Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Is the Platonic theory of truth circular?

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 12:30:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you want to argue that there is a Platonic "truth" out there beyond our ken, which we can only comprehend through crude cognitive representations, then aren't you already presupposing the theory's validity? The concept that there is a Platonic truth seems to presuppose the non-subjectivity of itself.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 9:19:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 12:30:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If you want to argue that there is a Platonic "truth" out there beyond our ken, which we can only comprehend through crude cognitive representations, then aren't you already presupposing the theory's validity? The concept that there is a Platonic truth seems to presuppose the non-subjectivity of itself.

But doesn't saying Platonic truth is really subjective truth, also presuppose real existent truth?

It seems to me that both ways we assume the same thing.

I'm not a big fan of Plato though. Good philosopher and all, but not my favorite.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 11:44:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 9:19:35 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:30:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If you want to argue that there is a Platonic "truth" out there beyond our ken, which we can only comprehend through crude cognitive representations, then aren't you already presupposing the theory's validity? The concept that there is a Platonic truth seems to presuppose the non-subjectivity of itself.

But doesn't saying Platonic truth is really subjective truth, also presuppose real existent truth?

But doesn't saying what you're saying also presuppose Platonic truth? It's quite confusing for me.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 2:13:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 12:30:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If you want to argue that there is a Platonic "truth" out there beyond our ken, which we can only comprehend through crude cognitive representations, then aren't you already presupposing the theory's validity? The concept that there is a Platonic truth seems to presuppose the non-subjectivity of itself.

Perhaps, you should ask yourself if the truth must be linear.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 2:36:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 2:13:35 PM, whatledge wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:30:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If you want to argue that there is a Platonic "truth" out there beyond our ken, which we can only comprehend through crude cognitive representations, then aren't you already presupposing the theory's validity? The concept that there is a Platonic truth seems to presuppose the non-subjectivity of itself.

Perhaps, you should ask yourself if the truth must be linear.

Has it ever occurred to you that you just aren't very clever?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 2:37:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh, sorry, I thought you were wrichcirw for some reason.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 6:00:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 11:44:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 9:19:35 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:30:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If you want to argue that there is a Platonic "truth" out there beyond our ken, which we can only comprehend through crude cognitive representations, then aren't you already presupposing the theory's validity? The concept that there is a Platonic truth seems to presuppose the non-subjectivity of itself.

But doesn't saying Platonic truth is really subjective truth, also presuppose real existent truth?

But doesn't saying what you're saying also presuppose Platonic truth? It's quite confusing for me.

Yes, it does seem to do that. It seems anything we say about the truth or falsity of Platonic truth seems to presuppose Platonic truth and lead to circular reasoning.

I suppose that doesn't mean Platonic truth is false, just that it's very confusing and impossible to establish as true.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 6:40:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 6:00:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 11:44:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 9:19:35 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:30:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If you want to argue that there is a Platonic "truth" out there beyond our ken, which we can only comprehend through crude cognitive representations, then aren't you already presupposing the theory's validity? The concept that there is a Platonic truth seems to presuppose the non-subjectivity of itself.

But doesn't saying Platonic truth is really subjective truth, also presuppose real existent truth?

But doesn't saying what you're saying also presuppose Platonic truth? It's quite confusing for me.

Yes, it does seem to do that. It seems anything we say about the truth or falsity of Platonic truth seems to presuppose Platonic truth and lead to circular reasoning.

I suppose that doesn't mean Platonic truth is false, just that it's very confusing and impossible to establish as true.

But we have only two options, don't we? Either it is true or it isn't.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 7:15:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 6:40:04 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:00:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 11:44:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 9:19:35 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:30:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If you want to argue that there is a Platonic "truth" out there beyond our ken, which we can only comprehend through crude cognitive representations, then aren't you already presupposing the theory's validity? The concept that there is a Platonic truth seems to presuppose the non-subjectivity of itself.

But doesn't saying Platonic truth is really subjective truth, also presuppose real existent truth?

But doesn't saying what you're saying also presuppose Platonic truth? It's quite confusing for me.

Yes, it does seem to do that. It seems anything we say about the truth or falsity of Platonic truth seems to presuppose Platonic truth and lead to circular reasoning.

I suppose that doesn't mean Platonic truth is false, just that it's very confusing and impossible to establish as true.

But we have only two options, don't we? Either it is true or it isn't.

Yes, but both options assume Platonic truth, don't they? If we say Platonic truth is false, we're saying it is true that Platonic truth is false.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 8:22:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 7:15:04 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:40:04 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:00:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 11:44:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 9:19:35 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:30:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If you want to argue that there is a Platonic "truth" out there beyond our ken, which we can only comprehend through crude cognitive representations, then aren't you already presupposing the theory's validity? The concept that there is a Platonic truth seems to presuppose the non-subjectivity of itself.

But doesn't saying Platonic truth is really subjective truth, also presuppose real existent truth?

But doesn't saying what you're saying also presuppose Platonic truth? It's quite confusing for me.

Yes, it does seem to do that. It seems anything we say about the truth or falsity of Platonic truth seems to presuppose Platonic truth and lead to circular reasoning.

I suppose that doesn't mean Platonic truth is false, just that it's very confusing and impossible to establish as true.

But we have only two options, don't we? Either it is true or it isn't.

Yes, but both options assume Platonic truth, don't they? If we say Platonic truth is false, we're saying it is true that Platonic truth is false.

No, it's either true or false from our subjective epistemological standpoint. That's my point.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 10:12:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Calling it a theory gives it entirely too much credit for evidence.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 10:39:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 10:12:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Calling it a theory gives it entirely too much credit for evidence.

Certainly not in the scientific jargon, but on a philosophic level regarding universals or abstract truths, it has its place.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 10:45:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 8:22:50 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 7:15:04 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:40:04 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:00:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 11:44:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 9:19:35 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:30:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If you want to argue that there is a Platonic "truth" out there beyond our ken, which we can only comprehend through crude cognitive representations, then aren't you already presupposing the theory's validity? The concept that there is a Platonic truth seems to presuppose the non-subjectivity of itself.

But doesn't saying Platonic truth is really subjective truth, also presuppose real existent truth?

But doesn't saying what you're saying also presuppose Platonic truth? It's quite confusing for me.

Yes, it does seem to do that. It seems anything we say about the truth or falsity of Platonic truth seems to presuppose Platonic truth and lead to circular reasoning.

I suppose that doesn't mean Platonic truth is false, just that it's very confusing and impossible to establish as true.

But we have only two options, don't we? Either it is true or it isn't.

Yes, but both options assume Platonic truth, don't they? If we say Platonic truth is false, we're saying it is true that Platonic truth is false.

No, it's either true or false from our subjective epistemological standpoint. That's my point.

Well since Plato did believe in a "higher power", I think the problem of platonic truth borders on problems closer to the Euthyphro Dilemma. It is a question of who or what is the authority on determining platonic truths, which is ambiguous to say the least. That said, I always saw the platonic theory of truth as more of a thought exercise on trying to distinguish relative truths than an actual attempt to find universal truths.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 11:32:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 10:45:57 AM, whatledge wrote:
At 12/10/2013 8:22:50 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 7:15:04 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:40:04 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:00:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 11:44:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 9:19:35 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:30:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If you want to argue that there is a Platonic "truth" out there beyond our ken, which we can only comprehend through crude cognitive representations, then aren't you already presupposing the theory's validity? The concept that there is a Platonic truth seems to presuppose the non-subjectivity of itself.

But doesn't saying Platonic truth is really subjective truth, also presuppose real existent truth?

But doesn't saying what you're saying also presuppose Platonic truth? It's quite confusing for me.

Yes, it does seem to do that. It seems anything we say about the truth or falsity of Platonic truth seems to presuppose Platonic truth and lead to circular reasoning.

I suppose that doesn't mean Platonic truth is false, just that it's very confusing and impossible to establish as true.

But we have only two options, don't we? Either it is true or it isn't.

Yes, but both options assume Platonic truth, don't they? If we say Platonic truth is false, we're saying it is true that Platonic truth is false.

No, it's either true or false from our subjective epistemological standpoint. That's my point.

Well since Plato did believe in a "higher power", I think the problem of platonic truth borders on problems closer to the Euthyphro Dilemma. It is a question of who or what is the authority on determining platonic truths, which is ambiguous to say the least. That said, I always saw the platonic theory of truth as more of a thought exercise on trying to distinguish relative truths than an actual attempt to find universal truths.

Doesn't it presuppose Platonism to even say that we can only evaluate truth subjectively?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 11:43:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 11:32:50 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/11/2013 10:45:57 AM, whatledge wrote:
At 12/10/2013 8:22:50 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 7:15:04 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:40:04 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:00:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 11:44:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 12/10/2013 9:19:35 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:30:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
If you want to argue that there is a Platonic "truth" out there beyond our ken, which we can only comprehend through crude cognitive representations, then aren't you already presupposing the theory's validity? The concept that there is a Platonic truth seems to presuppose the non-subjectivity of itself.

But doesn't saying Platonic truth is really subjective truth, also presuppose real existent truth?

But doesn't saying what you're saying also presuppose Platonic truth? It's quite confusing for me.

Yes, it does seem to do that. It seems anything we say about the truth or falsity of Platonic truth seems to presuppose Platonic truth and lead to circular reasoning.

I suppose that doesn't mean Platonic truth is false, just that it's very confusing and impossible to establish as true.

But we have only two options, don't we? Either it is true or it isn't.

Yes, but both options assume Platonic truth, don't they? If we say Platonic truth is false, we're saying it is true that Platonic truth is false.

No, it's either true or false from our subjective epistemological standpoint. That's my point.

Well since Plato did believe in a "higher power", I think the problem of platonic truth borders on problems closer to the Euthyphro Dilemma. It is a question of who or what is the authority on determining platonic truths, which is ambiguous to say the least. That said, I always saw the platonic theory of truth as more of a thought exercise on trying to distinguish relative truths than an actual attempt to find universal truths.

Doesn't it presuppose Platonism to even say that we can only evaluate truth subjectively?

Depends on what truths you are referring to. If anything, we are presupposing our inability to objectively evaluate abstract truths like "true love" and "true beauty." Without a objective measurement, all we have are subjective thoughts/experiences/interpretations.