[Ecce Homo]

*as
Discuss.

[MeGusta]

No.

[False Utopia]

Islam.

I always answer questions about Islam whilst being completely and utterly biased towards the question at hand, never even thinking about the other side of the argument and only the side which assumes Islam is the undeniable truth; I am a logical Muslim.

[JacobW]

Truth is just the correspondence of reality to propositions. Even if the whole world is a figment of your imagination, propositions about can still correspond to your own inner reality, so the very fact that we have sensory experiences proves that there is indeed such a thing as truth.

[Ecce Homo]

(Original post by JacobW)
Truth is just the correspondence of reality to propositions. Even if the whole world is a figment of your imagination, propositions about can still correspond to your own inner reality, so the very fact that we have sensory experiences proves that there is indeed such a thing as truth.

If Truth only has to correspond to your own reality, then there are truths, but there can be no Truth. If 'an apple is a type of fish' corresponds with my experiences, then that is a truth, and can be no less valid than 'an apple is a type of fruit'.

[JacobW]

(Original post by Ecce Homo)
If Truth only has to correspond to your own reality, then there are truths, but there can be no Truth. If 'an apple is a type of fish' corresponds with my experiences, then that is a truth, and can be no less valid than 'an apple is a type of fruit'.

You're now groundlessly asserting that reality is private; there are excellent reasons to think otherwise. But yes, if there were no external world beyond individuals' experiences, there could be no absolute truth at least as far as empirical facts go. Your example is a bad one, however, since the proposition does not assert an empirical fact so the nature of our experiences is of no direct relevance to its objectivity.

[Ecce Homo]

(Original post by JacobW)
You're now groundlessly asserting that reality is private; there are excellent reasons to think otherwise. But yes, if there were no external world beyond individuals' experiences, there could be no absolute truth at least as far as empirical facts go. Your example is a bad one, however, since the proposition does not assert an empirical fact so the nature of our experiences is of no direct relevance to its objectivity.

Can I have an example of one of the excellent reasons?
How I would classify an apple does depend on my experience of it.

[The Epicurean]

But is this a true statement?


If that statement is true, that wouldn't it evidently be contradictory?

[Martyn*]

It is true that my name is Martyn.

[Ecce Homo]

(Original post by zedbrar)
But is this a true statement?


If that statement is true, that wouldn't it evidently be contradictory?

It is not a universal truth, even if I hold it to be true.

[Nephilim]

(Original post by Martyn*)
It is true that my name is Martyn.

Wrong. Your name is Martyn* (You forgot the asterix)

[JacobW]

(Original post by Ecce Homo)
Can I have an example of one of the excellent reasons?
How I would classify an apple does depend on my experience of it.

Look into linguistic phenomenalism or the private language argument. I'll admit I haven't studied either in any detail, but they both strike me as promising ways of overcoming solipsism.

Of course it does. Whilst that alone would not establish that the proposition is factual, I realise now that I was completely wrong in denying it to be, since to say "p is of category s" does not merely entail that it meets the neccessary conditions of belonging to category s, but says precisely that.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Nephilim)
Wrong. Your name is Martyn* (You forgot the asterix)

No. That's my username. My name is Martyn.

[Mishmashmoo]

There are only perspectives (Nietzsche's a top guy)

[R4INBOW]

No. If a brick is red, then it's red. You can't lie and say it's blue


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by Ecce Homo)
*as
Discuss.

Sure there is: "Tomatoes are fruit."

True by definition.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by Ecce Homo)
Can I have an example of one of the excellent reasons?
How I would classify an apple does depend on my experience of it.

If your experience of an apple was such as to lead you to think it was a fish, then it wouldn't be an apple, though it might be a kind of fish you'd call an 'apple'. To put it more technically, it would have the same label, but neither the same sense nor the same reference. Thus, for the proposition 'an apple is a kind of fish' to be true would require you to substitute a different sense of 'apple'. It is mere semantics.

[MrNucleon]

There are things we can know to be truths. Though all are entirely subjective. It is not impossible to suspect that everything I experience is an illusion placed there by aliens.
But I know for a fact that I experience things.
I also know that, within my subjective experience, when I throw something up, it falls down, etc.
This is true subjectively regardless of whether it is true in an objective universe. Therefore there are things that are definately true subjectively.

Interestingly, some people take this to an extreme and believe in solipsism; they think that all that is truly real is their minds, and we are all part of their imagination. Sadly, I know for a fact that they are all wrong, but you cannot prove to me that I would be wrong if I were to believe so.

[Butterfly9595]

Depends on what it is you're talking about... some things depend on perception and belief e.g. how the world came about, whilst other things are either true or not....

[Arcanine]

What a bull**** discussion asked by you.