truth
S/he's yours now, Satt. Good luck.
Truth or false is determined by human perception and conception. Or, put it differently, an "ideal" is for humans. "For humans" here, but "from" where/who is open here, but it is clear that it cannot be independent from human perception/conception.
truth
I understand that, and can't disagree.
I see my gender is still a "fact" that depends on your social conditioning to believe that names ending in "o" are masculine. Whatever.
Truth is truth, whether people are perceiving it or not, independant from thought. You're talking about belief, or understnading of something. That's different. As an example, whatever JL chooses to think, I'm still female. And that's still true.
Truth is pertaining to "human" knowledge, but ironically humans confront an intrinsic difficulty (or impossibility) of proving the truth of a statement. Truth is truth for humans but humans may not be able to determine the truth value (true/false) of a statement.
No, truth refers to what is. And we can know some truth, absolutely, because we have logic.
But without humans there is no line in its pure form. Line is given to humans as an idea. Truth about a line belongs to human perception/conception.
There's a truth about whatever we call a "line" that has nothing to do with how we perceive it though. Sure, the idea of the line depends on human perception. But the thing that we perceive initially to be a line does not.
Truth about a line is in "concepts" not "preception."
truth
Rufio, you say that we can know some truth absolutely because we have logic. I'm glad you put "some" in there, but too bad about "absolutely". But as you may know by now I feel that we are less likely to learn some truths so long as we are overly dependent on logic as a research tool. To me logic serves more to keep us from contradicting ourselves than to discover the nature of the world/Reality. But there is little danger here. Scientific researchers already know this and do not try to prove hypotheses deductively/metaphysically; they do so inductively/empirically (while not violating rules of logic).
But isn't the knowledge of what is contradictory or not an absolute truth that we can know? For instance, the idea of a line may be fabricated, but having identified the definition of a line whether it exists in objective reality or not, we can know absolutely that if it did exist it would have certain properties. Absolutely, And if a line did exist, it would have those properties whether there were people around to conceive of the line or not.
truth
Rufio, now I see the problem; you are an 18th rationalist. You feel that the structure of the universe is the same as the structure of our minds, of our logical thoughts about the universe. To me, axioms tell us more about the nature and limitations of our minds than about the nature of extra-mental world (i.e., the world we are thinking about); an apriori axiomatic "truth" is considered true because we cannot imagine it not being true. How "objective" is that?
Logic is a system of identifying and avoiding contraditions. You're going to have to explain how that is socially constructed....
truth
Rufio, once upon a time there was no logic. Humans invented it. Just because it works for some purposes does not mean that it existed, as an absolute, before the advent of human consciousness. As I see it, logic reflects the nature of our mentalities. Some cultures have logical systems--"explicit or implicit rules for correct thought"--quite unlike those derived from Aristotle. There used to be (and maybe it still exists) an anthropological journal, called Ethnologic, devoted to the description and analysis of different forms of logic of the world's cultural systems.
The basis of logic is that something cannot be its opposite. I think that's pretty absolute, don't you?
The logical or nonlogical nature of cultural beliefs and ways of thinking have nothing to do with logic itself. In fact, a lot of beliefs (including our own) are quite illogical. That just shows the difference between empirical reality and cultural reality.
truth
So OUR system is absolute and everybody else's is relative to their history and cultural evolution. How good for us.
Who's "everyone else"? The people in the parrallel universe?
truth
O.K., now you're getting aggressive. You know my view(s) and I know yours. Enough already.
Quote:
Humans invented it.
.. Here "it" obviously means "logic."
One can rephrase the statement as, "Humans found it" without any contradiction. Logic (or, with more restriction, mathematics) might be embedded in human experiences.
