Everything true vs. nothing true
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    So, if everything is true i am on this tablet and not on this tablet at the same time. These truths do not cancel themselves out though. And also I am somewhat in this tablet and somewhat not, so there are infinite degrees. We would even have to say Catholicism and Islam are both true. And both false! So the only ultimate truth is that everything is relative. But if we take relative to mean from within, nihilism rises with the only truth period being there is no truth. I thought the relationship between these theories would make for an interesting discussion. Go ahead!
    Gregory Options
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    Not sure what you are getting at.

    You seem to be positing axioms that have no basis.

    How do you arrive at "everything is true?"

    How do you arrive at "everything is false?"
    Frank Apisa Options
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    ↪Frank Apisa


    They are forms of relativism, a popular philosophy these days
    Gregory Options
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    Okay...glad to know that.
    Frank Apisa Options
  • Pfhorrest
    4.6k
    Relativism collapses to nihilism, yep. If that was your point.
    Pfhorrest Options
  • sime
    1.1k
    Everything is 'true' is a position I independently arrived at, without knowing that this epistemological position already existed under the banner of Trivialism.

    Essentially, trivialism (at least as I am using the term) says that every belief is seen to be true once the object of the belief is identified with its immediate causes. Trivialism is a corollary of semantic deflationism and presentism, which denies that a prediction can actually refer to a future event by virtue of the future not existing in a literal sense in being a mere indexical.

    For example, suppose that Alice becomes convinced that she will win the lottery and buys a ticket. According to the causal theory of reference, her belief that she will win the lottery is nothing other than a report referring to her immediate situation. If in fact she doesn't win the lottery, then according to trivialism she is only said to be "wrong" by reinterpreting the object of her belief to refer to the results of the lottery via a post-hoc revision of linguistic convention.
    sime Options
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    ↪sime


    Instead of knowing the cause of what you want to believe in, what about direct experience of it's Dasein? I've never heard to anyone saying that the future can't exist because it's "indexical". That's interesting. Sounds like Parmenides. Alice could have won the lottery however and that reality, or unreality, would have made her happy.

    But is it relative that I am happy this morning?
    Gregory Options
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    Relativism sounds consistent but mechanical. If it is true I am on this computer, it is also not, but is it true that we have both trues (or falsehoods)? No. Therefore the only truth is the one truth that relativism is true!

    Self-consistent
    Gregory Options
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    Descartes found his own victory over his real relativism thru the cogito. I often doubt if I exist. But truth is not a thing, so it has no substance. So where is the victory of the cogito?

    I am reminded of the 1940's Jungle Book film with real people. Especially Ka
    Gregory Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

Sign In Create Account

Categories