|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:18 pm
The only means by which you can justify a truth, is to already have a truth. In my opinion this paradox is the skeptics best friend as it throws the whole concept of a philosophers ability to gain awareness of actual truth into question.
1. If truth is what we use to prove something's true, then the only way we can prove something's true is to already have truth. But if we do not already have truth how can we prove that?
The only way I can think to solve this is to suppose we have inherent truths. But that wouldn't sit to well with empricists.
2. "Most Truth can only be expressed in circular paradoxes."
I just wish to hear other opinions on this subject.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:04 am
I think that all truths can go around in circles, no matter what you're talking about. So there really is one big "circle of truths," if you think about it. And as far as proving something with another truth, if that truth has no truth to prove it true, than it goes into a whole circle thing again, so it really is one big confusing paradox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:35 pm
An argument can contain circular reasoning without being a bad argument.
What truth do I need to justify the premise: 'I think'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:59 pm
The circular logic makes my head explode.
burning_eyes See?
*headdesk*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:11 pm
Slayer-Igraine What truth do I need to justify the premise: 'I think'? According to Descartes, the mere fact that you are capable of questioning your existence, or the fact that you are self aware, is enough to prove that these things are true. They were the truths that he attempted to build all of his further beliefs off of, though he didn't do a very good job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:18 am
Ceyx Slayer-Igraine What truth do I need to justify the premise: 'I think'? According to Descartes, the mere fact that you are capable of questioning your existence, or the fact that you are self aware, is enough to prove that these things are true. They were the truths that he attempted to build all of his further beliefs off of, though he didn't do a very good job.
If something is self-authenticating, then surely we don't need another truth to justify it. However, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people in this guild who don't hold the Cogito to be self-authenticating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 9:55 pm
I don't see the paradox. There is only one path of thought in that and that is that truth is beyond the scope of knowledge. In other words, even if you hold the truth, you can never be certain that you do because the human brain is a fallible apparatus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 9:55 pm
Slayer Igraine I know, wink that was my point. I don't think I've seen anyone in this guild yet who hasn't read or studied Descartes. smile *joys*
I'm sorry I have to be the first. I'm afraid I haven't studied true philosophy or psychology or anything properly of the like ( crying crying ) Anyways, the paradox. Technically, you don't need the truth to prove the same truth. You can also use several truths that add up to prove the certain truth. At least, that's how it seems. If this theory has flaws, let me know biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 9:59 pm
Dusk-Hunter Slayer Igraine I know, wink that was my point. I don't think I've seen anyone in this guild yet who hasn't read or studied Descartes. smile *joys*
I'm sorry I have to be the first. I'm afraid I haven't studied true philosophy or psychology or anything properly of the like ( crying crying ) Anyways, the paradox. Technically, you don't need the truth to prove the same truth. You can also use several truths that add up to prove the certain truth. At least, that's how it seems. If this theory has flaws, let me know biggrin 1. If truth is what we use to prove something's true, then the only way we can prove something's true is to already have truth. But if we do not already have truth how can we prove that? Basically if we do not have an inherent truth, then how do we know that truth is really true. Unless you go with a group census.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 12:14 pm
We find truth by encountering other truths, and use those to allow us to discover more truths. If you mean we need any truth to prove any other truth, then I agree. But we don't need to have the exact same truth to prove another truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 7:29 pm
Kanon Vilente Dusk-Hunter Slayer Igraine I know, wink that was my point. I don't think I've seen anyone in this guild yet who hasn't read or studied Descartes. smile *joys*
I'm sorry I have to be the first. I'm afraid I haven't studied true philosophy or psychology or anything properly of the like ( crying crying ) Anyways, the paradox. Technically, you don't need the truth to prove the same truth. You can also use several truths that add up to prove the certain truth. At least, that's how it seems. If this theory has flaws, let me know biggrin 1. If truth is what we use to prove something's true, then the only way we can prove something's true is to already have truth. But if we do not already have truth how can we prove that? Basically if we do not have an inherent truth, then how do we know that truth is really true. Unless you go with a group census. But that's just logic that can be derived from a relatively intelligent person without reading Descartes' work. I still fail to see the paradox as there is only one "truth" in that statement, as opposed to a paradox which would require to conflicting theories which may equally be true. The gist of that is that if the foundation of your beliefs (aka "what you believe to be true") is false, then naturally your belief which are built upon that foundation is likely (but if you think about it, not necessarily) to be false as well. But this can all be trumped by the nihilist approach that "truth is cannot be attained [by mortals]". That is the truth paradox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 7:51 pm
Contagious Cure Kanon Vilente Dusk-Hunter Slayer Igraine I know, wink that was my point. I don't think I've seen anyone in this guild yet who hasn't read or studied Descartes. smile *joys*
I'm sorry I have to be the first. I'm afraid I haven't studied true philosophy or psychology or anything properly of the like ( crying crying ) Anyways, the paradox. Technically, you don't need the truth to prove the same truth. You can also use several truths that add up to prove the certain truth. At least, that's how it seems. If this theory has flaws, let me know biggrin 1. If truth is what we use to prove something's true, then the only way we can prove something's true is to already have truth. But if we do not already have truth how can we prove that? Basically if we do not have an inherent truth, then how do we know that truth is really true. Unless you go with a group census. But that's just logic that can be derived from a relatively intelligent person without reading Descartes' work. I still fail to see the paradox as there is only one "truth" in that statement, as opposed to a paradox which would require to conflicting theories which may equally be true. The gist of that is that if the foundation of your beliefs (aka "what you believe to be true") is false, then naturally your belief which are built upon that foundation is likely (but if you think about it, not necessarily) to be false as well. But this can all be trumped by the nihilist approach that "truth is cannot be attained [by mortals]". That is the truth paradox. I wasn't expecting to put much thought into this subject. Since it was a thread purely for entertainment. xd Atleast now I have been given a chance to have an interesting discussion over it. 3nodding I will update this responce a bit later because I am currently recruiting once again xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 8:06 pm
The only provable truth is 'I think, therefore I am.' Everything else is a series of interconnected and complex theories supported by evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:56 am
So what exactly is "truth" agian?
I havent seen that come up yet- and if I missed it please accpet my
appologies.
We are discussing how to find it, or prove it, but what is it that we are
trying to find and prove?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 3:10 pm
phantomkitsune The only provable truth is 'I think, therefore I am.' Everything else is a series of interconnected and complex theories supported by evidence. How, exactly do you prove that statement? Even if you could prove that "I think", which I doubt you'd be able to prove irrefutably, how do you prove that it implies that "I am"? The statement "I think, therefore I am" is a way overused cliché.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
