|
|
Philosophy Zone
A note on truths: truths I'm referring to are not truths in that they define themselves, like maths. I'm talking truth independent of there own definition. 1. all that we experience is real and true. Not necessarily our interpretation of it, but in so far as we are aware of our experience it's undeniable that it didn't occur as an experience. 2. the reality in which we exist, is any consistent reality that doesn't contradict what is known to be true. => any reality consistent with our experience (again, not our interpretation of our experience, just the fact of our experience). [note: there's a really interesting thing here, what is the difference between experience and our interpretation of it? - I'd argue using painting as an example, the experience is that which is re-recognisable as the original and not something else. ] 3. there is an infinite number of realities given our knowledge (experience). Ie. there's infinite ways our experience can be explained/generalised and even interpreted! 4. for a something to be 'a truth' or it must true for all time. 5. The future is undetermined. We don't *know* what will happen next. [ note: Any reality that extends beyond our experience is not real, it's a made up guess of what might happen, that is to say we don't know what interpretation is real. ] 6. all truths beyond those experienced are undetermined, and therefore not truths. [ another interesting situation occurs... what if someone convinces themselves of what is real, ie that something didn't happen. did it still happen? I'd argue: if no one is there is know any more then how do we even know it really happened. The only thing that is known is that while the person is making an interpretation of there experience of memory, that interpretation may be false. ] 7. So no truth exists beyond experience, and so all truth is experienced, and so... all truth is known! yep. not only is it impossible for anything to be impossible to know, but everything that's true is already known! One thing that this does leave out is tautalogical truths, a priori truths, I guess. my guess is that these truth are only true because they define themselves. That's no lessening of them, but they are only true assuming they them. math and logic are example of this. Except that my interpretation is that math and logic are in fact definition's of pattern defined by the ability to distinguish. Sadly I must now go to work and do revision as I have lot's of exams. :( Comments to me at: lucasd@elmorian.zetnet.co.uk Not so Latest PhilosophiesBenChat: Existence
Other Emails
Philosophy ArchiveBenChat: Truth
Other Emails
BenChat: Old Archives
|
This web page was created by Lucas, comments can be emailed to me at: lucasd@dai.ed.ac.uk