The only difference that I see between particular truth and higher truth is that the former points to an object whereas later is a general feature of our reality. Now, when I talk about knowledge in my argument, I mean higher knowledge instead of particular one.
When I say that knowledge is structured I mean the description of reality/all truth.
Now I agree with existence of higher truth given the definition and examples. Thanks for the clarification.
I’m getting the idea that @STT is thinking “quantitative ‘bodily’ parts”, though.
Thats fair. So what you call knowledge I would call specifically collective knowledge.
Great! Progress is being made. Now what I would ask is if you think my argument was valid.
I think decision is synonymous with choice which I said is substantially an act of the will. However, the intellect is also involved in making decisions or choices. For the intellect considers the decision and the will wills it. The will doesn’t will anything without its object or what to will being presented to it by the intellect.Richca:
Which part of you decide?
I stress again. The sort of knowledge that I used in my argument in OP is higher knowledge. I agree that there are higher knowledge and particular one.
I don’t think so since as I mentioned particular truth point to an object in reality whereas the another explain a feature of the reality. Therefore, one is not reducible to another one. We however derive higher truth from particular one.
Higher truth is an abstract. It doesn’t exist ontologically. It is however structured. That is what we are discussing right now.
Yes.
The highest truth even if is one is a proposition. It is an abstract thing. We are abstractly blind without using any proposition.
I don’t agree with your argument.
No. The decision is the act of choosing in which a free agent does it.
The intellect provides choices to free agent. Intellect however is an ability of free agent who is intellectual.
Intellect brings choices to free agent.
I’m not sure how that follows. If truth is some sort of aspect of reality, and I start off with something like “There is an apple on Danny’s desk” I think we can agree that this aspect of reality (truth) is composed of the severeal explanations that has this be as it is (the same way that the primary effect of a machine, like a car, is necessarily composed of the things which allow such an effect to occur at all, such as the engine and wheelsof said car); for example, my apple is on my desk because of my putting it there, the physics which allowd for placement, time, space, etc. Therefore, I think there might be a case for its composition.
We derive the knowledge of gravity from the observation of its effects; wouldn’t you agree that gravity was still existent before our knowledge of such gravity? And even more so, its effects? In that same way, just because we derive knowledge of higher truth sometimes by the particular does not mean that the lower come ontologically first.
I would disagree with you on this STT; for any higher truth is only as such because of its relativity to any particular truth. Thus, even the nonabstract can be a higher truth. Further, even what is abstract, such as mathematics, are a type of truth which explains reality, and can therefore be seen as being an aspect of reality.
Yes; that is true. And my proposed argument against such would be that there must be a highest truth and therefore highest knowledge which cannot be structured.
What do you mean by this? Is this to say that highest truth, if there is any, cannot ever be known? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Perhaps we might be able to resolve that to at least gain some vital common ground.
Fair enough, as of now.
I mean that in your example of apple on your desk the truth point to an object, namely apple. Higher truth are not as such, they are not pointing into any object and instead discuss a feature of reality. These two truths are mutually exclusive in the sense that they are discussing two different areas.
Yes, I agree with you and a yes to all your questions.
Yes. As I mentioned higher truth explain a feature of reality.
Isn’t the highest truth a proposition?
By blind I mean that we cannot understand any feature of reality without using a proposition. That is the main difference between us and animal.
Sure, I would be happy to discuss things with you.
Then (3) in proof A of OP is correct since higher knowledge is about the structure in reality.
What is highest truth and what it has with the creation?
What is it? Moreover, what the highest knowledge has to do with our discussion.
I have no idea. Maybe existence.
So the point I’m trying to make is that a grand enough being need not have to use a knowledge that is composite to create, but instead knowledge which is wholly uncomposite. That I would think requires we recognize a truth which too is not composite, to which I would say there is one; a highest truth. As such, there can be unstructured knowledge.
With all due respect that is not a fair way of discussing.
I fail to see whats unfair about what I said. Highest truth is argued for by the format:
Me not knowing exactly what the highest truth is does not in any way take away from its existence, but instead shows my ignorance. And to say that because some truth is uncomposite that therefore there can be knowledge which is uncomposite (highest knowledge; not collective knowledge) only follows from definitions. But perhaps there is something to which I neglect or do not understand which, without my awareness, makes my argument either invalid or unsound. If such be the case, let my eyes be opened to this fallaciousness I have taken. If not, then what more have we here?