Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I'm not talking about truth as in things that are true.  I'm talking about the nature of "truth" as a metaphysical concept.

Come again.  You mean to tell me that there is a difference between something that is true and the "truth?"  I certainly missed that nuance as a child!

In fact, the MOST common way of "proving" something is true is to arrange a demonstration.  The legal profession even calls it "evidence."  And yes, if you are very fortunate, you can conduct a demonstration because it shuts up all doubters.

Didn't you ever wonder if a "logic" could somehow produce a trap that can make you believe something other than the evidence, that there just MIGHT be something wrong with the logic?  Is it possible that such a flawed logic might be popular because it allows folks to "win" debates even when the facts are not on their side.  

But the bigger point is that someone did indeed invent a better logic.  This logic works FAR better than the old kind because it can handle all the variations between long and short, strong or weak, fat and thin, etc.  This logic has utterly demolished its more primitive ancestors in the emotion-free world of computerized logic.  So isn't it possible that schools that charge money and hand out degrees in the old logic are knowingly misleading our children?

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon May 28th, 2007 at 08:03:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not nearly as aristotelian as you might think, and I'm not really sure if the problem of defining "truth" is a product of aristotelian thought so much as a problem of thought and language in general.

The distinction I'm talking about is not whether any fact is true or not, but what it means to say that something is "true," and what kinds of lines should be drawn around it.  Can something be only a little true, or partly true, or are those inherent contradictions in terms?  It's been too long since I've had these arguments as my philosopher friend moved away, so I'm not fresh enough on the topic to flesh it out here.

Those may be irrelevant questions, and the pursuit of their answer a waste of time.  That's another issue entirely.

by Zwackus on Tue May 29th, 2007 at 04:14:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The nature of Truth is based upon the assumptions, or as J A Wheeler put it:

"Reality is defined by the questions you put to it"

At the "cutting edge of reality" it is your hand as well as your eye which feeds back to you the answers to your questions.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue May 29th, 2007 at 06:09:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series