|
|
Post by RorySBarnes on Apr 3, 2010 13:18:17 GMT -5
metallica230 has a pretty decent approach to this.
Now, for some of you who MAY know who I am, you probably know I do the IB Diploma programme. If you don't know me but do the IB Program, or you just know it, then you probably know that we have a mandatory class called TOK. It's about how we think, and SHIRT like that.
Anyway, we recently were doing a unit about truths, and were given this sheet, and told to mark things as true or false, or leave them blank if we could not decide. Most people assume things just based on what they hear, but others base them on what we call "facts" but there lies the problem.
My personal view on things is that nothing is true, nor can anything be proven true. Things can be proven to be false, however if something is not false, is it automatically true? No, not even in the slightest!
Furthermore, getting back to Metallica230's post, I can't prove that you not wearing pants is false (nor do I want to know whether you are or not, to be frank) but I cannot prove that you not wearing pants is true. Just because they aren't on your body, do we automatically assume you not wearing them is true? Yes. Is it true though? Maybe, nobody knows. We can prove it to be false, but nothing can be proven true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 3, 2010 13:26:51 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" Well, frankly, I have no idea if you're wearing pants. If something is definitely true, it means that my theory is incorrect. If my theory is incorrect, than it just proves itself further. "Nothing is really true" If the theory isn't true, than agrees with itself. |
|
|
|
Post by click3tyclick on Apr 3, 2010 13:35:22 GMT -5
But your theory not being true=/=nothing being true.
I seriously can't get into your way of thought, Conjoin.
|
|
Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
Post by Silverrida on Apr 3, 2010 14:22:57 GMT -5
Conjoin makes a valid point but takes it too far saying everything, even ideas, are false. I do not think he meant this. I believe he meant that we can be certain of nothing, which has been discovered centuries ago. The statement "everything is false" expresses an idea. It is not meant to be included, but the wording, specifically "everything" does include that very idea. Your theory cannot be both true and false. If it is such, then it proves nothing. Therein lies the problem.
Now, there's a distinct difference between truth and existence, and I think the latter is what you were trying to convey. If you are not an empiricist then the only thing you can be sure of is that you, yourself, exist. I have heard no compelling counterargument to this and would like to see one if it exists. Now, from this, you can say that nothing else exists outside of your mind. However, the fact that other people appear to exist and speak with you shows that either they have thought or that you gave them thought in your own mind. I propose that although nobody else may exist, because you give them thoughts and then have no conscious control over them they exist in you world as much as you do. That would make every thought technically a falsehood as they are really not unique thoughts but instead your own, but they do exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2010 14:28:37 GMT -5
it all depends on whether you say that something is true for you or declare that something is true in general.
Second thing is impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 3, 2010 14:32:06 GMT -5
Whoa, I never thought into it this much. I just thought it was a fun wittle thing to think about.... I really don't like thinking about things a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by omgpokemon on Apr 3, 2010 14:36:58 GMT -5
oh god, my brain hurts. DX
|
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 3, 2010 21:06:20 GMT -5
^That was the point.  |
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 3, 2010 21:33:10 GMT -5
Classical skepticism (not the way people casually call themselves "skeptic" today... read a little philosophy :3 ) was a belief system that we can't really know anything, all truth is based off the collection of sense data and processing through the human brain, so it stands to reason if the human mind is faulty or can be deceived, then we can't know anything.
the proposed solution by Rene Descartes to this was "cogito ergo sum" or "I think therefore I am"
it says to question whether or not we exist someone has to do the thinking. therefore the thinker must exist.
at the end of the day if this is to be accepted all we can ever know is that we exist, we may be in the christian hell being deceived by the devil into thinking we are who we are when we are in fact. a 7th century German woman.
we may be pineapples.
we could be plugged into the matrix.
we could be butterflies daydreaming.
but we know we exist.
this being said. other then the existence of the individual (everyone else may not actually be real) nothing is for certain.
|
|
|
|
Post by metallica210 on Apr 3, 2010 22:14:43 GMT -5
ok, so when you say that my pantlessness just proves your theory further, you are disregarding the fact that IT IS TRUE I HAVE NO PANTS ON. just because one thing is a lie, doesnt mean the other thing is a lie, too. so my pantlessness proves yourtheory WRONG, and it being wrong does NOT proove it, because im still not wearing any pants.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 3, 2010 22:17:15 GMT -5
You have no pants on. I'm aware of this now. This means my theory is false.
My theory states that nothing is true.
By saying that my theory isn't true, you are proving further.
And just so y'all know, this is more of a mind game than anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 3, 2010 22:18:59 GMT -5
PARADOX!
Like:
The following statement is false.
The previous statement is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 3, 2010 22:19:51 GMT -5
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
Post by metallica210 on Apr 3, 2010 22:30:52 GMT -5
im still right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 3, 2010 22:44:50 GMT -5
Ok. If that makes you happy, then keep thinking it.
|
|
|
|
Post by metallica210 on Apr 3, 2010 23:08:42 GMT -5
it does make me happy. also, this thing is not a paradox. just because one thing fits into the category and another doesnt, just makes the theoey false.
|
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 3, 2010 23:11:47 GMT -5
the liars paradox, fun thing in philosophy but I don't think it touches on what the topic is about. that being can we know anything without a shadow of a doubt?
(the lairs paradox for those who don't know breaks down into
"everything I say is a lie"
and
"I'm lying"
)
|
|
|
|
Post by metallica210 on Apr 3, 2010 23:20:53 GMT -5
i have no doubt that i have no pants on. not even a shadow.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 4, 2010 0:11:21 GMT -5
i have no doubt that i have no pants on. not even a shadow. Your senses could be deceiving you. You could be wearing bright green pants and just not realize it! |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Apr 4, 2010 0:13:34 GMT -5
you can't trust your senses
you can't trust your logic
but you can trust that if you cannot trust these things that there must be something that exists to deceive you, so there is something in which you can hold trust in, therefore there is truth.
whether or not we ever experience it is a totally different story.
|
|
