|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 3, 2010 11:14:16 GMT -5
Wow.
I've been doing some thinking for a while and I've reached a theory:
Nothing is really true.
Now, it's kinda funny when you think it through. For example: The sky is blue.
The sky may be blue to you, but to other animals, it's other colors. This would lead to things like, "What is blue?" "Does blue really exist?"
Now, if you disagree with me theory, you're actually just proving it more. If my theory was true, then it would be false. So, my theory isn't true, which makes it true. Just think about it for a second.
... What do you think?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 3, 2010 11:20:44 GMT -5
If my theory was true, then it would be false. This is why you can know that it is false, because no true assertion would lead to a contradiction, as contradictions cannot exist in reality. There is a form of argument based on this called Reductio ad Absurdum (Reduction to the Absurd) in which you start with an assertion whose truth you are unaware of, add after that only facts of which you are certain and valid logic, and if it results in a contradiction, you know your starting assertion was false. So in your argument: A: Suppose that nothing is true. B: Statement A must be untrue. Because we have (very quickly) come to a conclusion A and not-A (meaning that we've supposed A to be true but also concluded A to be false), we know that A is false. In short, this means that disagreement with your theory does not prove the theory true; instead, your theory disproves itself through its contradictory nature. "I think, therefore I am."
|
|
|
Post by click3tyclick on Apr 3, 2010 11:22:09 GMT -5
My display name here is Click3tyClick.
How can you tell me this isn't true?
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Apr 3, 2010 11:26:44 GMT -5
After taking a philosophy class, I can safely say that we know absolutely nothing. We can't say the things we see actually exist, or that we're actually awake, or even that we exist.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." I <3 Socrates
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 3, 2010 11:28:20 GMT -5
Exactly, Click3tyClick. You just proved my point. And Nakor, alright, but it is kinda fun to think about.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 3, 2010 11:29:53 GMT -5
After taking a philosophy class, I can safely say that we know absolutely nothing. We can't say the things we see actually exist, or that we're actually awake, or even that we exist. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." I <3 Socrates Ah, but you can know that you can think. No matter what else, you know that there is a you that can think.
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 3, 2010 11:32:24 GMT -5
Ok, you just lost me.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Apr 3, 2010 11:32:54 GMT -5
After taking a philosophy class, I can safely say that we know absolutely nothing. We can't say the things we see actually exist, or that we're actually awake, or even that we exist. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." I <3 Socrates Ah, but you can know that you can think. No matter what else, you know that there is a you that can think. Actually, that's not true. There are philosophers who have proved that you don't exist, just as successfully and Descartes proved that you do have a mind. I wish I had my philosophy book with me, because I don't remember those that well.. But I do know that they were just as convincing as Descartes. I'll post them here when I can.
|
|
|
Post by click3tyclick on Apr 3, 2010 11:32:58 GMT -5
Exactly, Click3tyClick. You just proved my point. No. Your theory is wrong, which is perfectly normal for a theory you made a few minutes ago. However, my display name here is Click3tyClick, and if you say that's not true, you're lying.
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 3, 2010 11:35:27 GMT -5
Your username is Click3tyClick. My theory is that nothing is true. By saying my theory isn't true, you're just proving it further.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Apr 3, 2010 11:38:39 GMT -5
We can't say that "your" display name is Click3tyClick if we can't even say that "you" exist in some form.
|
|
|
Post by click3tyclick on Apr 3, 2010 11:42:07 GMT -5
Right, my display name shows up as Click3tyClick.
And Conjoin, your theory being false=/=everything being false. Right?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 3, 2010 11:42:58 GMT -5
Ah, but you can know that you can think. No matter what else, you know that there is a you that can think. ... philosophers ... proved ... That's not how philosophy works. Your username is Click3tyClick. My theory is that nothing is true. By saying my theory isn't true, you're just proving it further. I believe I explained why that was wrong. As an alternate explanation however, a theory that all things are false is not proven by showing a thing that is not false. It is proven by showing an utter absence of true things.
|
|
|
Post by click3tyclick on Apr 3, 2010 11:46:20 GMT -5
I believe I explained why that was wrong. As an alternate explanation however, a theory that all things are false is not proven by showing a thing that is not false. It is proven by showing an utter absence of true things. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Apr 3, 2010 11:48:19 GMT -5
... philosophers ... proved ... That's not how philosophy works. Haha, touché. But you understand what I meant. There's equally convincing arguments for both sides.
|
|
imtwenty
Meteor
Can I put anything here and it will go underneath my name everywhere?
Posts: 73
|
Post by imtwenty on Apr 3, 2010 11:48:22 GMT -5
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
|
|
|
Post by alwaysthinking on Apr 3, 2010 11:50:47 GMT -5
The sky isn't blue, it's scattering of particles that makes it appear blue, just like the ocean. Neither of those two things are blue.
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 3, 2010 12:31:05 GMT -5
Ah, but you can know that you can think. No matter what else, you know that there is a you that can think. Well, more like we "know" that there is a centre of perceptions (which may or may not reflect a reality). Even biologically speaking, the concept of "you" is a bit fuzzy.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Apr 3, 2010 13:03:02 GMT -5
In regards to those who proved descartes wrong, descartes argument is actually a counter argument to those proofs.
|
|
|
Post by metallica230 on Apr 3, 2010 13:11:59 GMT -5
i am not wearing any pants right now. please show me how that is not true and how it "proves your theory further"
|
|