Inconsistent Theories Metatheoretically Prove Trivialism

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Eduk
Posts: 1555
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Inconsistent Theories Metatheoretically Prove Trivialism

Post by Eduk » May 2nd, 2018, 3:18 am

Paulemok, in answer to mosesquine you mean that's incorrect?

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 117
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: Inconsistent Theories Metatheoretically Prove Trivialism

Post by Mosesquine » May 2nd, 2018, 6:34 am

paulemok wrote:
May 1st, 2018, 8:08 pm
There are some additional things I might say, but some of the rules for this website are pushing me not to do so. I may have unfortunately chosen the wrong website for this discussion.
Mosesquine wrote:
May 1st, 2018, 4:37 am
You think that your sentence "that's correct" is true and not true, according to your theory, huh???
Yes, that's correct.

You are made up of molecules, and you are not made up of molecules, Huh???

User avatar
paulemok
New Trial Member
Posts: 11
Joined: April 21st, 2018, 9:11 pm

Re: Inconsistent Theories Metatheoretically Prove Trivialism

Post by paulemok » May 2nd, 2018, 11:12 am

Eduk wrote:
May 2nd, 2018, 3:18 am
Paulemok, in answer to mosesquine you mean that's incorrect?
No, I mean that’s correct.
Mosesquine wrote:
May 2nd, 2018, 6:34 am
You are made up of molecules, and you are not made up of molecules, Huh???
Yes, that’s correct.

Eduk
Posts: 1555
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Inconsistent Theories Metatheoretically Prove Trivialism

Post by Eduk » May 2nd, 2018, 1:44 pm

Sorry paulemok I keep on having to correct you? Surely you mean no that is incorrect when replying to Mosesquine. You said so yourself?

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 117
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: Inconsistent Theories Metatheoretically Prove Trivialism

Post by Mosesquine » May 2nd, 2018, 4:19 pm

paulemok wrote:
May 2nd, 2018, 11:12 am
Eduk wrote:
May 2nd, 2018, 3:18 am
Paulemok, in answer to mosesquine you mean that's incorrect?
No, I mean that’s correct.
Mosesquine wrote:
May 2nd, 2018, 6:34 am
You are made up of molecules, and you are not made up of molecules, Huh???
Yes, that’s correct.

Your stupidity is inborn, and your stupidity is not inborn, Huh???

User avatar
Whyme
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: May 31st, 2018, 4:22 am

Re: Inconsistent Theories Metatheoretically Prove Trivialism

Post by Whyme » May 31st, 2018, 9:08 am

I stumbled across Trivialism accidentally, by merely considering the referent of a thought to be it's causes.

If a thought is interpreted as referring to its causes, then it must necessarily be correct, and the concept of truth is vacuous.

On the other hand, if a thought is interpreted as representing something other than its causes, then the concept of truth arises, but is merely a matter of translation.

User avatar
ReasonMadeFlesh
Posts: 744
Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
Location: Here & Now

Re: Inconsistent Theories Metatheoretically Prove Trivialism

Post by ReasonMadeFlesh » June 6th, 2018, 10:28 am

Trivialism is retarded.
"A philosopher who does not take part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

Post Reply