Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
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 ]


Occasional Series