His argument cogito ergo sum was just that in his French eyes. — Agent Smith

:lol: :death:

A hasta be false. — Agent Smith

What!?



So (if I understand it well) you want to make a new project of applying cogito ergo sum in a new scenario: the objects themselves which can hold some truths

No, unfortunately or fortunately, no!

What!? — javi2541997

A has to be false.



If there are no truths is false then the truth that there are no truth is not true and then there are truths, which means that there are no truths is true, meaning there are no truths so it's not true then that there are no truths, which means that there are truths such as the truth that there are no truths, meaning there are no truths so it's not true then that there are no truths, which means that there are truths such as the truth that there are no truths, meaning there are no truths so it's not true then that there are no truths, which means that there are truths such as the truth that there are no truths, meaning there are no truths so it's not true then that there are no truths, which means that there are truths such as the truth that there are no truths!

A has to be false. — Hillary

Well I still don’t understand it

If there are no truths then that truth is no truth either. The standard objection against relativism.

Well I still don’t understand it — javi2541997

You're kidding, right?

Update

Statement A self-destructs when it's applied to itself. It appears that, like with the liar sentence (this sentence is false), this is a very different and unique application of self-reference, self-referential situations generally demolish (Gödel's incompleteness theorems are a good example) rather than construct (sentence A is meant to provide a foolproof foundation for philosophy).

1. Can we shift the house of philosophy from the cogito to the truth A?

2. In a sense, cogito ergo sum = there are some truths. — Agent Smith

I think the notion of truth that deals with what is or is not the case in an objective propositional sense is a profoundly inadequate way to ground a philosophy. Philosophy should be about how events are useful and begin with the question of what is use? Relevance is a more fundamental notion than truth.

Pedo, ergo sum
Irrumbado, ergo sum
Sentio, ergo sum
Sum, ergo sum

Philosophy should be about how events are useful and begin with the question of what is use? Relevance is a more fundamental notion than truth. — Joshs

But relevance does not always be practice-bounded. The truth of gods has whatsoever zero impact on scientific practice, but at the same time a very deep impact on practice, be it everyday life or experiments at CERN.

But relevance does not always be practice-bounded. The truth of gods has whatsoever zero impact on scientific practice, but at the same time a very deep impact on practice, be it everyday life or experiments at CERN. — Hillary

It is your belief in the truth of gods I have in mind when I talk about pragmatic relevance. To me the idea of something true outside of its relevance as a meaning in your ( or anyone else’s ) life is incoherent. Your belief in gods informs all your actions, even the most trivial, and in that sense has significant impact on your way of thinking about science.

To me the idea of something true outside of its relevance as a meaning in your ( or anyone else’s ) life is incoherent. — Joshs

That's about the same as @universeness said to me in another comment:

"Your arguments/proposals/posits/science points have not convinced me that your polytheistic posits are coherent. "

Incoherent meaning not understandable?

Your belief in gods informs all your actions, even the most trivial, and in that sense has significant impact on your way of thinking about science. — Joshs

I think that by knowing the universe and life in it we can know the gods and the heaven they live in. Which is not the reason to do science, but it can be. All life has a heavenly, eternal, non-material counterpart. The material processes imply mortal life but if it repeats eternally (by subsequent big bangs) a kind of immortality exists. I think we all are born again in a next big bang. But different lives. Which doesn't mean I don't like the present one!

The law of non-contradiction is at the (ontological-pragmatic) crux of both "the cogito" and "statement A", to wit:

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned. ~Ibn Sina — 180 Proof

... or as Witty might say 'philosophy, like every other discursive practice, presupposes grammar'.

Philosophy should be about how events are useful and begin with the question of what is use? Relevance is a more fundamental notion than truth. — Joshs

:chin:

you're cluttering up the forum with a lot of nonsense. :angry:

He's not alone.

:fire:

Excellent point! Thanks for making me realize that!

Descartes's cogito ergo sum can be rephrased as the self-contradictory statement I'm not thinking. or thereabouts!

you're cluttering up the forum with a lot of nonsens — Wayfarer

I hadta get this off my chest! A thousand apologies if it's balderdash!

Don't take them too seriously. Their so-called sense is nonsense just the same. But cleverly packaged! So it looks sensible. Unwrap it in the right way and... POING!!! Clownshead on a spring... :starstruck:

If A is true then it refutes itself and is false; a contradiction! A can't be true. — Agent Smith

I do not follow you. If there are no truths, then A will not be true. You have said that it would be true if there are no truths. But that's you asserting a contradiction. I think that if there are no truths, then there are no truths.

Presumably you think that what it is for there to be no truths is for the proposition 'there are no truths' to be true. But that's confused: that's a contradiction.

I think the notion of truth that deals with what is or is not the case in an objective propositional sense is a profoundly inadequate way to ground a philosophy. Philosophy should be about how events are useful and begin with the question of what is use? Relevance is a more fundamental notion than truth. — Joshs

You have a point! :up:

Nonetheless, there's nothing more useful than truths, oui?

A = There are no truths

If A is true, it is false (contradiction)

Ergo,

A has to be false. That means

There are some truths, is true!

Is A a proposition or a state of affairs?

You have to say it is a proposition.

But if there are no truths then there are no true propositions.

It can be the case that there are no truths. But in that scenario there will be no true propositions.

Is it possible for there to be no propositions? Yes. A proposition is a kind of thought and if there are no minds there are no propositions. And clearly it is possible for there to be no minds . Thus it is possible - metaphysically possible - for there to be no propositions. And if there are no propositions then there are no truths (truth being a property of propositions).

Thus it is metaphysically possible for there to be no truths.

A thousand apologies if it's balderdash! — Agent Smith

It’s balderdash, and you don’t give a s***t that it is, so your apology means nothing, like most of what else you write.

You used to be ‘Themadfool’, right? You do sometimes come up with some actual insights, but the signal-to-noise ratio has been pretty terrible lately.

I think the notion of truth that deals with what is or is not the case in an objective propositional sense is a profoundly inadequate way to ground a philosophy. Philosophy should be about how events are useful and begin with the question of what is use? Relevance is a more fundamental notion than truth. — Joshs

Though useful for pragmatists and engineers, I think this notion of truth lacks substance. The truth about the universe are known indeed by interacting and enacting, but this leaves out the truth of the nature of what's interacted with or what's enacted. Which offers a fair part of the truth as well.

In the eyes of Wittgenstein, a philosopher has a huge outgrowth, or soft hanging blob, on the side of his/her skull containing the neo-cortex part for language. They usually lean slightly to the other side for balance.

It’s balderdash, and you don’t give a s***t that it is, so your apology means nothing, like most of what else you write.

You used to be ‘Themadfool’, right? You do sometimes come up with some actual insights, but the signal-to-noise ratio has been pretty terrible lately. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the feedback! I'll see what I can do to improve.

:chin:

The statement "there are no truths" was meant to be understood as "there are no true propositions". You yourself pointed out that only propositions can be true.

You could make more noise and increase the signal more than that... The ratio will get better! Lovely sound thiugh, noise! :smile:

You could make more noise and increase the signal more than that... The ratio will get better! Lovely sound thiugh, noise! :smile: — Hillary

Helpful tip! :up: