I would worry about equivocating between “true” and “the truth”. One is a description; the other is the nominalization of that description. One describes things (propositions), and the other is a thing. — NOS4A2
Well the obvious question has to be, if there are no true propositions, then how does this forum exist? — 3017amen
Reason is thinking about thought and belief. It's not an entity in and of itself capable of doing stuff. So, it would be helpful if you stopped personifying reason. — creativesoul
Something is true for someone when all he deems relevant sources agree it is true — khaled
I don't think it makes sense to ask what is truth in some ultimate sense without referring to the individual. — khaled
Ok got it. Are you saying then if there exists at least one true proposition, then, they must be logically necessary/ logical necessity? — 3017amen
A lot to be said for this, if not looked at too closely.We might ask, "How does reason know?" - Or is that irrelevant? Or, we may allow reason to ground a claim that this or that proposition is true, but that doesn't reach truth itself. — tim wood
Prove, please.
— tim wood
What would constitute being proof of that?
— creativesoul
A proof would constitute proof of that. Your claim, you prove. It looks like you don't have one. — tim wood
What do you mean? — Bartricks
Is the above a true statement? It seems like more of a meaningless contradiction, and is therefore false.If the statement is true, then it is false; and if it is false, then it is true. — 3017amen
This search for 'truth' as an abstract concept is illogical. Truth is only logical in relation to a question/problem. Truth is whatever 'solves' this problem or 'answers' that question. — ovdtogt
Sorry to answer with another question, but why do we want the truth, what do we want from it, what are we expecting?
— Brett
Usefulness. The truth is useful. Falsehoods aren't. — Harry Hindu
A fact that is not able to answer/solve a question/problem can never be a fact. — ovdtogt
Nope. Not what does reason think when it's thinking, but how if ever it "knows" that anything that it thinks is true. You can define true as you like. As a "performative of reason" is pretty good and better then most, but it just doesn't get there, except as a definition. "What is 'true'"? "True is what my reason says is true." "How does it know?" "By definition: if (my) reason is thinking it, then it's true." "Is reason always correct with respect to knowing that what it thinks is true?" Answer: of course not. And what do you do with that?So, "how does Reason know" is akin to asking how I think what I think (answer: I think what I think by thinking it). — Bartricks
Are you quite sure of that? All facts are historical facts; i.e., historical in nature. That's one problem, and then there's the problem of your perception. And then there's the problem of figuring you what "knowing" means. I do not doubt that in your brain are all kinds of thoughts you're not immediately thinking of at all. Do you know them? How would you know unless you ask in some sense?I can know facts without having asked a question or trying to solve problems. — Harry Hindu
For I provided an argument in support of the view that a proposition is true when Reason asserts its content to be the case. — Bartricks
I would worry about equivocating between “true” and “the truth”. One is a description; the other is the nominalization of that description. One describes things (propositions), and the other is a thing. — NOS4A2
"True" is what we call sentence tokens that bear repeating on their own terms, which is to say, without contextualising in the manner of "... is untrue because..." or "... would be the case if not for..." etc. — bongo fury
What's the argument and/or reasoning in support of your objection here? — creativesoul
So... you're compelled to hold that propositions do not depend upon language for their very existence. I'm compelled to hold that they are. — creativesoul
I did not express a position on propositions, — Bartricks
I can know facts without having asked a question or trying to solve problems. — Harry Hindu
I didnt ask a question about whether or not all facts are historical, yet you still provided that "fact". So is this evidence that facts exist independent of questions? Questions are a result of ignorance. If we weren't ignorant we wouldnt ask questions because we'd already have all the facts.Are you quite sure of that? All facts are historical facts; i.e., historical in nature. — tim wood
Nope. Not what does reason think when it's thinking, but how if ever it "knows" that anything that it thinks is true. You can define true as you like. As a "performative of reason" is pretty good and better then most, but it just doesn't get there, except as a definition. "What is 'true'"? "True is what my reason says is true." "How does it know?" "By definition: if (my) reason is thinking it, then it's true." "Is reason always correct with respect to knowing that what it thinks is true?" Answer: of course not. And what do you do with that? — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.