Frege's Other Thinking Beings Part Two in the "What if..."

We have beings like that right now. They are called "religious fundamentalists." They have a tendency to torture and kill heretics, infidels, and anyone else who does not buy into their own peculiar brand of "logic."

From what i understand from your question(its was phrased kinda weird and i think there were some mispellings) But i have asked this question earlier or a similar one. That which societies opinion is right and how do you know you are truly right.

Well i think the answer is simple whoever the stronger majority race is would be right. For example during the cold war if you lived in america in a capitalist society you are raised to believe commies are evil and commies are raised to believe capitalists are evil. You cannot know the truth unless you are not from this earth. Because no matter how hard you try you are biased and what may be "true" may totally contradict your beliefs so you will not accept the truth.

Discreet:

I have fixed my typo's. Sorry I should have checked.

However,

Are you saying that both:

1) Truth is relative - period.
2) Might makes right.

???

Or do you just mean this for ethical beliefs - does this hold for contradictions like 'Square Circles' and things like that?

I don't follow you.

TTF

Yeah truth is relative based on social views. In iraq killing dozens of innocent lives makes you right in the eyes of allah, whereas here you would be punished for these beliefs. What is right or wrong just depends on where you live and waht time period you live in.

We are discussin logic here. Is 2+2=4 Relative?

TTF

Yes, because it could be in a base three number system where there is not 3, just 10. In base three, 2+2=11.

Re: Frege's Other Thinking Beings Part Two in the "What
thethinkfactory




The laws of truth are our laws of truth. According to what we are. If we accept that our reason is nothing but an evolutionary tool, our truth is not the truth of a snail or a bat. Different kind of inteligence would lead to different conceptions of a different world.

So - Square circles are possible upon a different thinking process - and these are as valid as any other thought.

The fact that I am thinking being obvious to the attentive mind is actually not - because on a different type of rationale I could not be - but be thinking that I am.

Val - I don't understand this type of relativism. It self referentially incoherent. If you are saying that all laws of truth are relative to the being - you are stating a universal - which is impossible upon your own position.

Now, if you are saying that we see the world (for instance) as revolving around us - that is a tendancy of our race - not a universal truth.

Piffka - You can use any example you want of an a priori truth. 'All mother have children.' for instance or 'All triangles have three sides.' Doesn't these concepts have to be a priori true - even if triangles and mothers don't exist in reality.

It seems that you are all arguing some form of strong relativism in response to Frege's quote - I am not arguing for Frege - I just don't understand your replies as having any coherence.

TTF

TTF, this reminds me of Godel's theorem, but we're talking about 2 formal systems, where A is true in one and false in the other. A Godelian answer would be that 'truth' in this case is undecidable, because the systems are mutually inconsistent. (for anyone not familiar with Godel, it more-or-less says that any system complex enough to include all of arithmetic contains propositions that say, "i'm not a theorem." so if it's true, then it's not a theorem, but if it's false, then it is a theorem. but that's just a layman's understanding based on reading Godel, Escher, Bach by Hofstadter a long time ago.)

thethinkfactory



You are right. My statement was incoherent.
In order to prevent that, I would say that truth is a concept, created by our specific mind, and defined by our specific mind. That is not an universal, because I stay within the limits of my experience.

Val - Thanks for the clarification.

However, does your clarification actually mean anything worth listening too. Meaning, your statement that all of us can only stay within our limits of experience must too be filtered, by the listener, as being one that is stated by you and has been filtered through your experiences.

Thus, if you are trying to make a universal statement, about all minds, you seem to be the only one that wants to violate your own rule.

What I am trying to say (poorly, I might add) is that if you statement is right, then we can't really take it as bearing any truth - because that is just what you think as filtered through your experiences.

If we put you around other, more objective people, you might make another statement.

Does what I said make any sense?

If so, is that right? I am forming this as I type and would love to hear you feedback or any other persons. I think I am on the right track - but maybe not.

TTF

thethinkfactory

When I talk about experience, it is not my personal and subjective experience. It is my experience as human being.
All concepts are human constructs, within an human language.
So, truth is an human concept.

I would define truth as the adequacy between a statement and experience. I say "it is raining" and that, as I think you agree, it's an human statement. I go outside and see the rain, feel it on my skin. That is an human experience, since my eyes are human, my skin is human, my nervous system is the nervous system of a human being.

Val,

Does it follow that, then, truth is different for humans then, say, dogs or space aliens?

Meaning, if the corresponsence theory is true, humans do feel rain on thier skin, but there is a reality out there, a truth, to be beheld. Humans simply access it through thier senses.

Are you stating that we, as humans, frame that truth differently, than say aliens, so - although we bias the truth as humans there is a truth out there to bias (subjective truth)?

Or are you saying that because we, as humans, have our own way of gathering truth and, ultimatley, that truth is relative to us (relative truth)?

I am fairly sure you are saying the former but I am not totally sure and am asking for clarification.

TTF

p.s. I admit that I am completely biases when concerning matters of relativism. I simply can't see it's validity and need to be elightened in order to.

(Usually when I feel this way I have missed something - so that is why I ask as many questions as I do. )