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…?”?
Truth from the philosophical perspective is a relation, condition and perspective.
Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard.
-wiki
Thus what we have is this model;
Reality + Framework = truth
The point with reality is, it is considered within;
- Ultimate reality
- Empirical reality
- Philosophical reality
The point is humans cannot know the truth of ultimate reality, i.e. reality-by-itself.
Humans can only know the truths based on what they can filter out from a framework of truth they rely upon.
Frameworks of Truths
A framework of truth is established to filter out truths of reality with hopes such truths will facilitate the optimizing of the well-being of humanity.
A known framework is established by humans, thus it is conditioned by human effort done to the best of their abilities.
A framework of truth is also conditioned by the consensus of a particular human group.
Thus it is critical, truth cannot be absolute but at most related [relation] to the conditions of the defined and specific framework.
The following are a list of Framework of truths;
- Common sense framework of truths
- Social Frameworks
- Scientific Framework of scientific truths conditioned by the Scientific Method.
- Legal Frameworks, legal truths conditioned by specific legislature systems.
- Economic Frameworks truths
- Political Frameworks
- Philosophical Frameworks
- Theistic religious Framework
- Non-theistic religious Framework
- Spiritual Framework
- Etc. etc. Frameworks
What is held to be true is based on whether they are opinions, belief or objective knowledge [justified true beliefs].
The common sense frameworks of truths are most based on opinions and personal beliefs.
However it is indisputable the most objective knowledge are scientific knowledge which can be justified by anyone who want to test and justify those knowledge.
Therefore we can generally put the confidence level of objectivity and justified true beliefs of scientific knowledge with as high as 90% and others are to be lower.
However when Scientific knowledge which is Universal is complemented with the appropriate also universal philosophical framework-proper, the confidence level can be raised to 95%.
The other frameworks of truth are not universal thus deserve only low than 90% confidence levels.
Example legal frameworks truth are relative to National, State, counties laws which will vary accordingly.
Thus the truth that X is a convicted murder [1st, 2nd degree] must be strongly qualified to the specific legal Framework upon which the conviction is done. X may not be convicted as a murderer in another court.
The political, economics Framework of truth are similar to the legal Framework of truth, i.e. whatever the truth, they must be qualified to the Framework it is based.
The confidence levels which can attributed to the truths of these framework of truths can range from 75% down to 10% or zero [in the case of dictatorships].
Theistic Framework of truths, i.e. doctrinal truths claimed by theists are conditioned to their respective Framework of truths where the beliefs are not open to sound justifications empirically and philosophically. Rather the doctrinal truths are grounded on faith, i.e. beliefs without proofs nor justified reasons. As such, I would place theistic truths with a ZERO% confidence level while theists would have a CL of 100% on their respective doctrine.
Thus whatever the truth, it is always grounded to its Framework of Truth.
Truth is thus fundamentally a relation, condition or perspective to a reality of without absoluteness as reality-by-itself.
Whatever it is a truth or falsehood, what is critical is whether such truths/falsehoods has utility to the survival of humankind?
As such if a truth and falsehood has a net-positive utility to the survival of humankind, such truths or falsehood should be maintain.
For example, the falsehood of a real Santa has utility of net-positivity for children’s happiness.
The falsehood of God exists, albeit an illusion, is a critical necessity for the majority of humans which at present is net-positive for human kind. But this falsehood, “God exists as real” is trending toward a net-negative contribution to the well-being of humanity, thus must be neutralized with fool proof alternatives.
Nuclear energy and nuclear bombs are scientific truths with 90+% confidence level, but such truths must be dealt with carefully and reservations as they has the potential to exterminate the human species.
My point;
Truth - abstracted from a human made Framework of Truth, is thus fundamentally a relation, condition or perspective to a reality which is without absoluteness as reality-by-itself.
The critical factor here is not whether a proposition is absolutely true or false but whether whatever is true or false has utility as a net-positive to the well-being of humanity.
Ultimate Truth is physically impossible for this reason and this reason alone:
It changes too fast. By the time you or I write one L E T T E R, the whole universe changed. And so I wanted to make a point at letter “L” but that point was lost between letter “R”. So humans cannot type fast enough for Ultimate Truth. And furthermore, humans are not evolved enough, not sharp and fast enough thinkers, not intelligent enough to get at “Ultimate Truth”. We need to increase the speed and power of our brains a million times, and then, probably still not be “fast enough” to get at it.
Not really.
Ultimate truth is absolute and unconditional truth, e.g. truth-by-itself, God’s truths or the truth God exists as real and unconditionally.
Since truths are always conditioned by Framework of Truths operated by humans, thus by definition, ultimate, absolute and unconditional truths are an impossibility.
“Not really” but you agree? Interesting.
You stated,
Ultimate Truth is physically impossible for this reason and this reason alone:
I agree in principle but not with the sole reason you claimed.