/lit/ - Literature

>>7203024
I believe objective truth, in terms of successfully and completely representing the realities the claim is aiming to establish, is impossible (for contemporary humans at least).

Subjective truth, or truth from one viewpoint, is admittedly less 'complete' than this, but it is the best we can hope to achieve.

We can represent reality through true justified belief, but modern philosophers have found ways around this description. It seems to be the best definition we have to date, (as far as I know - undergrad) but it does have its flaws.

Hence why I think the human conception of truth can never be complete - it is beyond what we can present in any communicable medium, to date.

If anyone can tear me apart, please do. Out to learn.

>>7203024
2+2=4

aboslute truths don't exist outside mathematics. only beliefs with more or less evidence supporting them.

>hey /lit/ could you answer for me real quick the question to which the entire philosophical field of epistemology is directed?

The agreement of the mind with being.

>>7203145
This is self-refuting. There are 3 sophisms which destroy philosophical investigation at the outset:

1. there is no truth
2. there is truth, but it cannot be known
3. there is knowable truth, but it cannot be communicated

if any of these is true then philosophy is pointless, there is no way for us to communicate realities to one and other, and out interaction with each other becomes "might makes right" shadowed over by quietism because we are unable to enunciate anything.

>>7203242

When you say that there is no objective truth, you are saying that the statement "the empire state building is 6ft tall" is as valid as the statement "the empire state building is 1454ft tall"

>>7203244

when Socrates comes across the idea that truth is subjective in one of the dialogues, he asks why he would need to talk to a philosopher then and not a tadpole, seeing as the tadpole's experience is just as enlightening as the philosopher's

it's a philosophy that undermines philosophy

>>7203242
Gorgias pls go

>>7203162

>2+2=4
>implying

>>7203246
This is a humorous refutation of Heraclitean flux leading to Protagorean relativity of truth.

>I was astonished that he did not state at the beginning of the "Truth" that 'Pig is the measure of all things' or 'Baboon' or some yet more out-of-the-way creature with the power of perception

I can't tell if you're supporting or refuting these sophisms.

>if any of these is true then philosophy is pointless

That's the fucking point, numbnuts. It's a question of ARE these true.

>>7203257
All our lives are based on the premise that those 3 things are false. If any of those are true then one ought to join a monastery and collapse into a quietist black hole.

>>7203145
>We can represent reality through true justified belief, but modern philosophers have found ways around this description.

Exactly. I believe it was Gettier that rek'd this model in his 2 pages dissertation.

>>7203263
The fact of our desiring, building, and communicating shows that we believe that there is a truth and that it can be communicated to other people.

The fact that we instinctively value honesty and are repulsed by lies shows that those 3 statements are against our nature.

>>7203162

But even within mathematics they only exist within this universe and within this given axioms we assigned to it.

>>7203244
Yeah, but I assume that no one knows the *exact* height of the Empire State Building, much like no one knows the exact length of some shore, for example.

Sure, to say that it is 1454ft tall is a lot closer and more useful approximation than 6ft, but should useful approximations count as true?

>>7203166
You can sum up most viewpoints in one sentence but spend books elaborating them

sometimes I think philosophy would do far better if it had less hyperintellectuals running towards who can build the most elaborate tl;dr

>>7203263
What about the possibility there is truth but it is not something worth arguing about? In other words, one who understood it would have no desire to engage in epistemological or ontological debates. This too, is quietism, the quietism of the Buddha, but it does not deny "truth" -- it affirms it.

>>7203244
Who told you that feet was the correct measurement and that 6 of them aren't the true height of the Empire State Building?

>>7203387
Not him. "Feet" is a unit defined mathematically. If you deny the validity of mathematics, do you not get upset when you pay for a candy bar with a $20 bill and the woman at the register gives you 50 cents in change?

>>7203398
If a foot is so defined in mathematics, then why is a Chinese foot different from an american foot?
A unit of measurement is deemed by a human being - or a group of human beings - who can have no sense of absolute truth.

How do we rid ourselves of the concept of truth, lads?

No need to define it. We all know when something is true and when something is false. All people, if they know it or not, evaluate everyday situations with the correspondence theory of truth. Now, I am not saying that the correspondence theory of truth is a correct representation of the nature of truth. It is only a way to explain our intuitive and innate understanding of the concept truth.

>>7203024
Fully prepared to be shred apart but OP stuck his neck out so I will too before responding.
I think truth lies only within the single monism of reality. The only objective truth is the true revelation of this singularity.. I think we are are able to tap into some of this truth by means of knowledge expansion, but will always be unable to know any actual truth because we are bound to our bodily limitations, unable to perceive higher dimensions or see any objective truth because we are each hard-wired to search our surroundings for a fuck-partner and food, not truth.

>>7203024
It is a noun.

>>7203415
>if unit x is so defined, why is unit y different from unit z?
This is what you have really done. There is one and one only definition for an international foot. If this means nothing because it can only be thought about by humans, then you must be prepared to abandon your intuition as a logical consequence.

>>7203430
Even when using a ruler each individual will see a foot, an inch, or less differently. A unit of measurement has no truth. It is simply a common agreement between a large majority.
One person saying something is 6ft and another person saying the same thing is 1454ft may very well both be subjectively true, however one of those people will be laughed at more than the other.

>>7203162
Nope. Plurality alone needs to be built from something, you have no way of defining the fact that numbers exist I get that Kant said that but he did quite a bit of work before asserting mathematics and your half ass jump doesn't work.
>>7203242
Wow thanks for saying that! guess we can close a discussion that has lasted for thousands of years because of assumed superlatives
>>7203246
You are dumb
>>7203257
You are right
>>7203425
huehuehue

>>7203024
Here's an attempt:
Truth is the concept under the assumption of which we are able to reason. That is, we assume a rational structure of the world, and then operate according to it. It doesn't even need to match the 'actual situation' in the world, it is the assumption that is useful on its own.

If truth would exist nobody could deny it - is there anything that everybody agrees with? Like, that there is rather something than nothing? Or is anything debatable or doubtful? If so there is no truth neither.

I don't know.

>>7203478
Truth is the constant awareness that one day someone will find out you are a fraud.

>>7203457
>Plurality alone needs to be built from something, you have no way of defining the fact that numbers exist

Given the axioms and presume them makes objective truth possible within that system. Surely this is not about objective truth of reality (or whatever) itself.

>>7203485
Maybe a fraud to myself, yes.

First glimpse of deception, and the corpse of the world - then you will set off on the long journey to discover what truth is.

>>7203145
>true justified belief
hopefully, not a single person can make everybody agree on what these three words mean.


the problem of the believers like you is that you think that objectivity is reached through a universal agreement from some persons, but you do not know how to choose these persons

>>7203493
>objective truth
what you call objective truth is nothing but truth and could be called runway for that matter. the only truth about the objective truth is its name. a contrived man-made system that is supported by only a few people on earth at one moment in time is hardly a truth...

>>7203162
nope. in quantum physics, thinks we percieve as non-logical or impossible happen.

>>7203162
Obviously there's more to truth than just arithmetic. After all, human beings must be capable to discern and separate things into categories to even conceive of math.
>These are two heifers. These are two bulls. They are together, 4 cattle.
There's much more than just counting going on here.

>>7203599
This is why I relativized that truth. It only holds up in that system. But however, in that system it is objective. I'm not talking about objective truth itself but about objective truth relative to a set of premises. Well maybe then the name "objective truth" just doesn't make sense anymore, I see that.

>>7203024
the redpill

>>7203592
Everyone can, it has been the definition of truth for like a full millenium.

>>7203705
the word objective is really loved by the rationalists, but that is quite all.

what is called true are not the statements themselves (the theorems), but the inference of the theorems from some hypotheses, because each step from the premises to the theorem are valid with respect to the inference rules chosen by the guy. In the special case of the choice of the first order logic, the truth is the validity that the inference rules must preserve, when they are used from one statement to obtain another one. But the truth of first order logic is just a word : the initial axioms are postulated, they are true because I say that they are true. True here is just a word, such as 4chan, car, cloud.... .

For the other notion of validity of the deduction/inference, the inference rules remain arbitrary and even if you manage to find a set of inference rules whereon everybody that you encounter agree, nothing can be ascertain as long as you yourself have not conducted the proof.
The other guys will need to trust you and you cannot be certain that you will not find one person who disagree. The question is thus the one of the communication of the inference rules in order to make somebody agree with you.

the question of the certainty leading to universality of agreement leading to objectivity leading to truth leading to knowledge leading to a grasp of the reality is not appropriate.

the first question to ask is why do people talk about these notions, whereas they have no clue what they even are, whereas these people do not even know why they wish to infer and communicate their inferences ?

>>7203705
But that's only because you're using 'objective' in an uncommon way, anon. In philosophy, 'objective' means 'true independent of what minds think.' 2+2=4 fits this criteria.

>>7203747
No, 2+2=4 is true precisely because the mind thinks so.

Mathematics are an a priori tool to manipulate reality.

Is I write "sign" + "sign" ="sign" in a system I have conceived it will be true as well.

You are mislead about mathematics.

>>7203024
This.

for those believe that a formal system leads to truth, knowledge, objectivity, reminder that Spinoza cast his philosophy into one

>A formal system need not be mathematical as such; for example, Spinoza's Ethics imitates the form of Euclid's Elements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system

>>7203792
>mfw Leibniz baited Spinoza into showing him the manuscript
>mfw the exact same hour he ran to the church to snitch on him without even stopping by to take a piss

>>7203764
>No, 2+2=4 is true precisely because the mind thinks so.

What do you mean? You're far too focused on the specifics of the signs within the system.

[equivalent of 2] + [equivalent of 2] = [equivalent of 4]

is true regardless of whatever 'signs' you use for '2' or '4,' and also independent of whatever people believe about it, making it an objective truth.

>>7203810
Are you going to continue to make baseless claims, or are you going to provide some proof?

>>7203810
>>is true regardless of whatever 'signs' you use for '2' or '4,
no, you confuse extensional equality with intentional equality

>>7203731
Finally someone made a good point.

This gave me the thought: Is communication nothing else than a mean to find out why we communicate? Why we wish, have needs, do stuff? Through communication truth will not be found as you elaborated but maybe it is giving us the drive to keep asking instead? And if we found that truth communication would die?

>>7203810
Yep and Kant knew our minds had an intuition about how space worke that's Euclidean, and math (while reconstructed later on to be founded in different places) ends up being based on these intuitions

>>7203813
>baseless

Go ahead and measure your door 500 times and see if the width changes

>>7203731
>But the truth of first order logic is just a word : the initial axioms are postulated, they are true because I say that they are true.
No, logic depends on our intuitions about certain logical operators. It's impossible to do anything without a preceding notion of "if", "or", "and", etc., these are a priori to the content of logic. Even the ideas of "so" and "not so" are so.

>>7203810
2+2=4 because that's the way the system is designed. The truth of any given proposition in a mathematical/logical system is contained in the axioms (any valid proposition must be derived from the axioms, and can strictly speaking only clarify what is already contained in the latter while never adding new information), and these axioms are always arbitrary and man-made and never "objective."

>>7203810
But 2+2=1 in my system anon(Z_3).

>>7203620
>quantum physics

don't talk about things you don't understand fam

>>7203765
>>>8gag

>>7204472
We don't really use axiomatic systems for everything in math though

>>7203162
2 + 2 = 10 in base 4

isn't this meme taught to all children in some way or another?

>>7203024
suck my dick, OP

Truth is what is useful.

While the American is a Culture-man, reprimitivized on the one side of his being, over-civilized on the other, since he is completely and entirely animated by the ideals of peace, comfort, and security, the Russian is a barbarian, and still wholly primitive. Centuries of Petrinism never touched the underground Russia. No matter that it figured as such for centuries, Russia never became a nation of the West. America is a genuine Western colony, though, to be sure, it must now be counted part of the Outer Revolt.
The orientation towards technics is common to both: America is technical by instinct; Russia has become so under compulsion from its leaders, who have only politico-military reasons for embracing technics. In the field of philosophy, America’s sole contribution to the Western intellectual heritage was Pragmatism— the doctrine that Truth is “what works.” In other words, Truth is not a function of the Soul, but of Nature. Pragmatism is at once a primitive and over-civilized philosophy, primitive, because its position vis-à-vis Truth is devoid of higher culture; over-civilized, because it makes all Truth merely an attribute of Technics. Expressed in terms of the American psychology: “True is what procures me more security, more comfort.” In America, obsession with technics is the expression and content of life of the population. It is instinctive, and America naturally seeks to export it to whatever countries its armies and bomber-squadrons have conquered.

>>7203024
me im truth

>>7204436
>No, logic depends on our intuitions about certain logical operators. It's impossible to do anything without a preceding notion of "if", "or", "and",
those are logical operators, not the extra-logical axioms that I mentioned, but the remark applies to both indeed.

Like you said, they stem from some intuition, and there are no agreements on what is intuitive. We say that they are true, because we say that they are true.

>>7203162
What about godel though?

It seems obvious but we can't prove zfc are complete and consistent.

>>7203398
Go ahead and define foot for me.

>>7206893
>Here is one foot,
>And here is another.
>There are at least two external objects in the world.
>Therefore an external world exists.

Truth is something that is never contradicted by truth. If you just rub everything together long enough, eventually nothing will be left but truth.

>>7203024
The only absolute truth is the one's existence. I am, and I am sure that I am

>>7203024
truth is an experience which appeases you irremediably

>>7203242
based. gorgias please stay

just a test pic, ignore it

>>7203293

It will be writen in the blueprints.

>>7203415

Because the Chinese bind their feet.

>>7209135

>>7203024
Jesus.

again, ignore this

>>7209411
ok

>>7209428
who are you talking to?

>>7209449

>>7203024

Baby don`t hurt me
No more

>>7203024
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all."

>>7203024

Philosophy
Is a walk on slippery rocks
Really /lit/
Is a smile on a dog