On Belief(s) and "Truth"... Please examine my philosophical thoughts

Didn't Rene Descartes already try this?

I didnt understand this.

I wouldnt be me in that case, nor alive. =)

But I do have some "fundamental truths", that is, statements that do not derive from anything that I have ever sensed, but only from pure logic.

They are:

*I exist.
*Something else exists.
*I can never know the other thing fully.
*The other thing is infinite in ever way.
*Both of us cannot have an end in time.

Yep.

But is such a fundamental thing that we will always repeat it, many times in our lives.

I have always taken the self evident statement, "the truth is that there is no truth" to be a version of Russell's Paradox which despite the attempts of logicians to sort out (see Wiki) merely indicates that "logic" is a sub-topic of general semantics. Indeed from Piaget's "genetic epistemology" point of view, "logic" is a thought process which arrives (for some) at the end of the cognitive maturation process. I cannot therefore be utilized in any "explanation" of cognition...a point which makes Piaget difficult to understand for traditional philosophers of epistemology. (Remember that Maturana and the "systems theorists" continue in this Piagetian tradition which is a major component of my thinking.)

...as I was saying then...you cannot conclude nothing, do you ? not even the demise of Truth...think on it.

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Correct. There are no "conclusions". There are only spirals of understanding, or nests of contexts. But why not ? This certainly seems to be the message from physics despite its pipe dream to find "a theory of everything".

I can't imagine why.

One must bare in mind that the not knowing with certainty hardly constitutes big news concerning Truth...nevertheless the question if there is an actual state of affairs in the world still stands since we cannot prove it either way, and that was the issue...seams fair to assume we are left with belief and the testimony of our life's to the something rather then nothing for inductive ground for Being...but is there a sufficient good reason to doubt it ? so far it did n´t prove to be the case...doubt Being and you doubt everything even doubt itself...

...as for the demise of Logic...with it, there goes the demise of any theory against or in favour of anything...a suicidal path don´t you think ?
How can one tell the flaws and faults in Logic if Logic is the only instrument to make such judgement ?

...you know what...words like error, emptiness, nothingness, and such, are terms which I find hard to apply much meaning if any at all...maybe that´s the problem to look further if to prevent the perverse effect of Infinity´s upon any understanding of the World...

...my work around this was to distinguish first quality and second quantity when it comes to Ontological Nature fundamental essence... in the second repetition, time or motion must be irrelevant effects for whatever counts in this field...at least as I am speaking my mind, that is my first immediate intuition on this regard..."true Infinity" drops out of the picture since I don´t see how to believe in infinite qualitative property´s once there´s no Set to be formed there, no means of relation but pure transcendence... as I see it, Infinity can only be conceivable upon repetitions of the same nature...repetition of the same nature is "fake" infinity sort to speak, merely an "effect"...

Because we forget, and then remember.

As I understand your question, I get the sense you are hinting at the fact we accept reality from the perspective we are taught to interpret it at a given time, then reaffirm it through experience of the period, additionally modify views per contemporary knowledge. Kinda like Neo in the Matrix - everything tasted like chicken because the machines couldn't figure out other flavors, then he woke up and everything tasted like a protein slurry

Alas, human beings can only know what is knowable at the time it is presented. Human beings can believe/disbelieve what is indoctrinated at formative stages of life, varying by culture, etc... In a sense, each individual is the sum of contemporary components - views, beliefs, experiences and verifiable facts (consistent with some frame of reference pertaining to the reality in question), etc... Does 1+1=2 in a parallel universe, or even in a reality so dissimilar in every way to ours that math is irrelevant? Is there a transcending truth(s)? If that is your implied question, you need to provide a frame of reference against which "a truth" is measured - I mean, all animal meat will taste like chicken inside "our Matrix", outside it the taste buds' conclusions will vary. Is there truth in our Universe? Yes, but only within the confines of our universe or our ability's to comprehend, and it is all that is consistent with our reality - afterall, it is also true everything tastes like chicken inside the Matrix, because there was no "outside" against which to compare it to speak of.

"Truth" varies with its own reality.

There you can see the importance of function to define in the relation TRUTH...it seams not just plausible but compelling to conclude that given different relational functionality´s between different agents different experiences come as a natural result, and all of them are true a priori...
So its Truth contradictory ? No...The base rules are still the same, different relations different results...what else could it be ?

(...lets not forget that objects are after all multi-functional meta-objects...)

...at first sight Truth would require a finite limited set of a priori possibility's, but one further needs to clarify upon what dwells infinity...repetition and quantity or unlimited quality ? that to my view is the central issue...