Rather, we speak of true qualities, true relations and true properties -
“Truth” as a concept is not subservient to categorialism, but the root of it.
In other words:
The conception “truth”, which has the natural antipode “falsity”, is the first and foremost categorical distinction used to enable abstract thinking.
To align with what Faust said,
“Truth” is not a thing in a category, rather it is the category containing all statements which are true. This category is not part of itself, as the category has no syntactic structure, forms no statement.
“This category is not part of itself, as the category has no syntactic structure, forms no statement.”
This was always the great nuisance for Idealist philosophers who sought to demonstrate how the mother-category of descriptive statements, “truth”, amounts, by some internal machinations, to a comprehensive prescriptive statement. Aristotle and Kant sought to discern such machinations and failed, Nietzsche rather sought to devise a true statement that validates all true and all false statements. He succeeded.
Yes, somehow a pre-scriptive statement (a priori) no difference there.
By “true quality” we mean a quality which is correctly attributed somewhere. So “true” refers to the statement which says that “x” has quality “q”.
Yes, that is pure Wittgenstein
different in kind, but similar in some respects, or identical in most respects except one.
What Pedro indicates, the sitting on a rock, I don’t use “truth” here but “reality”.
Truth is a value, most philosophers have estimated it as the highest value, Nietzsche did the incredible thing of questioning this rank, yet in doing so he merely liberated truth from being only the highest value.
It is data allocation. W first thought that the world could be reverse-engineered within its proper syntax, i.e. his categorization.
Pretty bold.
“Category” means “shared value”.
The decision to separate memories of experiences in different categories sets a standard-value which is beyond the categories and their permutations.
Iconoclasm, fever, dreamstates are all meant to blow up the containers and go back to a precategorical identification.
If something is “true” something else must be “false”, and this is a strain on the nervous system, as it is only this system which keeps these things separated.
Hence the question after the value of truth. Let only useful truths rise! But this is precisely what science is.
However, useful for what?
It was long thought that scientific truth is usefulness-in-itself. And maybe it is.
But then: useful to whom?
In physiological terms, Truth is prescriptive. Any suggestion of the distinction true vs false sets in motion a teleological process aimed at clarification of some particular issue. It isolates consciousness from its fullness and sets part of it on a course to make some changes in itself.
Maybe to 9th graders who want to study philosophy, so they can inquire whether their original bets measure up with what they have learned.
Yeah, so once you start by confounding truth and reality, you’re on this slippery slope that Hegel’s brains slid off. If this is not a cautionary tale, I don’t know what is…
Logic helps, something, a statement, can’t be “true and false” at the same time and place. You are either sitting on the rock, or you’re not. You can try to claim there’s a “middle-ground”, like half-sitting on the rock, but that doesn’t matter very much. All it does is make true and false unknown. So, according to logic and rationality, using easy, definitive, literal cases of reality, there are clearly true statements versus false statements. This is simple enough. But when you start compounding hundreds, then thousands, then millions of statements together, to define a clearest picture of reality, all the falsities start adding up, and there is no ‘perfect’ truth. Because no matter how skilled your logic and rationality is, it will always miss something, and always be susceptible to unknown (synthetic) judgments.
Accurate-truth is a reasonable goal. Perfect-truth is something else.
Yes , in something in stead of nothing, some and no thing are not contradictory. They appear as such, however a no-thing is in itself an oxymoron because there cam never be a thing that is perceived as such.
A nothing is really a no-thing or is it?
That is the problem with existential propositions- pro-positions, we position empty space into some frame reference that determines it, but in spite, it remains undetermined , (as am object).
The frame can not describe it’s objective content.
The most it can be said os a tautology, nothing is nothing.
It merely describes it’s former position, or pre-position , analogous to the difference between perception and preception , as of there was a spatial/ temporal difference , between them.
Are such positions transcendentally equitable, in other words, does an object near sharing near identity differs because some minute change in it’s frame of reference, or does some thing generate a duplicate identity by an indeterminate change?
Within what functional derivation does it become non-sense.
That is where the question of synthesis become appearent.
And so humans became members of categories of mutually exclusive qualities and culture became a slaughterhouse.
Hegel is truly not sane.
All one has to do is understand the meaning of the word “truth”. And this is simple enough. The word “truth” simply means “an accurate representation of some portion of reality”. A representation can be literally anything. It can be a physical object, a relation, a property, a quality, etc.
“What Pedro indicates, the sitting on a rock, I don’t use “truth” here but “reality”.” So wait a minute, help me out here. It’s not true?
Nietzsche barely touched on truth except in passing because he was dealing with it. A chef doesn’t spend his time talking about knives, except in passing and always with a grave reverence shrouded in playfulness. He is light-hearded about the tool he uses so much and is closer to than family. The chef spends his time talking about pepper or whatever the fuck.
Well I could look at the word in that way, that’s pretty good. In as far as truth is a proper noun it refers to something which separates itself from untruth.
“What about Bushido…?”?