Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 2762
|
Post: #31  Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:05 am Post subject: |
  |
|
|
| Santini wrote: |
It's not my logic, Belinda/Athena. It's the way our brains work. It's the way that we make sense of the world. A proposition, to be intelligible, IS either true or false but not both at the same time.
|
Hi again Santini!
You are totally right, partly! In other words, so far, so good! But there is more, at least double more!
By the way, a Loving Thanxgiving to you!
And in that Love which is the spirit of T-giving, let me just say that everything that you have written in this thread is CORRECT if, and ONLY IF, you substitute Truth or the Love of the Truth with THE TRUTH OF LOVE.
Example: Every lie means an infinity of truths. Every truth means an infinity of lies.
So the Lie spawns truths, and The Truth spawns lies.
It's the same with Love and Hate:
Love births Hate and Hate birth's Love.
So? So we have to love both truths!
"My only Love sprung from my only Hate!
Too early seen unknown, and known too late!
Prodigious birth of Love it is to me,
That I must love a loathed enemy."
Romeo and Juliet
[I, 5]
So what has blocked and is blocking our way to the whole truth of and in your proposition and in any and all props is any Hate we have for ourselves as a liar and for liars and for lies.
So may I ask you to ask yourself:
Do you love yourself as a liar? I do.
Then you know what to do.
In the meantime:
Our opposite-hemi-brains work by all words and their opposites: so the brain's train of logic works on the dual twin-tracks of words and their opposites and so can go forwards and backwards at all times without ever being derailed.
Thus, Love of opposites is the way that we make also sense of the world of nonsense, or also get meaning out of meaninglessness. Thus, any proposition, to be wholly intelligible, IS not only true OR false at the same time but also both true AND false at the same time.
Examples:
When a cup is empty, it's also at the same time full---of air!
And when that bowl is full of liquid, it is also at the same time empty of emptiness!
So too when it is raining rain, it is also at the same time raining the rain of no rain!
And when it is not raining, the rain of no rain is raining! Thus rain reigns when it's raining and when it is not raining!
That is how we also have the religion of no religion! And the belief in no belief.
In other words, our 2 neurological hemispheres make a whole circle, and words with their diametric opposites are obviously circular in meaning in both directions, work together to always produce friends whose opposites are enemies at the same time that friends are enemies to their opposites--at the same time!
Example: So when you say it's raining, I say 'compared to what?' Oh, compared to what we had last year? Then it's just misty outside!
So when I ask you if you see anything, and you say 'I see nothing,' I ask you to please describe nothing. Then you say: I told you, I see nothing! Then I say: Well you said you saw nothing and I believed that you were telling the truth, and that your eyes are better than mine since I have never seen nothing! So that's why I asked for a deseription! Hmmmm Maybe the nothing that you see is simply everything you can't see?
Thus the "it is either raining or not" thing was just a simple, standard and excellent example of what I'm talking about. P is both true and false, and -p is both true and false at the same time because p is a doubly-intelligible proposition.
Truth relates to the way in which Love we meaningfully communicate in Love of lies and meaninglessness, or to the way in which Hate we meaninglessly communicate in Hate of lies and meaniniglessness.
When I know the truth I also have knowledge of the truth.
When I do not know the truth, I also have knowledge of the truth that I do not know that other truth. :)Check out Sir Richard Burton's 'He who knows not and knows he knows not: he is simple -- teach him.'
The truth spoken with Hate-intent beats any lie, and is more of a lie than any lie, we can invent. William Blake.
Last edited by ape on Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:01 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 739
|
| Post: #32 Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Belinda, yes we speak of opposites because the opposite is included the statement. When we say small, we know the opposite is large. When we say dry, we know the opposite is wet.
I just listened to a lecture about John Dewey and his philosophy of Pragmatism. I love the idea that philosophy began with aristocrats and was sadly lacking the point of view of artisans. It benefited the aristocrat that reality be unchanging, so they built philosophy on the idea that truth is unchangeable perfection/form. We still base our public policy on theories that are so removed from reality, that government efforts to resolve social problems are costly and do not resolve the problem.
While the artisans were busy changing forms, making reality ever changing. John Dewey said the value of philosophy is predicting what can be expected next, and this is understanding the organic and environmental process of change. This is multi-dimensional thinking. Not just this or that, but inclusive of this and that and something else. This is thinking both small and large, wet and dry and may be snow.
A problem with western logic is that it lacks the reality of change and differences. It is linear, while life is multi-dimensional. It lacks the understanding of relativity needed to understanding life as a process of constant change, and I think this is what the thread is arguing.
Last edited by athena on Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:13 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 2762
|
| Post: #33 Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Edited double post!
Last edited by ape on Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 37
Location: N.C., USA
|
| Post: #34 Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:25 am Post subject: Relative Truth |
|
|
|
There is little I can add. Truth is, my Thanksgiving is at a full table, and wherever you are I wish you the same - relatively speaking.
_________________
Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body.
Locke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 2762
|
| Post: #35 Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| athena wrote: |
| ape I believe in India it is assumed when we speak of something, we also speak of its opposite. |
Perfectamente!
A Loving Tgiving to you, Athena and to all else! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
setelement
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Posts: 56
|
| Post: #36 Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
First off, HAPPY THANKGIVING EVERYONE!!!!! 
| Santini wrote: |
I think we may be confusing truth with knowledge of truth. Those are two different things.
Truth is what is the case, thus truth is not relative or probable. Something either is or is not the case. Either you see these words on your monitor or you do not. Either it is raining on you or it is not. It IS NOT both raining on you and not raining on you at the same time and it IS doing one or the other at any given time.
Our knowledge about whether it is raining on us at any given time is only probable but whether in fact it actually is or actually is not raining on us at any given time is either true or it is false with no other options. |
Santini. The line of thought that leads to "truth is what is the case" is that something thst is true is something that can be proven. Which means that we have to construct a line of reasoning that will lead to this conclution. The issue with this is that it is still dependent upon just who exactly it is that is making the claim of proof. Their proof is still subject to their world view and thuse their inturpitation on the whole thing. With a statement like truth being the case is also a claim that axioms and theorems are the only truths that exist. I already addressed that earlier in this thread.
Also the claim of rain is not a claim on the knowledge of the truth situation. Instead it is a test of validity. When a statement about something like weather is made it is not being claimed that person knows the truth before it happens, instead it is actually an assumption. Weather is to dynamic of an entity to even begin to claim to know the truth about future or even present conditions.
| athena wrote: |
Belinda, yes we speak of opposites because the opposite is included the statement. When we say small, we know the opposite is large. When we say dry, we know the opposite if wet.
I just listened to a lecture about John Dewey and his philosophy of Pragmatism. I love the idea that philosophy began with aristocrats and was sadly lacking the point of view of artisans. It benefited the aristocrat that reality be unchanging, so they built philosophy on the idea that truth is unchangeable perfection/form. We still base our public policy on theories that are so removed from reality, that government efforts to resolve social problems are costly and do not resolve the problem.
While the artisans were busy changing forms, making reality ever changing. John Dewey said the value of philosophy is predicting what can be expected next, and this is understanding the organic and environmental process of change. This is multi-dimensional thinking. Not just this or that, but inclusive of this and that and something else. This is thinking both small and large, wet and dry and may be snow.
A problem with western logic is that it lacks the reality of change and differences. It is linear, while life is multi-dimensional. It lacks the understanding of relativity needed to understanding life as a process of constant change, and I think this is what the thread is arguing. |
Even though I do have some issues with pragmatism I do like this this, because it is all to often over looked as to the origins of the thoughts and ideas that we have developed today. It is very true that when we take the formal approach to these types of issues we see that we come up with very sterile concepts of truth that are also very one sided.
This is also true for more than just the different classes that exist, but also for different countries, ethnicities, and religons as well. But it is also this fluidity and variety that makes the study of truth such an intesting one.
_________________
7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
-Wittgenstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 2812
|
| Post: #37 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Athena, it's just about the words . I say 'alternative' you say 'opposite'.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 739
|
| Post: #38 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Belinda, the term "opposite" is important, because the concept is about the harmony of the universe, and a logic different from western linear logic. The following are thoughts on this force.
| Quote: |
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Yin-Yang.htm
The Great One produces the two poles (Heaven and Earth), which in turn give rise to the energies of the dark (yin) and the light (yang). These two energies then transform themselves, one rising upwards, and the other descending downwards; they merge again and give rise to form. (Lu-sih ch'un-ch'iu - Spring and Autumn Annals)
The created universe carries the yin at its back and the yang in front; Through the union of the pervading principles it reaches harmony. (Lao tzu, Tao-te ching)
____________________________________
Though One, Brahman is the cause of the many. .. Brahman is the unborn (aja) in whom all existing things abide. The One manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms. (Rig Veda)
The word Brahman means growth and is suggestive of life, motion, progress. (Radhakrishnan)
____________________________________
The Ancient Greek Philosophers were often very close to the truth, as reflected in Parmenides realisation that the One existent is material (substance), extended (Space) and a Sphere (caused by matter as Spherical Waves in Space). Further, the Wave-Center of the Spherical Waves, which causes the discrete particle effect, is not a division, but rather, a production from the One Unity, the Focal-Point of Spherical Standing Waves that determine the size of our finite spherical Universe within an Infinite Space.
The Spherical In and Out Waves of the Wave Structure of Matter explains the change and harmony of opposites in the One Universe.
|
Point being, in opposites there is a whole, so when we speak of one thing, we speak of its opposite as well.
____________________________________
setelement, you caused me to think of this "The basic idea is that there is really no absolute frame from which we can measure the absolute velocity or position. We can merely only measure "relative" positions and velocities." If we can get our heads around this, perhaps we would realize the futility of some of our arguments about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
setelement
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Posts: 56
|
| Post: #39 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| athena wrote: |
Belinda, the term "opposite" is important, because the concept is about the harmony of the universe, and a logic different from western linear logic. The following are thoughts on this force.
| Quote: |
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Yin-Yang.htm
The Great One produces the two poles (Heaven and Earth), which in turn give rise to the energies of the dark (yin) and the light (yang). These two energies then transform themselves, one rising upwards, and the other descending downwards; they merge again and give rise to form. (Lu-sih ch'un-ch'iu - Spring and Autumn Annals)
The created universe carries the yin at its back and the yang in front; Through the union of the pervading principles it reaches harmony. (Lao tzu, Tao-te ching)
____________________________________
Though One, Brahman is the cause of the many. .. Brahman is the unborn (aja) in whom all existing things abide. The One manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms. (Rig Veda)
The word Brahman means growth and is suggestive of life, motion, progress. (Radhakrishnan)
____________________________________
The Ancient Greek Philosophers were often very close to the truth, as reflected in Parmenides realisation that the One existent is material (substance), extended (Space) and a Sphere (caused by matter as Spherical Waves in Space). Further, the Wave-Center of the Spherical Waves, which causes the discrete particle effect, is not a division, but rather, a production from the One Unity, the Focal-Point of Spherical Standing Waves that determine the size of our finite spherical Universe within an Infinite Space.
The Spherical In and Out Waves of the Wave Structure of Matter explains the change and harmony of opposites in the One Universe.
|
Point being, in opposites there is a whole, so when we speak of one thing, we speak of its opposite as well.
____________________________________
setelement, you caused me to think of this "The basic idea is that there is really no absolute frame from which we can measure the absolute velocity or position. We can merely only measure "relative" positions and velocities." If we can get our heads around this, perhaps we would realize the futility of some of our arguments about truth. |
Here is a musing of mine that lead to a paradox which leads to the potential uncertainty that you were talking about. Also Athena glad I was able to inspire thought in someone about something.
The objective argument for the subjective of truth:
All truth is subjective in nature.
This is a statement about the subjectivity of how all truth no matter what will ever be objective. In order for this to be true, though, this statement would have to be objectively true. From this we see a similar situation to the liar’s paradox. If it is true that all truth is subjective then the truth of this very statement would be subjective, but in order for this statement to be true it would need to be objective. This is because the subjectivity of a statement is just that it is subject to interpretations from every person who looks at it. So to claim that all truth is subjective is to claim that the subjective truth is its self subjective. The subjectivity is subjective. The interpretation is subject to interpretation. This is a fallacious statement, because in order for something to be subjective people need to agree that there are differing perspectives of the truth. Thus leading to an objective claim that differing interpretations exist. But then once again this is a contradiction of our original statement.
The reason that this is like the liar’s paradox is because the statement infers something other than what is being said. The nature of this particullar paradox is to show why objective arguments about the subjective run into major issues (just incase the above is a little to circular for ya )
_________________
7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
-Wittgenstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 37
Location: N.C., USA
|
| Post: #40 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:41 pm Post subject: Relative Truth |
|
|
|
Athena said;
| Quote: |
| John Dewey said the value of philosophy is predicting what can be expected next. . . . A problem with western logic is that it lacks the reality of change and differences. It is linear, while life is multi-dimensional. It lacks the understanding of relativity needed to understanding life as a process of constant change, and I think this is what the thread is arguing. |
Setelement said;
| Quote: |
| It is very true that when we take the formal approach to these types of issues we see that we come up with very sterile concepts of truth that are also very one sided. |
Athena says further;
[/quote]Point being, in opposites there is a whole, so when we speak of one thing, we speak of its opposite as well. . . . The basic idea is that there is really no absolute frame from which we can measure the absolute velocity or position.
| Quote: |
Again setelement says;
|
All truth is subjective in nature.
| Quote: |
Your comments bring a better understanding to me. Some physical findings provide natural evidence you alluded to. Recent physic experiments have shown ‘action at a distance’ that quantum entanglement foresaw and attempts to explain; basically that a pair of particles formed from the decay of another have determinate opposite spins and changing one induces a change to the other regardless of distance apart - way over my head, but such considerations have prompted some to declare that all things are a single thing. By what means is undeclared. Einstein’s negating absolutes in measurement excepting speed of light add to the indeterminate nature.
As I can wonder of it, our knowledge of time presents a similar dilemma. We see the future determined by what is happening now, but is that only a measure of limits to our sensitive nature? Can we make an argument and prove our assumption? Is it possible the future circumstance orders up events of the present? Action at a distance, lack of absolute frame of reference and uncertainty of the direction of time indicate to me truth is relative to our limited ability to measure and omits all but deity as constant. |
_________________
Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body.
Locke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 2812
|
| Post: #41 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
What is the opposite of baby?
Cradle?
Bathwater?
Parent?
Womb?
Placenta?
Mom?
Corpse?
Adult?
Grownup?
Big sister?
Schoolchild?
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 2762
|
| Post: #42 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hi Belinda!
As with combatant, entity, plussed, sense, sequitur, starter and etc,
the opposite of baby is nonbaby, of cradle is non-cradle, of bathwater is non-bathwater or firery showery-ice, of parent is nonparent or dtr or son, of womb is non-womb or tomb, of placenta is non-placenta or displacenta, of Mom is non-Mom or Dad, of corpse is non-corpse or live-body, of adult is non-adult or child, of grownup is nongrownup or held-down, of big sister is either non-big sister or little sister or little brother or big bro, of schoolchild is non-schoolchild or home-adult. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 2812
|
| Post: #43 Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I agree with you there, Ape
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 368
|
| Post: #44 Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| athena wrote: |
I just listened to a lecture about John Dewey and his philosophy of Pragmatism. I love the idea that philosophy began with aristocrats and was sadly lacking the point of view of artisans. It benefited the aristocrat that reality be unchanging, so they built philosophy on the idea that truth is unchangeable perfection/form. We still base our public policy on theories that are so removed from reality, that government efforts to resolve social problems are costly and do not resolve the problem. |
Nice theory, except that Socrates, arguably the "father" of modern philosophy, was a stone cutter and not a wealthy one, yet it was his theory of immutable forms that became the basis for the "unchanging" nature of truth found in many philosophies since. The Socratic dialogues are convincing, not because they are politically correct, but because they raise questions about the possibility of "knowing" and what that means that continue to raise discussion issues today. Also note that Socrates was compelled to drink hemlock because his theory of absolute forms was considered dangerous by the aristocrats that controlled the government of the city. Perhaps they thought it gave the people a consistent means of evaluating their performance. In short, your theory is both historically and philosophically inaccurate. An objective form of truth provides an independent standard for assessing truth and performance. The reason political leaders prefer relativism and the promotion of relativism is that it takes away a means of powerful collective assessment. If everyone is brainwashed into thinking "It's just my idea" no strong opposition on the basis of truth or moral good can gain a footing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 2762
|
| Post: #45 Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OTavern wrote: |
...
An objective form of truth provides an independent standard for assessing truth and performance. The reason political leaders prefer relativism and the promotion of relativism is that it takes away a means of powerful collective assessment. If everyone is brainwashed into thinking "It's just my idea" no strong opposition on the basis of truth or moral good can gain a footing. |
Hi OT! . Long time no chat!
Question: What wd you say was JC's standard in this story by which he concluded that the Pharisee doing good was unjust or unjustified, or less just or less justified than the publican doing bad, and the publican doing bad was just or justified or more just or more justified than the Pharisee doing good:
Did JC use as his standard the objective truth or the truth of objective Love as the basis of judging the truth that the thankful Pharisee despised or hated the publican as unrighteous or wrong or wrongeous or as less righteous?
Luke 18:9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalts himself shall be abased; and he that humbles himself shall be exalted.
And also, on what basis is JC's statement at the end of verse 14 true? And on what basis is it false?
"for every one that exalts himself shall be abased; and he that humbles himself shall be exalted."
Just sharpening my iron with your iron!
Proverbs 17:
17 Iron sharpens iron; so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.
19 As in water face answers to face, so the heart of man to man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
