Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on Truth

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 4:52:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Before we can proceed to debate or ponder about any subject and the truth of any claims, we must first establish the nature of truth. When one demonstrates the independent truth of a proposition, he has proven it. A proposition is a preexisting expectation then verified for its truth through different means. Expectation must have some sort of embodiment. One must first know what a blue sky is, in order to verify that the sky is indeed blue, upon observation. Is there an objective reality with things that are true independent of human cognitive capacities (ie. Logic, sensual perception)? Is it even possible to answer that question? Well, since we know that human logic and perception is inextricably confined within a parameter of logical rules and physical sensory inputs (eyes, ears, taste, touch etc.) and we seek to escape that confinement to find true objective truth it must be impossible to find any truth beyond the subjective base of perception and logic. that confinement is inescapable since those are our only tools of deduction and induction.

There is no such thing as an objective reality, and there is no such thing as objective truth (as far as we're concerned).

The big source of confusion is that we all perceive the same things and reason in the same sense, and so we rely on each other as systems of verification. But since each human being is using the same type of tools to perceive and deduce, another person's account is by no means a positive verification. Thus, our agreement only establishes a network of subjectivity. And should we disagree on something, there is no ultimate truth, or correct answer. I suppose if I were to derive some big conclusion from it, it would be that debating and investigation are futile practices with artificial significance. We debate and investigate to find something true...but yet it isn't true in the sense that we want it to be - it can't be.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:29:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 4:52:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
Before we can proceed to debate or ponder about any subject and the truth of any claims, we must first establish the nature of truth. When one demonstrates the independent truth of a proposition, he has proven it. A proposition is a preexisting expectation then verified for its truth through different means.
I see here (ie "independent truth") that you are admitting to some type of "objective truth", right? Otherwise, why are you qualifying "truth"?

Expectation must have some sort of embodiment. One must first know what a blue sky is, in order to verify that the sky is indeed blue, upon observation. Is there an objective reality with things that are true independent of human cognitive capacities (ie. Logic, sensual perception)?
Yes, of course. I can see this (partially) through the fact that the grand majority of the world around me works independently of my will or even my perception.

Is it even possible to answer that question?
Just did.

Well, since we know that human logic and perception is inextricably confined within a parameter of logical rules and physical sensory inputs (eyes, ears, taste, touch etc.) and we seek to escape that confinement to find true objective truth it must be impossible to find any truth beyond the subjective base of perception and logic.
That our sensory inputs are not perfect is a well known fact; however, that does not stop them from being sensors to the objective world. But are perfect sensory inputs even possible? No, of course not. If we analyze what those would be like we would arrive at contradiction. As far as logic is concerned, I don't see how it's bound by human perception: 1 + 1 = 2 regardless of human perception.

That confinement is inescapable since those are our only tools of deduction and induction.
All confinement is inescapable; it's the nature of confinement. What other alternative is there, perfect senses? Those are not possible.

There is no such thing as an objective reality, and there is no such thing as objective truth (as far as we're concerned).
That does not follow. What is it that you are sensing, if not the external? The very concept of "sensing" itself implies the external. If there is no external then everything must be in your own mind! That means there's really only you and no one else because you are denying the external. Of course that's nonsense because indeed there is objective reality. I know this because clearly I cannot control all that is "out there" nor am I aware of all that is out there.

The big source of confusion is that we all perceive the same things and reason in the same sense, and so we rely on each other as systems of verification.
That's not a source of confusion but the other way around: it is a great tool to VERIFY the observations of things external to us. A way to get a more complete description of objective reality.

But since each human being is using the same type of tools to perceive and deduce, another person's account is by no means a positive verification.
It sure is: we don't all "see" everything in the same way nor do we always see everything that's there; sometimes we miss things. That's why verification is such a great tool especially when coupled with technology.

Thus, our agreement only establishes a network of subjectivity. And should we disagree on something, there is no ultimate truth, or correct answer.
I believe this has been shown to be incorrect thus far.

I suppose if I were to derive some big conclusion from it, it would be that debating and investigation are futile practices with artificial significance. We debate and investigate to find something true...but yet it isn't true in the sense that we want it to be - it can't be.
I believe I have shown this not to be the case.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:23:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: You you guys should have a Niave Empiricism Debate. So we can watch you argue in circles. We can celebrate it in light of the failure of positivism.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 1:00:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 9:23:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: You you guys should have a Niave Empiricism Debate. So we can watch you argue in circles. We can celebrate it in light of the failure of positivism.

As usual, you've contributed immensely with your thoughtful and insightful comments! Or maybe not.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 2:19:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 4:52:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no such thing as an objective reality, and there is no such thing as objective truth (as far as we're concerned).

This is a self-refuting claim, and it undermines everything else you said in this post. If there's no objective reality, then there's no particular way that things actually are. Yet, you've just tried to explain to us how things actually are. If there's no objective truth, then nothing you said in your post is objectively true, including your claim that there is no such thing as objective truth.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 12:53:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 2:19:55 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/18/2012 4:52:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no such thing as an objective reality, and there is no such thing as objective truth (as far as we're concerned).

This is a self-refuting claim, and it undermines everything else you said in this post. If there's no objective reality, then there's no particular way that things actually are. Yet, you've just tried to explain to us how things actually are. If there's no objective truth, then nothing you said in your post is objectively true, including your claim that there is no such thing as objective truth.
This.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
RationalMadman
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 1:47:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only truth is that there isn't one apart from this one.
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

We didn't fight our way to the top of the food chain to be f***ng vegetarians.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 3:35:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 2:19:55 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/18/2012 4:52:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no such thing as an objective reality, and there is no such thing as objective truth (as far as we're concerned).

This is a self-refuting claim, and it undermines everything else you said in this post. If there's no objective reality, then there's no particular way that things actually are. Yet, you've just tried to explain to us how things actually are. If there's no objective truth, then nothing you said in your post is objectively true, including your claim that there is no such thing as objective truth.

Not quite. Objective facts, and the pursuit thereof, require an exogenous perspective, operating without conduit. All sensory inputs are conduits, and the accuracy of the information they project are dependent on the accuracy of those passageways. To determine an objective fact would require one to escape the inaccuracy and dependency of his own senses (which is physically impossible). Therefore, all perceived information is not objective. The same thing goes for intuitive logical axioms. You presume that my whole argument itself requires objective truth to be valid,...which, in some sense, begs the question. This argument can be true within the parameters of our perception and logical understanding...which of course makes it only relatively true, yet still effectual in argument.

Long story short, the argument from the OP doesn't need objectivity.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 6:41:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 3:35:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 2:19:55 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/18/2012 4:52:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no such thing as an objective reality, and there is no such thing as objective truth (as far as we're concerned).

This is a self-refuting claim, and it undermines everything else you said in this post. If there's no objective reality, then there's no particular way that things actually are. Yet, you've just tried to explain to us how things actually are. If there's no objective truth, then nothing you said in your post is objectively true, including your claim that there is no such thing as objective truth.

Not quite. Objective facts, and the pursuit thereof, require an exogenous perspective, operating without conduit. All sensory inputs are conduits, and the accuracy of the information they project are dependent on the accuracy of those passageways. To determine an objective fact would require one to escape the inaccuracy and dependency of his own senses (which is physically impossible). Therefore, all perceived information is not objective. The same thing goes for intuitive logical axioms. You presume that my whole argument itself requires objective truth to be valid,...which, in some sense, begs the question. This argument can be true within the parameters of our perception and logical understanding...which of course makes it only relatively true, yet still effectual in argument.

Long story short, the argument from the OP doesn't need objectivity.

If your point of view is not objectively true, then I can safely ignore it.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 6:45:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 3:35:53 PM, 000ike wrote:

Long story short, the argument from the OP doesn't need objectivity.

Is that an objective truth?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 7:02:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For some reason this sounded really epic...Maybe because I was listening to Hans Zimmer when I read it.

But on a serious note, you've basically provided a pretty good argument for skepticism so why do you always try to refute me when I argue for it!??
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 7:03:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 1:47:48 PM, RationalMadman wrote:
The only truth is that there isn't one apart from this one.

Truths are dependent on other truths. There can't be only one truth.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 7:11:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 6:45:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/23/2012 3:35:53 PM, 000ike wrote:

Long story short, the argument from the OP doesn't need objectivity.

Is that an objective truth?

I lol'd.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:06:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 9:23:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: You you guys should have a Niave Empiricism Debate. So we can watch you argue in circles. We can celebrate it in light of the failure of positivism.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:40:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 10:06:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/18/2012 9:23:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: You you guys should have a Niave Empiricism Debate. So we can watch you argue in circles. We can celebrate it in light of the failure of positivism.

I would also note that there is an objective form of the truth, that one may experience when perception is altered from reality via mind altering drugs.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 7:36:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 6:41:53 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/23/2012 3:35:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2012 2:19:55 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/18/2012 4:52:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
There is no such thing as an objective reality, and there is no such thing as objective truth (as far as we're concerned).

This is a self-refuting claim, and it undermines everything else you said in this post. If there's no objective reality, then there's no particular way that things actually are. Yet, you've just tried to explain to us how things actually are. If there's no objective truth, then nothing you said in your post is objectively true, including your claim that there is no such thing as objective truth.

Not quite. Objective facts, and the pursuit thereof, require an exogenous perspective, operating without conduit. All sensory inputs are conduits, and the accuracy of the information they project are dependent on the accuracy of those passageways. To determine an objective fact would require one to escape the inaccuracy and dependency of his own senses (which is physically impossible). Therefore, all perceived information is not objective. The same thing goes for intuitive logical axioms. You presume that my whole argument itself requires objective truth to be valid,...which, in some sense, begs the question. This argument can be true within the parameters of our perception and logical understanding...which of course makes it only relatively true, yet still effectual in argument.

Long story short, the argument from the OP doesn't need objectivity.

If your point of view is not objectively true, then I can safely ignore it.

No you can't. We are both operating within the confines of certain reasoning. We both use eyes to see, logic to deduce etc... the conclusions I derive from those methods therefore apply to you. Objectivity is not necessary for things to have 'trans-subjective' meaning. Subjectivity is layered and multifaceted - a subject does not always refer to 1 thinking being...a body of people can be a subject too. What I'm saying is that the conclusions from the op are not relative to me, they're relative to all of us... Relative yet argumentatively applicable.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 10:38:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
000ike,

I suspect that you are confusing epistemology with ontology, and that you are misusing the phrase "objective truth" or "objective reality." Let me mirror back to you what I think you are arguing:

1. It is impossible to discover truth without the use of our subjective perceptions and logic.
2. Our subjective perceptions and tools of logic are our only means of arriving at truth.
3. Therefore, there is no objective truth or reality.

4. We all share common subjective impressions, including perception and logic.
5. Therefore, appealing to each other for verification of what we take to be truth does not get us in touch with objective truth.
6. Therefore, when we disagree, there is no ultimate truth or correct answer.

There are some serious flaws in these arguments. Let's take your first argument. Premise 1 and 2 are basically saying the same thing in different words, so let's just take one of them. Well, if either one of them is true, your conclusion does not follow. At best, all you can conclude is that we can't know any objective truths. But to arrive at that conclusion, you need an extra premise, such as, "if we can't know any objective truths apart from our subjective experiences, then we can't know them at all." Then you'd have this argument:

1. If we can't know any objective truths apart from our subjective experiences, then we cannot know any objective truths.
2. Our subjective experiences are the only tools we have to discover truths.
3. Therefore, we can't know any objective truths.

This argument fails for two reasons: (1) it's self-refuting because if the conclusion is true, then you can't know that either of the premises are true or that the conclusion follows form the premises; (2) the first premise is probably false, or at the very least it's unsubstantiated. I know, just by reflecting inwardly, that the law of non-contradiction is a necessary truth. It's impossible for it to be false. That means there are no square circles or married bachelors in reality. That is an objective truth that I know with certainty, even though I arrived at it merely by reflecting inwardly on my own thoughts.

But let's suppose that it follows from the subjective nature of our experiences that there is no objective truth. How would that argument look? Again you'd have to add an extra premise to make it a valid argument. It would look something like this:

1. No truth can be objective unless it can be known in some way other than subjectively.
2. Our subjective experiences are the only means we have to know things.
3. Therefore, no truth can be objective.

This argument fails for two reasons: (1) it's self-refuting because if the conclusion is true, then the conclusion is not objectively truth, and neither are the premises; (2) the first premise is false. This is why I think you're confused on what an objective truth is. An objective truth is something that corresponds to reality whether anybody thinks so or not. Our beliefs and subjective experiences have no bearing whatsoever on what is actually so, and reality doesn't need us to believe in it before it can be what it is. The earth didn't become round just because we all started believing it; rather, it was round all along, and we discovered it.

Now, let's look at your second argument:

4. We all share common subjective impressions, including perception and logic.
5. Therefore, appealing to each other for verification of what we take to be truth does not get us in touch with objective truth.
6. Therefore, when we disagree, there is no ultimate truth or correct answer.

If there is no "correct answer" when two people disagree with each other, then there is no reason to argue. Yet, you are arguing with me. When I said I can safely ignore you, you said, "No, you can't." We disagree. If there is no "correct answer," then it makes no sense for you to try to correct me. The fact that you are trying to correct me shows that you think there's a correct answer, that you have it, and that I don't. After all, how can you be right and me wrong if there's no correct answer? So again, you're undermining your whole argument.

Your argument is also self-refuting because if there is no ultimate truth or correct answer, then neither of your premises are correct or true. Moreover, your "collective subjectivity" premises are problematic because if we are really stuck inside our own heads and can't know any objective truths outside our heads, then you have no way of knowing that we all share common subjective experiences. You can't see inside my head to know what I'm thinking or experiencing. You really can't even know that anybody exists except you since you only have access to your own subjectivity. If you can't know any objective truths outside of your head, then you can't know that anybody else exists in the external world. Your reasoning leads to solipsism.

You are confused about ontology and epistemology. For example, you think that because we only have access to the external world by way of our senses, and because we have no way to step outside of them in order to compare them with the real world, that there are no objective truths. But that doesn't follow. All that can possibly follow is that we can't know any objective truths; it's doesn't follow that there aren't any.

But I would also question your assumption that our senses are the only means by which we can know things. That's a self-refuting claim because it's an assumption your senses did not tell you. It's also subject to counter-examples. I know, for example, that I exist, and that's it's an objective truth that I exist, yet my senses didn't tell me that. I know that merely by reflecting inwardly on my own subjective awareness.

If we grant that you are not making the silly claim that there are no objective truths about reality, but rather, that we can't know them, then your point of view is still self-refuting. Any argument for that kind of radical skepticism is self-refuting because if we can't know anything at all, then we can't know that any of the premises that lead to that conclusion are true or that the conclusion follows from those premises.

So yes, I am quite safe in ignoring your point of view and all your arguments for your point of view. They are plainly self-refuting and irrational. Nobody should subscribe to that point of view. It doesn't just happen to be false. It's necessarily false. There is no way to salvage it.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 10:46:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/24/2012 10:38:45 AM, philochristos wrote:
000ike,

I suspect that you are confusing epistemology with ontology, and that you are misusing the phrase "objective truth" or "objective reality." Let me mirror back to you what I think you are arguing:

1. It is impossible to discover truth without the use of our subjective perceptions and logic.
2. Our subjective perceptions and tools of logic are our only means of arriving at truth.
3. Therefore, there is no objective truth or reality.

4. We all share common subjective impressions, including perception and logic.
5. Therefore, appealing to each other for verification of what we take to be truth does not get us in touch with objective truth.
6. Therefore, when we disagree, there is no ultimate truth or correct answer.

There are some serious flaws in these arguments. Let's take your first argument. Premise 1 and 2 are basically saying the same thing in different words, so let's just take one of them. Well, if either one of them is true, your conclusion does not follow. At best, all you can conclude is that we can't know any objective truths. But to arrive at that conclusion, you need an extra premise, such as, "if we can't know any objective truths apart from our subjective experiences, then we can't know them at all." Then you'd have this argument:

1. If we can't know any objective truths apart from our subjective experiences, then we cannot know any objective truths.
2. Our subjective experiences are the only tools we have to discover truths.
3. Therefore, we can't know any objective truths.

This argument fails for two reasons: (1) it's self-refuting because if the conclusion is true, then you can't know that either of the premises are true or that the conclusion follows form the premises; (2) the first premise is probably false, or at the very least it's unsubstantiated. I know, just by reflecting inwardly, that the law of non-contradiction is a necessary truth. It's impossible for it to be false. That means there are no square circles or married bachelors in reality. That is an objective truth that I know with certainty, even though I arrived at it merely by reflecting inwardly on my own thoughts.

But let's suppose that it follows from the subjective nature of our experiences that there is no objective truth. How would that argument look? Again you'd have to add an extra premise to make it a valid argument. It would look something like this:

1. No truth can be objective unless it can be known in some way other than subjectively.
2. Our subjective experiences are the only means we have to know things.
3. Therefore, no truth can be objective.

This argument fails for two reasons: (1) it's self-refuting because if the conclusion is true, then the conclusion is not objectively truth, and neither are the premises; (2) the first premise is false. This is why I think you're confused on what an objective truth is. An objective truth is something that corresponds to reality whether anybody thinks so or not. Our beliefs and subjective experiences have no bearing whatsoever on what is actually so, and reality doesn't need us to believe in it before it can be what it is. The earth didn't become round just because we all started believing it; rather, it was round all along, and we discovered it.

Now, let's look at your second argument:

4. We all share common subjective impressions, including perception and logic.
5. Therefore, appealing to each other for verification of what we take to be truth does not get us in touch with objective truth.
6. Therefore, when we disagree, there is no ultimate truth or correct answer.

If there is no "correct answer" when two people disagree with each other, then there is no reason to argue. Yet, you are arguing with me. When I said I can safely ignore you, you said, "No, you can't." We disagree. If there is no "correct answer," then it makes no sense for you to try to correct me. The fact that you are trying to correct me shows that you think there's a correct answer, that you have it, and that I don't. After all, how can you be right and me wrong if there's no correct answer? So again, you're undermining your whole argument.

Your argument is also self-refuting because if there is no ultimate truth or correct answer, then neither of your premises are correct or true. Moreover, your "collective subjectivity" premises are problematic because if we are really stuck inside our own heads and can't know any objective truths outside our heads, then you have no way of knowing that we all share common subjective experiences. You can't see inside my head to know what I'm thinking or experiencing. You really can't even know that anybody exists except you since you only have access to your own subjectivity. If you can't know any objective truths outside of your head, then you can't know that anybody else exists in the external world. Your reasoning leads to solipsism.

You are confused about ontology and epistemology. For example, you think that because we only have access to the external world by way of our senses, and because we have no way to step outside of them in order to compare them with the real world, that there are no objective truths. But that doesn't follow. All that can possibly follow is that we can't know any objective truths; it's doesn't follow that there aren't any.

But I would also question your assumption that our senses are the only means by which we can know things. That's a self-refuting claim because it's an assumption your senses did not tell you. It's also subject to counter-examples. I know, for example, that I exist, and that's it's an objective truth that I exist, yet my senses didn't tell me that. I know that merely by reflecting inwardly on my own subjective awareness.

If we grant that you are not making the silly claim that there are no objective truths about reality, but rather, that we can't know them, then your point of view is still self-refuting. Any argument for that kind of radical skepticism is self-refuting because if we can't know anything at all, then we can't know that any of the premises that lead to that conclusion are true or that the conclusion follows from those premises.

So yes, I am quite safe in ignoring your point of view and all your arguments for your point of view. They are plainly self-refuting and irrational. Nobody should subscribe to that point of view. It doesn't just happen to be false. It's necessarily false. There is no way to salvage it.

This.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2012 3:34:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Philoschristos:

Thanks for the very thoughtful rebuttal - but I think you're misunderstanding what I'm arguing. My conclusion never was, "there is no objective truth." It was "there is no objective truth, as far as we're concerned"... which is a very different claim. I don't know if you realize it or not, but in all your objections you forward the exact set of presumptions that are currently in question,...and then use them to validate themselves - which just begs the question.

1. "it's self-refuting because if the conclusion is true, then you can't know that either of the premises are true or that the conclusion follows form the premises"

This rebuttal is circular given that you've gone back to assuming that objective truth is necessary. The whole point of my previous response was that there is truth within subjectivity, with significance within subjectivity and so the truth of the arguments in the OP can only be determined relative to human reasoning and perception. The argument, in short, is not objectively true (rather, we can't know if it is objectively true) - it is true however within the capacities of logic and perception, the same capacities that you as a human being hold - and therefore the argument applies to you, and so can't simply be ignored.

2. "he first premise is probably false, or at the very least it's unsubstantiated. I know, just by reflecting inwardly, that the law of non-contradiction is a necessary truth. It's impossible for it to be false."

That's not correct. The law of non-contradiction is by no means objectively true (to the limits of our knowledge (henceforth this clause should be understood, and need not be mentioned)). Non-contradiction is only true within the parameters of our logical understanding - as in, it seems true to us intuitively. However, you are, once again, engaged in some knotted circular reasoning since you're already presuming the objective accuracy of our logical perceptions - when the whole point of this argument is that logic and sensation are tools of understanding, and the accuracy of the information they project is contingent on the accuracy of the tools themselves. So what kind of truth does the law of non-contradiction have? Relative truth - relative to human beings - relative to our logical perception. This is an incontrovertible conclusion.

3. "If there is no "correct answer" when two people disagree with each other, then there is no reason to argue. Yet, you are arguing with me."

Not necessarily. There is a relatively correct answer. Relative in the sense that it is dependent on the truth of perception & logic. So suppose that perception suggests that the sky is blue, but I say that it is yellow (with absolutely no proof) - we then conclude that relative to common human perception, I am incorrect. This gives a basis for argument, and then provides an answer. Yet that answer still isn't objectively true. To be as clear as possible, think of my conclusion as this:
Relative to intuitive logic, there is no intellectually accessible objective truth.

4. "An objective truth is something that corresponds to reality whether anybody thinks so or not."

right you are. Now tell me how you can ever know if propositions correspond to reality in such a way that makes them objectively true? How do you even know a reality exists given that all the information you have is provided to you by 2 tools with fundamentally unverifiable accuracy? Do you see how your argument, again, begs the question? You first of all assumed the existence of an objective reality, and then furthermore assumed the objectivity of the information our perceptions provide.

5. "If you can't know any objective truths outside of your head, then you can't know that anybody else exists in the external world. Your reasoning leads to solipsism."

We can't know any objective truths outside of what our perceptions tell us...so the existence of other people can only be true on that relative scale. I'm not fond of the wording "outside your head" since it seems to suggest that things within our heads are certain and all else is not. That's nonsense. Nothing is objectively certain - and nothing needs to be objectively certain for us to argue.

6. "But I would also question your assumption that our senses are the only means by which we can know things. That's a self-refuting claim because it's an assumption your senses did not tell you. "

Again, you missed what I'm actually saying. Senses/perceptions refer to any information provider...including non-physically-sensory ones.

The argument is actually simple but very difficult to communicate, and I feel that if you accurately received the point, you would not disagree. Let me try to list it out in the clearest and most precise manner possible:

1. The following argument was constructed from intuitive logic and human sensory perception.
2. Therefore, it is relevant to all beings that reason in this manner - and none else.
3. All information we hold is received through 1 and/or 2 sources.
4. The first is intuitive logic. The second is physical sensory perception.
5. That information, therefore is contingent on the accuracy of those sources.
6. The accuracy of those sources is unverifiable, because verification would require us to NOT use those sources.
7. and those sources are our only providers of information.
8. Information contingent on the unverified accuracy of sources, can only be taken as true RELATIVE to those sources.
9. Therefore the highest truth we can attain, is on a relative level.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault