Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bumharmony t1_ix7ms8m wrote

It only begs the question what truth is, since that can only be pointed out with a true sentence. Truth is a contract that something is true. Surely we can say that x is the longest river of y but we can disagree about the limits of that state y which would shake that assertation. Nothing is true means just that there is no obligating contract about the subject matter at hand. Observations would still be there but their metaphysical implications and the affective power would (if x tgen i need to think/do y) not be agreed upon.

4

eliyah23rd t1_ix7yhpo wrote

>Truth is a contract that something is true

I really like that phrase. It suggests an objective social understanding to an alternative subjective emotivist understanding of truth. Can you give me any references or is it your own?

3

iiioiia t1_ixd55x1 wrote

It also suggests that reality itself takes on the form that humans believe it to be, does it not?

1

Michamus t1_ix8iqb1 wrote

>It only begs the question what truth is

Postulating that truth doesn't exist can't possibly beg the question of "what truth is?" It's addressing it head-on. Not only is Truth not some universal law, it doesn't exist independent of a human mind. It's a construct from which we derive comfort. Even if we decide to assume it exists, we'd have to also conclude it's unattainable.

1

bumharmony t1_ix8pn6w wrote

I think the idea of truth has to regard the possibility of a black swan, thus the idea of probability. So the question should be more like: does the idea of truth exist if basically everything is fallible rather than speculating whether some thing deserves the name tag ”true” on it. So it begs the question; is there even such a concept if we can’t use it in any way.

1

Michamus t1_ix9tc1x wrote

What do you think ‘begs the question’ means?

1

bumharmony t1_ix9wuxc wrote

It simply means going ahead of things. 99% of reddit is this kind or turdy turd.

1

BugsRucker t1_ixakey4 wrote

If I interpret what you've meant correctly then you can't have truth unless you have more than a single party that to agrees to it?

1

bumharmony t1_ixc1x0a wrote

Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.

Because this is never the case, we got different schools of thought, religions and churches, languages, political parties.

But it does not mean that we would not have common raw observations or basic logic even though we disagree about the further, for example metaphysical implications of them.

1

BugsRucker t1_ixcht9u wrote

>Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.

>Because this is never the case...

So, the op article is true.... nothing is true!

It bothers me that mental constructs are so ambiguous and yet so ubiquitous.

1

bumharmony t1_ixdvodu wrote

If we are searching for something that does cannot be evidenced to exist, then it is not possible to say that x.....y are not true.

If I pull a concept out of my ass and say that nothing is this x, it is different thing to say as we should that the whole concept does not exist rather than trying to catch that false question setting like dogs. Because of course saying that nothing is x is not innocent but a way of doing something, implying obligation etc. For example the justification of capitalism is that no morals can be measured so we should welcome laissez faire.

2

iiioiia t1_ixd5f8q wrote

> Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.

Let's say someone asserts that there is a ticking time bomb planted at some location, and there is a dispute between people on the matter. As long as the dispute remains, does that prevent the bomb from exploding?

1

bumharmony t1_ixduun8 wrote

Idk what you want to say with that. There is no bomb or if there is may be you should call the police. Im only saying that there may be a procedure for something but outcomes are no longer possible. One could possibly know how to catch butterflies but he/she could actually catch them any longer if they had become extinct.

1

iiioiia t1_ixdwgib wrote

I'm not saying so much as I am demonstrating how a person behaves when a point is raised that conflicts with their presentation of reality. In this case, you dodged the question - in my experience there are < 10 standard behaviors, and this is one of them.

0

bumharmony t1_ixe9x1p wrote

Sounds like opportunism rather than serious search for truth.

2

iiioiia t1_ixeajr3 wrote

Speaking of truth: it may sound like opportunism, but is it actually?

0