconception that I have. Over time I have come realize that my confusion is directly related to my misconceptions. If that happens, I go back to where I started to become confused and re-read it. The vast majority of the time this simple step resolves the confusion. I have found that sometimes my confusion happens because while I'm reading I start to think of something not connected to what I'm reading so, again, I go back and re-read.

2) If after reading the selection something hasn't fallen into place and given me the experience of ka-chunk, I know from my own experience of my 'self' that I need to set the selection I'm reading aside and re-read it tomorrow. Normally when I do that I get the ka-chunk experience and something opens up for me. (I actually think that something gets resolved and I never have to address it again, freedom).

So, if what I'm reading creates confusion and doesn't resolve the confusion, it has no value to me.

When I began reading “Being and Time” in 1995 I was pretty much oblivious to the process I was going through. I would get to the end of the 389 pages and just start over. Sometimes I would experience a “break-open” and reread the book just to find out what just happened. I never found out what happened because what happened occurred at the level of 'Be'-ing and knowing and not at the level that you and I call the world. I still am not able to 'put my finger on' what happens. I just keep reading because I know something will happen. This is what I call 'trusting your thinking'.

Nobody said anything about trusting me. You should trust your thinking. All I'm saying is that you should make sure that the thinking you're doing comes from your 'self' and not from somebody else's conclusions.

Damn! That was a great question.

2 Replies

Absolute truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know