[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 209 KB, 1200x675, 1_e3pO7Sr5j5xjMGZoUhc0RQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20150211 No.20150211 [Reply] [Original]

do you believe truth exists? you can only say yes or no.

>> No.20150217

filtered

>> No.20150218

1) Suppose truth does not exist.
2) Then we have a contradiction, for in order to suppose anything as true truth must exist.
3) Hence, truth exists.

>> No.20150219

yes

>> No.20150245

>>20150217
cringe
>>20150218
>logic fagging in a philosophy thread
reason dosent apply to thought, only science

>> No.20150249

>>20150218
Truth exists because you defined truth to exist. Does truth exist prior to logic?

>> No.20150275

>>20150218
>Suppose truth does not exist.
Define "truth" and define "to exist"

>> No.20150283

>>20150211
>>20150245
>>20150249
>>20150275
>t. fart sniffing humanities major baristas

>> No.20150331

>>20150211
>you can only say yes or no

Why?

>> No.20150340

>>20150218
>Anything that can be supposed must exist
This logic breaks down when you start supposing squares have five sides

>> No.20150349

>>20150211
Yes.

>> No.20150371

>>20150211
Yes. Whoever says no is completely deranged

>> No.20150379

>>20150211
What is truth ?

>> No.20150385

>>20150211
Noyes.

>> No.20150402

>>20150211
yes

>> No.20150403

>>20150275
Limitation in the capacity to define something does not determine whether or not it exists. It either does or out doesn't, regardless of your ability to comprehend it.

>> No.20150410

If you say "no" then that statement is automatically... untrue

>> No.20150425
File: 163 KB, 671x960, C847B508-54CA-4D61-8E1F-3AD8B5CBD81C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20150425

Yes.

>> No.20150434

How do we know that what we know is true ?

>> No.20150442
File: 25 KB, 600x584, 1446687039818.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20150442

>>20150218
based

>>20150340
it does not because this isn't an actual supposition you have no actual concept of a five sided square, it's like saying a red blue, you have a concept of five, and you have a concept of square, and the two are fundamentally incompatible, this isn't even an abstraction but rather poor wordplay on your part anon

>>20150275
truth is what informs reality regardless of how or if either it the informing or reality are perceived by perceiving agents

come the fuck at me, my metaphysics are perfect and perfectly real

>> No.20150449

>>20150442
>truth is what informs reality regardless of how or if either it the informing or reality are perceived by perceiving agents
Does it exist ? How can you prove it ?
t. brainlet

>> No.20150451

>>20150245
>reason dosent apply to thought, only science
You are retarded

>> No.20150453

>>20150449
of course it exists for reality exists for we exist
the proof is inductive on the most fundamental level

>> No.20150457

>>20150218
you assumed it already existed in your "proof" in order to "prove" it moron.
>>20150211
sort of

>> No.20150459

>>20150249
In order for one to use logic you must assume truth exists in the conclusion.

>> No.20150461

>>20150453
Based sceptic basher.

>> No.20150475

Capital T Truth? No, That there is truth in certain things yes

>> No.20150486

>>20150449
You can murder someone and leave behind no proof that you did it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is not a court of law to decide the existence of existence. What is, is, whether you prove it or not.

>> No.20150489

>>20150442
I don't need a concept of something to suppose its existence. I can suppose fundamentally incompatible things freely, it's just that the supposition will inevitably be shown to be false, which emerges naturally out of the fundamental incompatibility. The square example works like this:
Suppose a square has five sides. It is analytic a priori knowledge that squares have four sides. Thus no square has five sides, thus squares do not have five sides.
>it's like saying a red blue
No it's not, this isn't a supposition.
>and the two are fundamentally incompatible
It doesn't matter. We mathematically suppose incompatible things all the time. We only discover the incompatibility through the process of assessing the supposition.
Consider the supposition that there exists a general solution for n-order polynomial equations. It can be supposed, I have just done so and it was done historically. But it was proven impossible and thus the supposition is wrong.

>> No.20150512

What is it with philosophers and truth?
How about searching for some lies for a change, you might have better luck there.

>> No.20150530

>>20150453
>>20150486
I hope you don't mind by dumb question.
If something exists, then it should be true it exiss even if no one acknowledges its existence. Since this is true, then could it be true that the non-being exists ?

>> No.20150643

>>20150249
This is like saying you exist because you define yourself to exist. The existence of truth is a necessary presupposition for logic.

>> No.20150650

>>20150530
non-being exists and in fact there are two things that qualify as non-being, those are Matter and God.

>> No.20150657

>>20150650
(God because God is above Being, Matter because Matter is below Being)

>> No.20150661

>>20150211
If truth does not exist, how can i ponder about its existence?

>> No.20150945

>>20150211
Mu

>> No.20151899
File: 27 KB, 500x479, 1633323505459.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20151899

Surely it would be utterly foolish for anyone to seriously argue that truth doesn't exist. What someone actually means when they say "there is no truth" is that "the truth is not able to be known".

>> No.20151943

>>20151899
>"the truth is not able to be known".
how would they know?

>> No.20152013

>>20150211
depends how much its thought about. The more it is, it does, the more it isn't, it doesn't. Just gotta dust off the old Nous.

>> No.20152027

>>20150661
this. The question's answer is self-evident.

>> No.20152059

>>20150661
>>20152027
if giant pink man-eating slugs don't exist, how can I ponder their existence?

>> No.20152352

>>20150249
What exists prior to logic is not the business of logic. Such a hypothetical is in itself illogical - because it isn't within the domain of logic which is itself logical because *it is logic* -
>It cannot be 1illogical for it is 1logical therefore, it must be 2logical, for if it were not, it would be 2illogical.
I have used numbered packets in order to circumvent any claim of circular reasoning. If you wish to disprove ciruclar reasoning, go on, parse the whole sentence in one moment in such a way that there is absolutely no identification of linearity, procession, hierarchy, form, or caculation of values or variables.
Logic cannot be illogical because logic (as it is) IS logical (as it is used.) Therefore, we can conclude that truth does indeed exist prior to logic if such a prior state of affairs can be conceived, for if they were conceived they would indeed be conceived logically. They must be conceived logically for if they were not one would be unable to conceive of them - if you think I am wrong - go on, try it. 'Conceive' something without involving logic.

>> No.20152365

>>20150211
Yes

>> No.20152368

>>20150211
Do you believe truth exists? You can only answer by assuming truth exists.

>> No.20152378

>>20152059
>don't exist
>he doesn't know

>> No.20152398

>>20150245
>>20150249
>>20150275
>>20150340
>>20150457
None of you understood the argument. Read it again carefully. The first premise is: Suppose truth does NOT exist.
Then the second premise shows that by supposing truth does not exist, you are supposing that it’s true that “truth does not exist”. In order to suppose anything as true you need the concept of truth and falsity.
Thus the argument proves that it’s impossible to suppose truth does not exist because that’s a self-contradictory act. You literally cannot suppose truth does not exist.
This is completely different to your objections. If you suppose a five sided triangle does not exist you do not land yourself in any contradiction whatsoever. Similarly, my argument never assumed that truth existed, but rather showed the impossibility of denying that it exists, so it’s definitely not begging the question.

>> No.20152413

>>20152352
>'Conceive' something without involving logic.
Women do it every day.

>> No.20152846

Lurking and realize I don't know what truth is

>> No.20153343

>>20152846
it's a word specifying a limited phenomena that became even more limited with the realization that we are a dream and only fools think they are awake right now

>> No.20153352

>>20153343
>the realization that we are a dream and only fools think they are awake right now
Books on this?

>> No.20153354

>>20150371
Perhaps it takes a certain derangement to answer yes.

>> No.20153357

>>20150211
Maybe

>> No.20153381

>>20152398
Your argument is basically that if truth doesn't exist, then we have a contradiction, and contradictions doesn't exist, so truth exists.

But in order for an argument to work, you need to assume the existence of truth values, but if truth values exists then truth already exists. So by presenting an argument that truth exist, you are trying to prove what you already assume.

A better way to show that proof exists is just a meditative exercise where you think "It's true that I'm thinking". <img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="26" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/adf2d2f0_EZY.png">

>> No.20153704

>>20153381
My argument is more against the *act* of supposing truth does not exist.

The point is, if a truth-denier supposes truth does not exist, they are supposing it's true that "truth does not exist." They are being self-contradictory.

And if someone says "Well fine then I won't suppose truth does not exist" then they are no longer a truth-denier.

If someone says "Well I just accept contradiction", then they believe simultaneously that truth does not exist and that it does exist, which is obviously absurd. They become simultaneously a truth-denier and a truth-affirmer.

So it is impossible to maintain only that "truth does not exist" without also maintaining the contrary.

If someone is really radical they might say "ok I believe both that truth exists and does not exist. I accept contradictions", and the best way to deal with such people is to execute them.

>> No.20153739

>>20150211
Ja
,aber...

>> No.20153772

>>20150512
>How about searching for some lies for a change, you might have better luck there.
The world is already full of it, no need to search for it.

>> No.20153784

>>20151899
What do you mean? Did you mean that "truth is unknown" as in we will never know the properties of truth? Or "truth's existence is unknown" which is plain contradiction?

>> No.20154023

>>20153352
Zhuangzi hits that spot

>> No.20154036

>>20150211
YES

>> No.20154043

>>20150489
>word salad
>say nothing but repeat yourself
>still refuted by the very post you replied to
lul

>> No.20154087

>>20154023
Does it? I can only think of the short butterfly chapter as relevant.

>> No.20154109

>>20154087
The skull dream, the shrine tree dream are also sort of relevant
There's more probably but the utility is that it brings me to the mindset of
universe dreaming of experiencing itself as opposed to one I adapt while living and working among people which is le evolved monkey pretending he's searching for truth even though he can't define it

>> No.20154135

>>20150211
Truth = Being or One
Plato already btfo any notion of a discursive arrival at Truth, there is only truth. If we follow Hegel we can say that Truth can embody itself, or God can incarnate through a sort of totalized and universalized consciousness at the end of history, but this can only be a Truth that has no individuation, thus as subjects we can never attain this Truth, only our truths (ala Nietzsche).

>> No.20155071

>>20150442
>he still uses images <img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="26" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/adf2d2f0_EZY.png">

>> No.20155211

>>20150657
what does "matter is below Being" mean ?!

>> No.20155281
File: 111 KB, 847x790, ea8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20155281

>>20150245
>>20150249
>>20150275
>>20150340
>>20150457
>>20153381
If the proposition "truth doesn't exist" were true, it would be a truth (there is no going around this, faggots, cope <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="31" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/4dfb5c71_COPIUM.png">)) which means truth exists. This is a proof demonstrating what can be known to exists, not a proof based on contradiction (we could conclude that truth both exists and doesn't exist from this but fortunately logic also BTFO this conclusion separately so we just ignore it). SEETHE, COPE, and DILATE anti-logic fags.

>> No.20155341

>>20150245
Do you own a dog house?

>> No.20155391

>>20152059
>Giant pink man-eating slugs.
Is an abstraction made of different concepts that can all be found in reality, for you to even be able to think about that figure confirms it's existence or it confirms the existence of the concepts that together lead you to be able to perceive it in the first place.

>> No.20156291

>>20150211
Yes but not without some assumptions/pre-suppositions/faith. Also we don't have an established criterion for truth so who knows.

>> No.20156299

>>20150211
Do we mean subjective truth, that is to say truth that is consistent with my experience of reality, or objective truth that is true without reference to perceived reality? Is this not the same Kantian issue as trying perceiving things-in-themselves versus the phenomena? Are there things? Yes. Is my perception objective and how it is? No.

>> No.20156315

>>20150211
The truth is the whole.
The whole is the Absolute.
The Absolute is the whole truth.

>> No.20156390

>>20155341
based

>> No.20156410

>>20155281
You are way too fucking stupid to realise that you absolutely can’t “prove” truth exists without assuming truth already is real. You actually lower truth’s status by trying to prove it because you make it posterior to dialectic but that’s actually impossible because truth is the substratum of all mental production and existence. You are the reason people think truth isn’t real and you should kill yourself

>> No.20156424

>>20155211
Matter is the receptacle of being and doesn’t have being itself. It doesn’t have a conceivable existence and you can’t conceive of it without imposing form on it. It is because matter has unlimited potential to receive form that it must be nothingness and have no being. Matter is not objects or things that exist in space, space itself and the object imposed on matter are already forms. True matter is necessarily inconceivable or else conceivable things could not exist on it

>> No.20156431

>>20150245
What he’s saying literally follows no rules of logic in the first place though. Logic presupposed that truth exists and then just creates a list of rules to determine if something is true. Truth itself cannot be and is not described in formal logic. He has never read any textbook on logic in his life

>> No.20156448

>>20150211
yes or no

>> No.20156449

>>20150211
Maybe <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="26" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/7b4acfbf_trollface.png"><img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="26" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/7b4acfbf_trollface.png"><img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="26" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/7b4acfbf_trollface.png">

>> No.20156450

>>20150211
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/1e4d8dfa_PillowNo.png">

I expect this christcucked board to be predominantly yes.