No Truth Paradox

[Stoic_Guardian]

Perhaps I am not looking at it correctly but i find it odd that people hold this opinion and claim it to be logical.

Every once in a while I see someone who wil state “there is no truth” and equates the idea of truth to that of a belief or a preconception.

Simply put the statemate “there is no truth” is subconsciously in itself a statement made with the intent of being “right” or “true”

So put against each other the statement “There is truth”.

Where as the statement “there is no truth” is like Adding by a negative number in mathamatics in that the answer would be negative (no truth) but the intent would be positive (stating it as fact).

[Faust]

There are many people who do not seem to realise that in philosophy, many, many words need a close definition in order to be understood. “Truth” is one of them.

It can make sense to say that there is no truth, depending upon the sense in which that word is used. It’s just that a lot of people don’t give us the sense being used.

[Three_Times_Great]

Another potential Wittgenstein convert?

[Nah]

We tend to presume and imply too much.
I mean, too much of our thought is done subconsciously, and we tend to speak/write the part that is visible to our surface awareness.
Also, even when we are aware, we tend to omit a lot because we are lazy and/or because we think others would be able to guess the implied details, and/or for the sake of readability/simplicity, and so on.
By omitting lots of details, we confuse others and ourselves, and create (the appearance of) paradox, in some cases.

For example, “There is no truth” might be “There is no absolute truth in the sense all true/false evaluation is conditional/dependent on the system of evaluation”, in the surface mind + subconscious mind of the speaker.
The statement itself is also conditional truth (in the mind of the speaker), and thus it doesn’t contradict.

But it can be a paradox if someone thinks that “there is absolutely no absolute truth” because the speaker is thinking that the statement is absolutely true.

[finishedman]

What are we talking about here … truth in the material field, the psychological or spiritual field?

[Stoic_Guardian]

@Nah

But it can be a paradox if someone thinks that “there is absolutely no absolute truth” because the speaker is thinking that the statement is absolutely true.

The way I see it, they are stating it to be correct which in essance would be truth and therein is where I see the paradox.

[Stoic_Guardian]

@finishedman

What are we talking about here … truth in the material field, the psychological or spiritual field?

Absolute truths, so all of them I suppose.

[Stoic_Guardian]

I am not opposed to the Idea that humans may not be able to ever “know” the truth (absolutley at least) but I am opposed to the Idea that there is no such thing as truth.

[finishedman]

We see growth and development in the material world around, and we call this a certain level or dimension of truth’s quality, not necessarily absolute, but it seems we prefer placing this on the more objective side of truth. Because of the time and effort put into material pursuits we see results and achievements in that field. So then, there are those who apply that fruitful effort (in the material realm) to the psychological and so-called spiritual life and seek out truths in other directions in search of levels of truth there. They are trying to mix the more objective kind of material-world truth in with these other areas of life that are claimed to exist.

[Seand11395]

These are all certainly interesting thoughts, and i cannot, though id wish to do so, reply to all of them at once.
I have indeed heard the phrase “there is no such thing as truth”, and it has always been a shaky question for me.
It is one of the biggest reasons i got into philosophy, and i think one of the biggest reasons that anyone does.
I got into philosophy to get as close to absolute truth as possible, and find if absolute truth exists.
I also got into philosophy to discover what is real, and to figure out what really exists, and to figure out if the material world truly exists or not, or if it even matters.

My mentor once told me there is no way to achieve absolute truth, that it is much like absolute zero in science terms.

I often ponder the truthfullness of mere statements. If i say something, and i certainly believe it to be true, i will say that it is true. If i say i milked my goat correctly to full capacity, i will believe it to be true by my standards, but the goat with sore teats may disagree. Something is often true in ones mind, and not true to others.

That brings up what i call social truths: what the public says is true. The general thought in public is that murder, in any shape or form, is entirely immoral. (sorry to bring up morality) whereas, some may say that it in some circumstances, it is completely acceptable, if not completely moral.

which brings up circumstantial truth.
I look up now, and the sky appears to me to be blue. Often people say " The sky is blue and the grass is green"
but i like to think, “Is the sky really blue? and if it is, it certainly wont stay blue! when rain comes, the sky is gray. so why not say the sky is gray? and grass is not always green, come cold weather the grass dies and becomes brown. so is grass not brown?” to me, truth is as relative as “Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe”. shoot away, fellas

[Valley]

@Stoic Guardian

Perhaps I am not looking at it correctly but i find it odd that people hold this opinion and claim it to be logical.

Every once in a while I see someone who wil state “there is no truth” and equates the idea of truth to that of a belief or a preconception.

Simply put the statemate “there is no truth” is subconsciously in itself a statement made with the intent of being “right” or “true”

So put against each other the statement “There is truth”.

Where as the statement “there is no truth” is like Adding by a negative number in mathamatics in that the answer would be negative (no truth) but the intent would be positive (stating it as fact).

Perhaps what people really mean to imply by that, but fail to say due to a lack of linguistic understanding is to say: There is no truth except that there is no truth.

[Stoic_Guardian]

@Valley

@Stoic Guardian

Perhaps I am not looking at it correctly but i find it odd that people hold this opinion and claim it to be logical.

Every once in a while I see someone who wil state “there is no truth” and equates the idea of truth to that of a belief or a preconception.

Simply put the statemate “there is no truth” is subconsciously in itself a statement made with the intent of being “right” or “true”

So put against each other the statement “There is truth”.

Where as the statement “there is no truth” is like Adding by a negative number in mathamatics in that the answer would be negative (no truth) but the intent would be positive (stating it as fact).

Perhaps what people really mean to imply by that, but fail to say due to a lack of linguistic understanding is to say: There is no truth except that there is no truth.

That is still a paradox. For instance what makes that statement true and others in support of truth, False?

[Faust]

What you have to do to make this claim sensible is to define “truth”.

For instance, “There is no objective truth”. Here, you’re not denying truth, you’re objecting to the use of “objective”.

[Valley]

@Stoic Guardian

That is still a paradox. For instance what makes that statement true and others in support of truth, False?

I’m not sure I follow you entirely, but I would say, in reality what makes anything the “truth” other than that evidence suggests that that particular thing is most likely and thus we assert that it then must be the truth often regardless of the fact that there remains the possibility that the said “truth” is wrong.

[Stoic_Guardian]

@Valley

@Stoic Guardian

That is still a paradox. For instance what makes that statement true and others in support of truth, False?

I’m not sure I follow you entirely, but I would say, in reality what makes anything the “truth” other than that evidence suggests that that particular thing is most likely and thus we assert that it then must be the truth often regardless of the fact that there remains the possibility that the said “truth” is wrong.

As I said I believe in absolute truths regardless of whether or not the human mind can understand them, I am not against debating what is true I simply think that the statement “there is no truth” is untruthful and in my opinion quite lazy.

[Valley]

@Stoic Guardian

@Valley

@Stoic Guardian

That is still a paradox. For instance what makes that statement true and others in support of truth, False?

I’m not sure I follow you entirely, but I would say, in reality what makes anything the “truth” other than that evidence suggests that that particular thing is most likely and thus we assert that it then must be the truth often regardless of the fact that there remains the possibility that the said “truth” is wrong.

As I said I believe in absolute truths regardless of whether or not the human mind can understand them, I am not against debating what is true I simply think that the statement “there is no truth” is untruthful and in my opinion quite lazy.

One arguement I would propose in opposition to the statement “there is no truth” or even the statement “there is no truth except this statement.” is: If there is not truth then it is not true to say, “things exist” (while like wise you can say it is not true to say there is “non-existence.”) If nothing exists though, how can the assertion be made that there is no truth and thus that things don’t exist.

[Stoic_Guardian]

@Valley

One arguement I would propose in opposition to the statement “there is no truth” or even the statement “there is no truth except this statement.” is: If there is not truth then it is not true to say, “things exist” (while like wise you can say it is not true to say there is “non-existence.”) If nothing exists though, how can the assertion be made that there is no truth and thus that things don’t exist.

Yes that is right on the way I think of this subject, for instance people that do not believe in an afterlife of any kind , I disagree with in part because to me the Idea of believing in oblivion (non existance) makes no logical sense to me. In a way I also see that as a paradox in that people that believe in “nothing” would say that other peoples concepts of an afterlife, the soul or gods are all false and that they are non existant, which humourisly enough kind of makes it seem like they believe in the same thing. It seems to be the same kind of paradoxical thinking that leads to discussions such as “Philosophy is Dead” which (regardless of whether or not an idea or a concept can die) is odd in that, If your discussing something philosophically how can it possibly be dead?

[Stoic_Guardian]

@Faust

What you have to do to make this claim sensible is to define “truth”.

For instance, “There is no objective truth”. Here, you’re not denying truth, you’re objecting to the use of “objective”.

Im not sure I understand, to me the Truth is what “is”. Opposite of what “is not”

It’s confusing if you don’t read it the right way.

[Valley]

@Stoic Guardian

Yes that is right on the way I think of this subject, for instance people that do not believe in an afterlife of any kind , I disagree with in part because to me the Idea of believing in oblivion (non existance) makes no logical sense to me. In a way I also see that as a paradox in that people that believe in “nothing” would say that other peoples concepts of an afterlife, the soul or gods are all false and that they are non existant, which humourisly enough kind of makes it seem like they believe in the same thing. It seems to be the same kind of paradoxical thinking that leads to discussions such as “Philosophy is Dead” which (regardless of whether or not an idea or a concept can die) is odd in that, If your discussing something philosophically how can it possibly be dead?

For one even non-awarness is an after-life, so I’d say clearly there is an after-life. As to what the after-life is… I personally believe it is most likely that we are reborn, wether into “life” again or heaven or hell I don’t know. For if we were reborn into non-existence, we would not experience it (if we did i would think that to be an assertion of hell, or a form there of) and if we did not experience it, it would seem that no matter what time occured if we did ever wake up it would seem instantaneous…Just a thought.

[Only_Humean]

@Stoic Guardian

@Faust

What you have to do to make this claim sensible is to define “truth”.

For instance, “There is no objective truth”. Here, you’re not denying truth, you’re objecting to the use of “objective”.

Im not sure I understand, to me the Truth is what “is”. Opposite of what “is not”

It’s confusing if you don’t read it the right way.

That’s where I think you’re going wrong. Reality is what “is”. Or existence, if you prefer.

Truth is not a thing. Truth is a value that applies to statements(/beliefs). When people talk about “a great truth” or “a truth universally acknowledged”, they are talking about a statement that is true. And it is usually used to denote of a statement that it corresponds to reality.
This link may explain the difference and why it’s important:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy
The map is not the territory.

Without statements/beliefs, there is no truth to speak of. It’s just meaningless to talk of truth existing independently. As soon as you start speaking of reality in statements, or believing things about it, you can talk about truth.