Truth is a choice

@NoOne phil,

You say was? I hope that it was not your wife and if so I am sorry! The reason I say is because I do not know what happened to her as you say you are a single parent!

0 Replies

@NoOne phil,

NoOne phil wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Where are you peers ???
...Let me guess they run off...

You said it yourself, I have no peers, save one. And you would never guess who that was.

hmmmm...

are you having visions of Plato by night ??? Mr. Green

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Real visions happen by day. (when awake that is)

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

Pardon me sir for not envision it...you know, back here its late... Laughing

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Is it the Halloween season growing in you, or you do this Plato vision thing often ? Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Is it the Halloween season growing in you, or you do this Plato vision thing often ?

I have an unusual attention span, I don't have to do it often.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

NoOne phil

Are you ignoring my last post to you?
Here it is again:

Quote:

I ran it through google because all works of any relevance are always commented on by other specialists working in the same field, referenced by people working in related areas. This means that a google search on just one of the titles on your page would give several hits if it had any relevance. But I found nothing. So excuse me if I don't bow down and worship your extensive knowledge just because you are a self-published writer... What name do you publish under? John J. Clark? I ran a search on that too. Nothing of any relevance to this topic...

I just think that since you offer your work as the explanation of your views we should establish the relevance of your work.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

NoOne phil

Are you ignoring my last post to you?
Here it is again:

Quote:
I ran it through google because all works of any relevance are always commented on by other specialists working in the same field, referenced by people working in related areas. This means that a google search on just one of the titles on your page would give several hits if it had any relevance. But I found nothing. So excuse me if I don't bow down and worship your extensive knowledge just because you are a self-published writer... What name do you publish under? John J. Clark? I ran a search on that too. Nothing of any relevance to this topic...

I just think that since you offer your work as the explanation of your views we should establish the relevance of your work.

Your approach to understanding has always been apparent. It is not the work you wish to examine, but you are looking for someone who tells you what to think. You are a product of modern man indeed.

Good luck with your search.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

Yawn... more dodging and evading having to actually deliver something of meaning. If you offer your work as justification for beliefs and opinions you present in a discussion it is common sense to examine that work and determine it's relevance in relation to other thinkers who are known for the integrity and quality of their work.

But I will give you a challenge:
Give a clearly stated objection to the initial statement made in this thread, with an explanation of how and why your objection is reasonable. I will do my best to answer, and give an explanation of how and why I think it is correct to say as I have said. If you can demonstrate that my statement is incorrect based on criteria we both can accept, I will defer to your judgment.

But I do not think you can. I do not think you possess the knowledge or the reasoning skills to form the argument, because if you did you would have offered this without my asking, as you would realize that nothing else would do.

0 Replies

@Owen phil,

Quote:

I don't agree with either of you.
Facts are 'states of affairs', situations, happenings.
Factual truth is that truth which describes a state of affairs, and is decided in virtue of 'the facts' by a correspondence theory.
I agree with you in that, all truths are not just 'factual truths' but also include 'logical truths' tautologies...mathematics.

I do not disagree with this.
There are either facts or premises that reveal the truth of statements of the kind you mention here. But premises are not self evident. They have to be chosen, don't they?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I don't agree with either of you.
Facts are 'states of affairs', situations, happenings.
Factual truth is that truth which describes a state of affairs, and is decided in virtue of 'the facts' by a correspondence theory.
I agree with you in that, all truths are not just 'factual truths' but also include 'logical truths' tautologies...mathematics.

I do not disagree with this.
There are either facts or premises that reveal the truth of statements of the kind you mention here. But premises are not self evident. They have to be chosen, don't they?

There are no facts (situations) which reveal the logical truth of any proposition.
Facts show their presence by existence alone.
That is, situations (states of affairs) exist or not.
Situations do not posses the property of truth or falsity.

Premises that reveal tautologous truth are not self-evident (whatever self-evident could mean).

The premises of logic/mathematics, ie. the axioms and rules of inference, are
tautologies in use.
For example, Modus Ponens is derived from the tautology: (p & (p -> q)) -> q,
..we can state this theorem as..

p
p -> q
therefore,
q.

The choice of (axioms/rules of inference) is not arbitrary, as you say here.
There must be some special 'rules' that decide the suitability of a chosen axiom or rule of inference.
I don't know how axioms or rules of inference are decided, do you?

I understand that J. Lukasiewicz has shown that one primitive operator and one axiom and one rule of inference is all that is required for Propositional Logic.
See: Quine, Methods of Logic, 1982, page 87.

1 Reply

@Owen phil,

Quote:

Situations do not posses the property of truth or falsity.

Agreed. Truth or falsity is a property of information only, and I believe that to assign truth or falsity to actual situations or objects is a mis-use of the word.

But in the total human experience, would you say that factual truths and logical truths are the only truths? Are there no statements that most of us would say are true, but that do not not relate directly to any facts of logical arguments?

"If you kill another human being in anger, you also harm yourself". Is this true? If so, is it true because of facts that support the statement, or logical arguments? It seems to me that it is neither, that there is some aspect of experience that serves to allow us to classify some statements as true?

Or am I applying the word in a way it shouldn't be applied?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Situations do not posses the property of truth or falsity.

Agreed. Truth or falsity is a property of information only, and I believe that to assign truth or falsity to actual situations or objects is a mis-use of the word.

But in the total human experience, would you say that factual truths and logical truths are the only truths? Are there no statements that most of us would say are true, but that do not not relate directly to any facts of logical arguments?

"If you kill another human being in anger, you also harm yourself". Is this true? If so, is it true because of facts that support the statement, or logical arguments? It seems to me that it is neither, that there is some aspect of experience that serves to allow us to classify some statements as true?

Or am I applying the word in a way it shouldn't be applied?

I would suppose that the only sensible answer would be, it depends on the circumstances. For instance, if you are angry with someone because he is trying to kill you, and you kill him, I think you are not harming yourself. In other circumstances, you would be harming yourself. And in some other circumstances, it would not be clear. Truth and falsity are properties of statements, or beliefs. All information is correct. When it is not, it is called, "misinformation". But one thing is sure; it is not up to any person whether a statement is true or false. It is up to how the world is. And if the statement corresponds with how the world is, it is true. But if the statement fails to correspond with how the world is, it is false.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Even if you are forced to take someones life in defense of you own, it is my opinion that the experience will cause you suffering later in your life. I hold this to be true, but I cannot give any empirical facts or logical arguments to support it. It is true simply because I want it to be, because my experience, which also includes my observing and listening to others, seems to indicate that it is so.

But I wouldn't say that all information is correct. If I inform you that water boils at 10 degrees celcius in the atmospheric pressure of sea level, that is not correct information. It is a false claim. Or perhaps the two concepts are interchangable. That is not immediately clear to me.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Even if you are forced to take someones life in defense of you own, it is my opinion that the experience will cause you suffering later in your life. I hold this to be true, but I cannot give any empirical facts or logical arguments to support it. It is true simply because I want it to be, because my experience, which also includes my observing and listening to others, seems to indicate that it is so.

Well I think you have actually given an argument; the only problem is that it is fallacious.

Argument

P1. Even if you are forced to take someone's life in defense of your own, it is my opinion that the experience will cause you suffering later in your life.

P2. I want all my observations and experiences to be true.

C. Therefore, it must be true.

I really do not like that kind of argument. In fact it's fallacious. We cannot simply say that something is true because we want it to be. And that is not really a justifiable argument in any sense. We could very well make a logical argument for what it is that you wish to defend, namely, that even if you are forced to take someone's life you will still feel guilt, pain, hurt, etc. But I would rather leave this up to you.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

As I have said before I do not know truth!
I do have a question for you though, could it be possible that you are observing the statistics of what you are observing and this is how you are concluding your logical approach or illogical approach?
I do not know with certain either way but I do think that there may be logic in what you are observing.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

I have not given an argument. You did, and your second premise, where did that come from? But you have created a fallacious argument that you can play with.

I said that I hold it to be true that killing another human being does psychological damage to me, making it harder for me to be happy in life.

I believe it is true because of the experience shared by those who have killed people. I have heard many say that it is not an experience you should seek out. I have heard none say that it is something that will make you a better human being. At least, none that I would considere good role models.

I am aiming at the truths that are neither supported by facts nor arguments.
First I ask; are there such truths?
Secondly I ask; if there are, what is it that decides their truth value?
I can't think of anything but choice. Collective choice made by social negotiation.
These truths are such in nature that you can create arguments to show that they are true and that they are not true. Such a truth may be "capitalism is fair". There are neither facts nor arguments at the basis of this claim, yet it is widely considered to be true. For myself, however, I consider that statement an outright lie, but that is another discussion.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I do have a question for you though, could it be possible that you are observing the statistics of what you are observing and this is how you are concluding your logical approach or illogical approach?

I am not entirely sure what you mean by that, so it is hard to give an answer. I hope that a clarification of my reasons for asking will be a good substitute.

Like I also said in the previous post, it seems to me that there are truths (statements that are generally thought of as true) that have neither facts to support them nor arguments to validate them.
So their truth value has to come from something else. What could that be?
My best suggestion is choice. Made collectively through social negotiation across the decades.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I will try to explain. I am not saying for sure but are you seeing trends that seem to repeat themselves and you are going with the most logical aproach that seems to be at hand.

Example if you see people behaving in a certain manner and they do this 98% of the time it may not be empirical but is it logic none the less?
Like I have said I know that I can be wrong as I am sure that others will define logic as someting completely different!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I am not sure that I have any specific method.
But my logic is relatively simple I think.

Words have meanings. When you combine words you form more meanings. Logic is about understanding which meanings you can draw from combinations of words and get truth. Good logic makes for true meanings, while flawed logic creates false meanings.

It is about understanding what is actually said.

Look at this riddle for instance:

"Bill is drinking water. Alan is drinking tea. There are only these two drinks available. When Julie joins them, she wants something to drink too, and sees that there are just two choices. Does Julie drink water or tea?"

If it is not entirely clear to you what is being communicated here you may sit for a while racking your brain, looking for the clue in the riddle that will tell you what Julie drinks.

Or perhaps you understand what is being said and just give the correct answer.

The answer is yes. Julie drinks water or tea.

Logic is about understanding what words mean, what combinations of words communicate, and at least as importantly, what they do not communicate. It is a slippery slope at times, and I find that to post on this forum is a good way to keep on my feet a little easier. Sometimes it lets me know that I'm flat on my face as well Wink

1 Reply

Truth is a choice

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know