John Page

Wow! Tell me more about this unobserved truth that is the judge of all lies.
OK, so you say objective truth has no delivery system. How come we know this truth that cannot be delivered unto us? (sopie, please feel free to chime in!)
So I take it that you are confirming you have know knowledge of how you come to know the truth that you claim so emphatically has no delivery system.
....and you use what, a vodka bottle?
Yes I do.
Are you saying that there is no system other than logic for deciding truth?
Irrespective of whether the answer to the above question is yes or no, how do you reconcile your prior retort with earlier statements that you haven't the foggiest how you know the truth?


Cheers, John

yguy

Just where did I say that?

Or that?

No you don't. Trust me.

No, I just asked what the alternative is for realizing truth - not deciding it.

I fail to see a contradiction.

John Page

Originally posted by John Page: OK, so you say objective truth has no delivery system.
How about here:
You were responding to this: "How come we know this truth that cannot be delivered unto us? (sopie, please feel free to chime in!)"

Again, see above where you refered to the perception of "objective truth" that is not relative to a delivery system.
No chance.
Realizing, deciding, you choose but please answer the question, "Are you saying there is no other system than logic for [strike deciding] realizing the truth?"
Didn't say there was a contradiction (yet ) Here's the question again "Irrespective of whether the answer to the above question is yes or no, how do you reconcile your prior retort with earlier statements that you haven't the foggiest how you know the truth?"
The prior retort, you may recall was "What is the alternative? illiogic?".

C'mon yguy, please define the truth and why you think that is so.

Cheers, John

yguy

Your apparent inability to grasp the most patent distinctions is becoming tedious.

When you are able to figure out the difference between objective truth not having any delivery system and objective truth not being relative to any delivery system, perhaps the conversation can continue. Not before.

John Page

Patent? Are you saying truth is not tedious?
When you are able to figure out that we cannot know "objective truth" without a delivery system, except in the extreme case of divine intervention , we might have the basis for an epistenological discussion about truth.

Really, what axiom or self-evident truth allows you to realize such an objective truth?

Cheers, John

Luiseach

Good point.

Good question!

John Page

Thanks, but credit should go to sophiecles for the "delivery system" idea.

sophie

Luiseach : So, is it that the 'truth' (whatever that may be) is embedded in language? Or, is it that language is influenced by the 'truth' from the outside in? Or a bit of both?

I am claiming no truth without understanding. I can clarify this as one does not know truth exists without understanding.

In the metaphysical sense, we must start with the expression of understanding. Let us suppose Understanding is expressed as a collection set of distincts. Formally this would be a collection of representatives which uniquely internally indentifies an Understanding. This in turn is the language of understanding, This language of understanding must be communicated consciously by reason of knowing one understands. It is necessary that an understanding be uniquely represented else we would be confused.

Let us label this language of understanding L1. Let us label another language L2, which we call the language of self communication. Let us further our languages to L3 which is the language of mass communication. We can firstly note L1 and L2 are personal languages. L1 is especially personal since it is the internal representative of understanding. L2 is not necessarily totally personal since as leyline pointed out, L2 must have been absorbed by cultural influences.

We need understanding to have truth else we would not know what was truth. Understanding may not necessarily be the truth because I can understand I do not have the truth or I am not as yet close to the truth, being things can be partially understood.

To know we understand there is a necessary conjunction between L1 and L2. If we find truth in understanding then L1&L2 are true and the truth is found in the language, the truth is found by use of the self communicating language. If L1&L2 does not entail understanding then L1&L2 will change until the particular instance of L1&L2 is true.

sophie

As a reasonable gal like being, I do not think it reasonable to claim there is no truth out there. I do not have to understand the truth out there to know there must be some truth out there. This I think is obvious and evident because I do not exist alone in theis universe. Sometimes I seem to get closer to what is out there in the planetary world, and sometimes I am as far away as if what is out there does not exist.

I seem to call the exactitude of what is out there objective truth, because it is what is out there. When I am claiming no truth without understanding I mean this for all truth, truth particular to me, and truth not dependent on me. This is a bit confusing because truth not dependent on me is only knowable due to a dependence on me.

Knowing truth not dependent on me entails an understanding of that which is not dependent on me. Being dependent on me to know that which is not dependent on me is a mighty task and following through on this seems very error prone. To say I know the truth not dependent on me means I understand through me what is not dependent on me IS a complex rigmarole at best, a complete challenge at least.

sophie

John, before the system of logic is used to decide truth, one first has to understand the parameters in which to code the logical statements. I think this is called expressing the proposition, or ensuring the antecedents are properly organised, ect.

The system of logic does not decide truth, it only uses encoded forms of understanding to determine through its symbolism whether the particular system is coherent or not coherent. This coherency which is transcedent through understanding is finally abbreviated to TRUE or FALSE. There are operations in the system of logic which help clarify this coherency.

Thus again, no logic without understanding, and as such no truth via the particular truth delivery system of logic.