I came across this statement here
“There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false”. Discuss this claim.
I think it’s important to consider the three key words - truth, falsehood, and the absolute.
What can one say about all of this? Let’s discuss.
You’re not supposed to pose essay questions here dude.
But anyway, you can base it around how everything is ultimately subjective because all assertions come from the subject. Nothing can be proved to be absolute because you are trapped in the first person perspective.
That’s all I’m gunna give ya,
And so therefore, there are no absolute distinctions, is that what you’re saying?
In a word, yeah.
There’s plenty of topics on this in this forum if you wanted to read up a little and get some opinions.
I will, thank you.
Yes. There does exist an absolute distinction. Haven’t you read the Bible?! …Gawh.
Ha.
Playground for the demagogues.
Carrot for the naive, simpleminded and stupid.
I think that everything in the world should be seen through the simple, slangy, soundbytey filter. It just makes thinking and reading so absofuckinlutely irrelevant… and all truth and falsehood can thus be seen as utterly relative with no absolutes at all. Easypeasy.
But how can you justify this claim?
absolute
truth
falsehood
Wittgenstein says:
“Nur im Gebrauch hat der Satz Sinn.”
This translates as:
“It is only in use that the proposition has its sense.”
Before offering that translation, I asserted: “Nur im Gebrauch hat der Satz Sinn.” Is this a true or false statement? I’m assuming you speak German like I do (not at all) and thus this statement meant zilch. Was it a true or false statement? If I said it to someone fluent in German, then they might have some opinion on whether it is true or false. If they aren’t a philosopher familiar with Wittgenstein, however, they would say (in German), “You’re being obscure and vague with these philosophical musings. I have no idea what you are really trying to say.” They would understand the syntax, and yet not understand the meaning. Does this make the statement false? It certainly cannot be called “true” if it is rendered meaningless by a failure to communicate. Then we come to the situation of one philosopher saying this to another. Even here, I think it is less helpful to ask whether the assertion is true, and more relevant to ask whether it is used effectively.
truth is beyond language spoken though
a tree is a tree in any language
No! A tree does not happen in language. A tree is a tree. Trees happen in the biosphere. “Trees” happens in language. Does truth concern a tree? Or… Does truth concern “a tree”? If we are asking if there a distinction between true and false, then we want to play a language game. We want to play “tree/not-a-tree.” And this is a lovely game!
I say, “That is a tree.” A lumberjack says, “that is lumber.” A photographer says, “that is the subject of my masterful photograph of a tree.” A tourist says, “That is a nice thing to see on my vacation.” Someone having lunch says, “I will have lunch under that tree.” You look at a rock, and you say, “This is not a tree.” What if that rock is a fossil, a petrified tree?!
Are these things true or false? What if the photographer and the lumberjack have an argument?
Only in use does the proposition have its sense.
to the lumberjack , photographer , tourist , and someone having lunch , they still fundamentaly see the same object , a living thing
a petrified tree is not a tree , all aspects that was a tree is replaced by sand
to the lumberjack , photographer , tourist , and someone having lunch , they still fundamentaly see the same object , a living thing , a tree
a petrified tree is not a tree , all aspects that was a tree is replaced by sand
[/quote]
Wonderful! In this statement we can make a distinction between true and false as follows.
True: “A petrified tree is not a tree, all aspects that was a tree is replaced by sand”
What we do here is consider “aspects that was a tree.” Such aspects are things like: Wood. Chlorophyll. A root system. Shade. Material for a log cabin.
A petrified tree does not have the sufficient characteristics to qualify as a tree as such. Thus, a petrified tree is not a tree. Truth.
False: “A petrified tree is not a tree, all aspects that was a tree is replaced by sand”
What we do here is consider epistemology. What is our evidence that something was, which is no more. I say, there was a place which I refer to as Ancient Rome. My evidence is the ruins of the agora. The agora is not Ancient Rome. But, I say with human historians, “There are ruins of the agora. This is/was the meeting place of Ancient Romans.” When I say this, I am asserting a proposition that is “Ancient Rome.” This is the only sort of proposition of “Ancient Rome” which is possible. Ancient Rome is just that, ancient. In science, this is more often than not the way of things. When I make an assertion, I do so on the basis of evidence of an entity, not necessarily on the basis of the entity itself which I assert. As such the distinction between evidence-of-an-entity and entity-itself dissolves. “A petrified tree” is often the only way of stating, “this is/was a tree.” The evidence of a thing is the thing in the methods of human epistemology.
Thus, “A petrified tree is a tree.”
So I come to my point. Here, truth and falsity are distinct on the basis of particular uses of language and knowledge.
I contend therefore: Truth and Falsity are distinct!
We use propositions to try and locate ourselves between opposites. I’m not suggesting it’s a natural thing to do so. It’s difficult to conceive of a state of being where pairs of opposites do not exist at all.
A proposition being the negation of a thing does not necessarily mean that everything in opposition to that negation is the case
If I say the truth of P is not the case, it doesn’t follow that the opposite of P is the case.
If I say you have no good thoughts, it doesn’t follow that all your thoughts are bad. Likewise, if I say you have no bad ones it doesn’t mean they’re all good.
Truth is internal, it’s created by the mind to help translate the world. This too, though, could very well be beyond spoken, or any odd language.
we make the distinction between what is true and false - we, as in conscious entities - we decide what is true and what is false and we decide whether or not that distinction is absolute. now define absolute. or don’t bother. because it doesn’t exist except as a definition manufactured by conscious entities.
for one thing, truth and falsity exist on a spectrum - there are places in the middle of the spectrum where the two are indistinguishable except by subjective fiat, and where they are objectively distinguishable, they are relative to one another. around and around we go.
truth and falsity rely on one another, like every dichotomy, they ARE objectively relative
and by the time reality has been processed to the extent that it can be called true it is already at least in part a fabrication
truth is essentially an invention of consciousness - things just are the way they are, yes - but that doesn’t make them true, what makes them true is conscious entities agreeing that they are so. every truth identifiable as such is, in essence, an agreement, an intersubjective one - an agreement which makes no difference to the way things actually are, but which makes all the difference in how we talk and philosophize about reality. meanwhile reality, in full spite of consciousness, perpetually continues being whatever it happens to be. fate.
anyway, in the middle of the spectrum there are places where reality and how we talk about it are indistinguishable - so no, if absolute means non-subjective or non-relative then there is no absolute distinction between truth and falsity.