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.
It doesn’t really make sense to talk about Absolutes or Unconditioned without knowing the state of the entire universe first.
There is no way limited human beings can know of the ENTIRE universe at all.
So there is no question of knowing the entire universe first.
What human beings are capable of via Science to know parts of the universe, then SPECULATE on what it beyond the known universe but there is no way Science [the only tool we have] can ever know the whole-universe.
So my point, yes, I agree it makes no empirical sense to talk about the Absolute or Unconditioned or the Entire Universe as an absolute whole.
But there are people who are not satisfy with merely the known universe and the other parts of the universe that are possible [empirical] to be known, they extrapolate and speculate to the extreme, there is a Whole Universe but done without any solid empirical grounding but merely based on thinking alone.
Thus when they claim and insist there is the truth of a real absolute and unconditional, I argued as above, this claim is an impossibility.
I agree with your earlier point in the sense that humans are always one step behind ‘reality’ in terms of time thus can never grasp what is really real. By the time, one cognize ‘what is’, it is already a ’ what was’ in real time.
Some spiritual alecs will argue there is the concept of being in the ‘now’ thus one can realize absolute reality in that sense.
However if we rely on the justified argument that absolute in an impossibility as real as I had argued, there is no room for anyone to claim the absolute can exists in whatever sense.
This post rings true for me (no pun intended). I’ve felt for years that a national requirement for obtaining a HS diploma should be to read and be tested on Harry Frankfort’s “On Truth” or some similar work. Find myself wondering in my old age if I would have had a more intellectually more productive youth if I’d have met someone who would at least have taught me the principles laid out by the ancient Greek philosophers.
But then, this is premised on the condition that I would have even listened; wasn’t very open to authority.
I’m going to have to read more Nietzsche. Can you tell me where (name of the work) he liberated truth from being only the highest value and what your interpretation of this is? I hold truth to be the only obvious absolute…can’t imagine any world in which it would be intelligent, proper, right or of benefit of any kind to abandon truth and embrace falsity.
I recommend that you do, read Nietzsche. Not to be convinced of anything - this is not why philosophers read philosophers - but to learn of his way of thinking.
His placing the value of truth in question occurs at the outset of his earth-shaking Beyond Good and Evil.
I think it makes more sense for me to simply point you the way here and not interfere. Two philosophers is a conversation, three is a crowd.
“Philosophers are often like little children, who first scribble random lines on a piece of paper with their pencils, and now ask an adult 'What is that?” - W
But mutation doesn’t prove truth can’t be an absolute. I see the material universe operating in a simple compatibilist format that illustrates this. Matter that constantly changes only does so under the supervision of the presumptively absolute non-contact forces. I’m aware the NC forces aren’t accepted as absolutes. Fluctuations have been recorded a couple times in the past, though the reason is unknown; could be an anomaly somewhere in the universe exerted some affect. Also, someone argued that the NC forces were likely created in the first few nanoseconds of the big bang, i.e., there were no such forces until they were thus created and therefore couldn’t be ‘absolute’ in a strong sense. But perturbations and something that happened unimaginable years ago don’t change the model. The NC forces have been steadily doing their jobs for long enough to establish the compatibilist pattern which shows how the absolute can be harmonized with mutation.
Correction to last post: I meant to say fluctuations IN GRAVITY.