Lies do not Exist

You must have missed the part where someone intentionally says something that is not actually the case specifically to give someone else the wrong impression. Have you never done that?

All posts on this thread are lies :^o

I could not have ever done that unless I’ve known The Truth.

Liar!

At least you’re telling the truth though, ZenKitty.

Define truth.

Lies start with self-doubt. When we take someone else’s word over our own logic, we accidentally adopt a lie. The lie is that we know the truth, without actually understanding how we know it, other than, “That’s what he/she told me.”

When people say, “x doesn’t exist”. I always wonder how they’re going to explain what they’re referencing, or how they’re going to dilute the definition of exist.

Good show,smears. LOL

I have never met “the truth” so I have never told it anything. However, I am curious, what do people tell the truth anyway?

“the” is used for an in situ abstraction in order to comply with the naming convention. There is no environmental convention possible for this set of words. Another awkward self referential fallacy, being that a sentence refers to itself, before it was at all. However, there is indication of what is meant, that people use principles of language, which they do, but not virtuously.

Nothing like the ultimate self-referential fallacy. Discourses about reasoning by someone who cannot reason at all, is about as frustrating as beating one’s meat with a hammer. Well, maybe the latter actually has some perverse meaning while the other is just perverse? Hell, it is past my bed time.

Someone can interpret Latin into English, or English into Sanskrit, or some words into human action (being an analogic), but not language into language. Nor is it even a complete thought to say that I can interpret English, or Sanskrit, interpret it into what other language? Nor can one interpret English into English, however, the Supreme Court claims it can do just that in order to violate the Constitution, thinking everyone is as dumb as a box of rocks and won’t notice the fallacy. When it was written that the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution, this could only mean effect policies for its expression, i,e. a logic into an analogic, not make what was written mean exactly the opposite logic contradict logic.

And to say, “Lies do not Exist” is a self referential fallacy to begin with. All language is based on a convention of words, meaning, as Plato pointed out, one cannot predicate existence nor deny it. Well, the village medicine man is still trying to use magic words.

Many people believe like a bunch of idiots do, who teach logic, that sentences are either true or false, as if by some magic, they wrote themselves-or that they, in or themselves, can comply with the principles of grammar, of which they are a part. Now that is a neat trick that takes place in environs of higher education, teaching magic in logic classes.

There is no language possible, that can be, in of itself, either true or false. Such a belief that it can is an anthropomorphism.

And how dumb does someone have to be to invent predicate logic–a language of a language? Starting with a self-referential fallacy to begin with? How can anyone even sit through the introduction of it and not fall out laughing?

I thought this was suppose to be part of some paradox, or wasn’t this part of Plato’s Beard as well?

They’re saying x has no referent; it can never be ostensively shown. It’s a linguistic/conceptual construct.

A pegasus is a horse (I can show you a horse) with wings (I can show you wings). “There exists an x such that x is a horse with wings” is false, without any special meaning necessary for ‘exist’.

Did they check everywhere, and all time? If not, they’re words don’t refer either. So theyir words of “Peaguses doesn’t exist” doesn’t ostensively refer either, or make any sense like “Peaguses exists”.

A square circle doesn’t exist.

A “square circle” is a planer object that is both square, having straight sides and 4 corners, and also circular, enclosed with a uniform radius and no corners.

Do I really have to “look everywhere” to deduce that it doesn’t exist?
I realize that some people would.
But some people have brains that function at least semi-rationally.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Referents don’t have to be currently existent: we can talk about Henry VIII or Pontius Pilate and refer to actual human beings. The point I’m making is logical, rather than empirical.

Ignorance is thus the essential key to apprehending the truth?

If you say that truth is actuality, until it’s not seen by human eyes anymore, that’s evidence of actual facts and not just absurd assertions.

Then assertions from humans are those things that aren’t believed a course of thoughts, yet a genuine existence.

So for those believing everything that’s told to them, than believe this anything is believable… “The truth will set you free”

So necessity is a prerequisite for existence?

Some people might say that square circles do exist, just not in any possible world, only in impossible worlds. And they wouldn’t even have to concede that much really. You could say they exist possibly assuming that the principles of the world to which you were referring were such that contradictions were located there.

I have no idea. As far as I know, I pulled that out of my ass about a split second before I typed it. Not bad though right? I mean, the world might not have any real universals, but we can narrow down the part of the world we’re in to the part in which this conversation is taking place, and in that sphere, there are in fact universals, and I like for existence to be one of them. The only way to avoid the notion that universals are pervasive, is to get out of conversations and what have you altogether.

It is? How so?

I can imagine that necessity and existence resolve to one and the same, I don’t know for sure.

It is? How so?

I can imagine that necessity and existence resolve to one and the same, I don’t know for sure.
[/quote]
Thats what I’m saying. And if necessity has to be general enough to encompass everything that exists, then it’s probably general enough for everything that “doesn’t exist” too. Cause you could go through and point out all the similarities of some things that exist, and some things that “don’t exist”, then just be like, “how you gonna account for those basic fundamental similarities?”. I’d be like, “shit, I guess unicorns exist, just maybe not in this world”.