John Page

Here is my proposition:

What's your opinion? How do we deal with the question "Does 2+2=4 even when nobody's thinking it?" and "Did 2+2=4 before the invention of decimal arithmetic?".

Some of these issues are discussed in a thread on the Liar Paradox I started a while back.

Cheers, John

AnthonyAdams45

I think I like it... a lot. But let me get back to you on those final challenges.

abe smith

....Do us all muddlers-on a favor, John-man; and stop talking about (that Platonist fiction) "Truth", if you don't mind. I for one deny you the right to create and to discuss this *fiction* as if "it" were a (real) entity. Your doing that constitutes water-
muddying. There's a Smiley here. Abe.

Hugo Holbling

Perhaps we could ask what difference it makes? Suppose twice two is only four when someone thinks about it, or alternatively that it is always so - what then? "Isn't it always the same question, and always the same answer?"

"The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes. That's a fact. All else is pure theory."

(You win a prize if you can tell me where i got that... )

Keith Russell

Abe said:
I for one--

Keith: Oh, Abe, are 'you' truly 'one'? (For that matter, are 'you' truly 'you?)

Abe: --deny--

Keith: 'Truly' deny? Really?

Abe: --you--

Keith: Is it true that John is a separate entity, an individual apart from 'you', Abe?

Abe: --the right to create and to discuss this *fiction* as if "it" were a (real) entity.

Keith: Abe, you cannot know that it is a fiction, without a 'truth' with which the fiction can be compared.

Keith.

abe smith

Bugger-on, Keith.
It is possibly the case that discussions of this sort are not worth bothering w/. BEEEEG SMILE!

Hugo Holbling

It has already been explained in this forum that denying knowledge need not constitute a knowledge claim, and that denying the existence or possibility of truth does not entail a truth claim. Nevertheless, it's easy to see by way of an example that a supposedly absolute statement is not so simply dismissed. For instance, when someone says "there is no truth", the following (non-exhaustative) list may be considered:

1) A coherentist may be claiming that the correspondence theory is incoherent, or has no content, just as Davidson and Church have done.

2) A pragmatist may be claiming eliptically that only praxis may be grounds for using this term.

3) A skeptic may be claiming that the concept can have no content.

4) An antifoundationalist may be claiming that the concept needs to be radically reinvented or dropped from discourse completely.

5) A Derridean or Saussurian may be hoping that the semiological critique of the concept be taken into account, leaving the play of differance.

And so on...

It would be interesting to discuss these and other interpretations but the endeavour has proven to be otiose. Still, it's amusing to think of Putnam's work, for example, being assumed disposed of by an argument of self-refutation.

As an aside, it should be noted that in academia the question is not whether the antifoundationalists have anything to say worth hearing, but what can be salvaged in light of their work. If this be construed as an appeal to authority, then the point is well made...

John Page

Abe:

Is it really true that you have you have denied me the right to (whatever)? Truth may be an abstract entity but it exists alright. Truth exists in the mind of mankind when he/she assumes that two non-identical entites are to be considered the same for the sake of argument/perception. e.g. This x is a y.

After all, if we can design a computer to compute the values of "true" and "false" then why can't the human mind do something similar?

Cheers, John
__________________
This response was created in a PlayDough free zone.

John Page

Abe:

If your proposition is correct, it is therefore true that it is neither true nor false that discussions of this sort are not worth bothering with.

I'm just asking whether you consider your proposition neither true nor false before you said it. If no, its lack of truth or falsity was (I suggest) created in the moment of its perception.

Cheers, John

John Page

Sure. It makes a big difference to our philosophies. If 2+2=4 is deemed to be an eternal truth then the "absolutists" we have been debating with have somewhat of a point.

BTW, I'm open minded to being persuaded that the truth of my statement is false. However, if this is proven the conclusion can be extended to prove that *any* truth is liable to error and cannot be eternal.

Cheers, John