R
- Status
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Light is light, and that is as far as I personally am capable of claiming as a truth.
So, I’ll repeat MY question in hopes you’ll answer it:
Is light being light a truth?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
We are trying to establish that truth can be a noun.
“Light being light is a truth” as a statement is useful in pointing out that “light being light” is a “THING”, which is a noun, and that noun is (a) “truth”.
That is how tautologies are useful. They make explicit definitional meaning.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Light exhibits qualities of both a wave and a particle. That is truth.
S
SyCarl
Guest
I would say that there is truth and that it is absolute. However since the subject relates to God, who is infinite, and His plans I do not think that our limited intellects can find or understand that absolute truth. The best we can do is to come as close to it as we can. That may not be particularly useful though since in trying to understand what is beyond comprehension, different conclusions, none which might be totally wrong, can be reached. That is if right and wrong can even be judged in such a situation.
T
tGette
Guest
OK…
I think there are some semantics going on with this word:
“truth”
compared to
“A truth”
When I am talking about TRUTH in this thread, I am not referring to God. I would love to debate the word TRUTH being a noun, but we need to start small. (Though ultimately as the series continues…I would like to get to that.)
The point of this thread was to find if we agree that there is such thing as truth. Regardless of what we are referring to.
Whether it be that 2 + 2 = 4 is truth [a truth] (that is an absolute truth)
-or-
As mentioned in previous posts:
Light being light is truth [a truth]. (That is an observable truth, quite obvious, but true nonetheless.)
For example…whether there is a God or not:
Either the absolute truth is that there is a God
-or-
the absolute truth is that there is not a God
(Either way we are coming to a truth, no?)
Getting into tricky subjects such as euthanasia, abortion, etc. a long, long down the road.
**I just want to know:
Is truth always absolute or always subjective?
Is truth obtainable on every topic?
Regardless of the topic we speak of.
**
I think there are some semantics going on with this word:
“truth”
compared to
“A truth”
When I am talking about TRUTH in this thread, I am not referring to God. I would love to debate the word TRUTH being a noun, but we need to start small. (Though ultimately as the series continues…I would like to get to that.)
The point of this thread was to find if we agree that there is such thing as truth. Regardless of what we are referring to.
Whether it be that 2 + 2 = 4 is truth [a truth] (that is an absolute truth)
-or-
As mentioned in previous posts:
Light being light is truth [a truth]. (That is an observable truth, quite obvious, but true nonetheless.)
For example…whether there is a God or not:
Either the absolute truth is that there is a God
-or-
the absolute truth is that there is not a God
(Either way we are coming to a truth, no?)
Getting into tricky subjects such as euthanasia, abortion, etc. a long, long down the road.
**I just want to know:
Is truth always absolute or always subjective?
Is truth obtainable on every topic?
Regardless of the topic we speak of.
**
T
tGette
Guest
No, a tautology is like saying that tomorrow I will either go to work or I will not. (In the topic of logic anyways.)
Also:
It is very useful, because it helps us on the search that there is truth.
What she said, was not a tautology.
Now in the sense of a regular definition:
A tautology would be:
I will probably maybe come tomorrow.
See?
R
rossum
Guest
That assumes a two-valued Aristotelian logic. There are alternative logics such as a probabilistic logic or a four-valued Nagarjunian logic: yes, no, both, neither.
A = A is a tautology in most (all?) logics.
rossum
S
Swan
Guest
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
That again, is an absolute statement.
T
tGette
Guest
My apologies, I tend to work in dichotomies in using logic.
I am not very familiar with Buddhist forms of logic.
Please give me what, under this philosophy, would be said of the statement:
“Either I will go to work tomorrow or I will not”
Also, Where can I learn more about Nargarjunian logic anyways?
Thank you for opening my mind!
Concerning probabilistic logic, it can still involve dichotomies.
When it comes down to it, despite the probabilities:
I will either go to work OR I will not.
Now, the probabilities come into play as to what occurs regarding which one these two happen.
R
rossum
Guest
The truth value of “2 + 2 = 4” depends on the meanings assigned to the symbols ‘2’, ‘4’, ‘+’ and ‘=’. Hence it cannot be an absolute truth when expresed in that form. In that form it is only a relative truth, dependent on the meanings assigned to those symbols. An Arab or a Chinese could use a different set of symbols: our ‘=’ is closer to the Chinese for two. Our 0 is closer to the Arabic for five (the Arabs use a symbol like our decimal point for zero).
The meanings assigned to symbols in human languages can change a lot: “Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.” Parse “flies like” in both cases.
rossum
T
tGette
Guest
I’m sorry, but that is the silliest thing I have ever heard.
Because…we are quite aware that we are typing in English and the assumption is that those symbols mean what they mean in English.
I get your point, and I like how your mind works.
What would your argument be if we were having this conversation in person, actually using words.
And I said:
“Two plus two equals four”
Would you tell me that since those words mean nothing in another language it is then not true?
T
tGette
Guest
By the way:
“A” equals “A” is not a tautology.
“A” equals “A” is not a tautology.
R
ricko
Guest
We can’t even agree on what “truth” is. Now you know why there are so many different religions.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
What?? I have to agree with tGette here, rossum…this IS one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard.
Regardless of the language it’s being written in, 2+2 still equals 4 whether it’s the English 2 or a scribble mark in sanskrit!
T
tGette
Guest
Thank you!
That was one of the underlying intentions of this thread.
We cannot agree on all these multitudes of theologies and philosophies so I wanted to try to start at the basics.
We need a foundation of common understanding and belief if we ever expect to agree on ANYTHING.
Honestly, I did not think it would get this analytical and semantic though.
This is going to be tougher than I thought.
R
rossum
Guest
We think we agree on what words mean in English, but each of us probably has different interpretations. In America an automobile has a hood and a trunk. In Britain a car has a bonnet and a boot. How can we be sure that we both understand the same meaning of the same word? Unless we are absolutely sure then any truth we convey from one person to another cannot be an absolute truth. It is contingent upon the match between our different understandings of the same words in our respective versions of out common language.
Two/to/too/tu plus two/to/too/tu equals four/fore/for. You need a language without homophones.
The sound “to” has a meaning in French and Latin at least, and probably in other languages.
rossum
T
tGette
Guest
I love your brain!
I understand 100% the point you are trying to make.
British English is almost a different language from American English.
We can see this evolution even further with the use of Ebonics.
So basically…yes…if a French speaking person (who knew only French) was talking to an English speaking person (who knew only English) they would have no idea what each other was saying.
But if a French person (who also knows English) was speaking to that same person who speaks only English… (if he were fluent) he would not get confused at the sound “two/to/too…”
If I said “two plus two” he would not think “too plus to”.
**Can I try to some up the point you are trying to convey?
Let me know if I am way of base…
You are saying that if we want to find truth we have to agree on what the words we are using mean and convey before we can come to a search for truth and truths.
**
R
rossum
Guest
My point is that you cannot have “2 + 2 = 4” on its own as an absolute truth. You also need an agreed definition of what those particular characters mean - with a different meaning the truth value might change. Hence those characters are not an absolute truth but a conditional truth; they do not stand alone but require the presence of an agreed set of meanings. For example, 2 + 2 = 10 in numbers to base 4; “2 + 2 = 4” is meaningless in base 4 since the symbol ‘4’ has no meaning in base 4, only the digits 0, 1, 2 and 3 have meaning.
An absolute truth stands on its own. Anything expressed in a language does not stand on its own but also requires the presence of a dictionary. Hence anything expressed in a language cannot be an absolute stand-alone truth.
Absolute truth may possibly exist, but since we live in a contingent world it is very difficult to be sure that we have found it, and that we do not have a close approximation to it. Any close approximation to absolute truth cannot be an absolute truth, but must be contingent.
rossum
- Status