|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 8, 2018 11:40:54 GMT
As an Egyptian Pharaoh said that "there's only one truth" we could suppose that he said that if there was the truth it would be as something united or a whole.
Actually, it's odd, but seems to be truth. Even if there are plenty of truths they will be counted as something united and again as the only one thing. Any set of truths will work as the one truth.
So, under this interpretation the Pharaoh had the right point. He said something tautological?
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Dec 8, 2018 11:54:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 9, 2018 8:31:59 GMT
Thanks for the link, I've already read it. Your articles in Mikraite are very well. Briefly, it's not possible to state that there's zero truths. At least these sentence is needed to be one truth then (according to the Pharaoh logic). Here I wanted to concentrate on numerical form of the truth, not in intentional (surely, if there are some this intentional). The rules to any truth is - it must be said (or uttered, or imagine) as something unite, as something whole. And this condition is toward to symbolism. Why? Because this rule is pretty similar to drawing rule or to the rule of composition - to be united, to be whole. For example, if I type "I a", someone might ask "What is it? I don't understand your typing". I may answer - "But there's the one. It's exactly what I wanted to type". So, the second one might continue - "And what does it mean?". And to stop his questioning I should say something understandable, like this - "I wanted you to ask me about what is this, and I wanted to answer you exactly this sentence that is already typing by me".
|
|
|
Post by spacepantz86 on Dec 9, 2018 10:52:31 GMT
You lost me at feminism is evil? Truth is a matter of perspective, how are you realistically going to quantify 7 billion+ perspectives of truth down to one. And then take it down a notch to zero? You just left this reality mate. 'One truth' i believe is a variable belief, that will constantly evolve to suite our needs and progression.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 9, 2018 18:37:37 GMT
Well, there's several truths and one truth. Like there's a true way (or one way only) to get 100% on an exam, there's only one true way (or one way only) to be a certain sex which is to be born that way, there's only one true way (or one way only) to get biological parents which is to have their DNA, etc. So these are many truths to single things. But there is one big truth to how things are run which unite these truths under it. Think of it as a family tree. All the siblings and their kids who are families of their own all unite under one couple making them one big family.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 9, 2018 19:32:28 GMT
Well, there's several truths and one truth. Like there's a true way (or one way only) to get 100% on an exam, there's only one true way (or one way only) to be a certain sex which is to be born that way, there's only one true way (or one way only) to get biological parents which is to have their DNA, etc. So these are many truths to single things. But there is one big truth to how things are run which unite these truths under it. Think of it as a family tree. All the siblings and their kids who are families of their own all unite under one couple making them one big family. Impressive! I like "A tree" as an analogy here. It's really natural and fitted. A tree is something that can be compared to a family tree, and the last one is the good example of natural process of things in this world. The more natural we're spelling; the more likely we're closer to the truth. And yes, the truth is seemed to be more natural inside it (intentionally).
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 9, 2018 21:32:16 GMT
spacepantz86 I apologize for answering on not directly question to me, but I want to say that there's a way to avoid the obstacle of reducing many truths to one, and to say that there's 0 truth. It was Wittgenstein who headed his "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" of Kurnberger's words that is "If something is possible to said, it can be said in three words" (or in original "And whatever a man knows, whatever is mere rumbling and roaring that he had heard, ca be said in three words" K. Kurnberger). Briefly, a painter might paint a picture, and in this picture he may create everything that is needed to be utter. Yes, in this case it would be not pretty understandable, but it stayed possible to be expressed for this way. Reducing to zero truths. There's still on path remain if we start saying that we don't know of how many truths can be - this path is to say that 'truth isn't uttered'. Interesting that this thought was written by Wittgenstein too in the Tractatus. He said "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence". Or we can aim F. Ramsey's point of view on truth - deflationist's view - there's no need to add that something is truth to a phrase or a thought. If I say something, for example, "The train is on the stage already" - it is truth whenever I say it like "The train is on the stage already - is truth", or I don't say nothing, but I know the same that allows me to express this situation. The last views can be objected by saying that they already clam something. So, finally, I might say that "We can find out whether the claim truth or not in future". If I would say it, someone will be able to give me a question - how can we determine the truth in the future? And as long as I would giving divergent answers I would stay correct to my first claim about "truth in future". In other words, I can say that the nature of truth is not the same as the other ones phrases, or statements, and its nature is like as a non-completed sentence ("x is truth"), and having answered that "x" here is another a non-completed sentence.
|
|
|
Post by spacepantz86 on Dec 9, 2018 22:43:09 GMT
I do not understand sorry, are you saying that the pharaoh meant one specific truth or a variable truth?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 10, 2018 13:07:09 GMT
I do not understand sorry, are you saying that the pharaoh meant one specific truth or a variable truth? Oh.. it's my poor English. I think that Pharaoh meant one non-specific truth. Maintenance or a content of this truth isn't necessary; the more important that if there's a truth (or even some of them), it's the one (a group of truths is a one truth).
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Dec 10, 2018 14:08:42 GMT
Briefly, it's not possible to state that there's zero truths. At least these sentence is needed to be one truth then (according to the Pharaoh logic). Here I wanted to concentrate on numerical form of the truth, not in intentional (surely, if there are some this intentional). The rules to any truth is - it must be said (or uttered, or imagine) as something unite, as something whole. And this condition is toward to symbolism. Why? Because this rule is pretty similar to drawing rule or to the rule of composition - to be united, to be whole. For example, if I type "I a", someone might ask "What is it? I don't understand your typing". I may answer - "But there's the one. It's exactly what I wanted to type". So, the second one might continue - "And what does it mean?". And to stop his questioning I should say something understandable, like this - "I wanted you to ask me about what is this, and I wanted to answer you exactly this sentence that is already typing by me". Okay, I agree. Truth is one by definition.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Dec 10, 2018 14:16:05 GMT
You lost me at feminism is evil? Truth is a matter of perspective, how are you realistically going to quantify 7 billion+ perspectives of truth down to one. Perspective and truth are not the same thing. The perspective of a lunatic will deviate from truth. And since modern culture is insane, its perspectives deviate from truth. (I am channeling Plato here since this isn't really my perspective.) Can I, please? I would really like to leave this reality. Belief is variable and evolves for various reasons. Modern culture is going insane, so the beliefs of most people are evolving into insanity.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 10, 2018 18:55:49 GMT
Wow I got 3 likes. I must have done something right . Eugene got 3 too!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 3:54:04 GMT
I got 3 likes. I must have done something right . Eugene got 3 too! That is what happens when you actually put your mind to use rather than focusing on puppies and kittens or whatever fleeting fashion the world distracts us with...you produce valuable thoughts. A valuable thought is a valuable thought...period. Contrary to popular belief thinking can be done by anyone, regardless of who they are, man or woman, and is not limited to any class. Philosophy is the only activity people do whether they intend it or not, and all humanity as a reflection of the logos or "divine reason".
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 11, 2018 3:57:59 GMT
I got 3 likes. I must have done something right . Eugene got 3 too! That is what happens when you actually put your mind to use rather than focusing on puppies and kittens or whatever fleeting fashion the world distracts us with...you produce valuable thoughts. A valuable thought is a valuable thought...period. Contrary to popular belief thinking can be done by anyone, regardless of who they are, man or woman, and is not limited to any class. Philosophy is the only activity people do whether they intend it or not, and all humanity as a reflection of the logos or "divine reason". I'm not even an animal person. So philosophy is so much better. Shrug
|
|
|
Post by spacepantz86 on Dec 11, 2018 7:14:46 GMT
I do not understand sorry, are you saying that the pharaoh meant one specific truth or a variable truth? Oh.. it's my poor English. I think that Pharaoh meant one non-specific truth. Maintenance or a content of this truth isn't necessary; the more important that if there's a truth (or even some of them), it's the one (a group of truths is a one truth). I understand that better thank you Mate your english is good, its my first language and you write better than me haha.
|
|