The concept of Truth

[G_Sherman]

rSo within my own limited experience of life the questions of truth arises. Lets first get some information that we can all start with as a basis for discussion. So take a sojourn to the website bellow and lets start our journey.

 

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/truth

 

 

Now considering that truth is being genuine, there has to be a concept of lacking genuine quality.

 

Two people make a stone ball. The first person is Aye the second Bay. Aye made his stone ball, while Bay finished a minute later. Is Aye's stone ball of Genuine quality while Bay's is lacking Genuine quality?

 

 

Consider this as well. "This statement is a lie." If the statement is a lie, then the statement is true. If the statement is the truth, then it is a lie but in stating it is a lie still provides a measure of truth.

 

Truth can be a lie, a lie that is or is not true. What was intended as a lie could by chance be truth as well, then does the objective reality surpass the inherent desire to provide false information?

[JustinW]

Consider this as well. "This statement is a lie." If the statement is a lie, then the statement is true. If the statement is the truth, then it is a lie but in stating it is a lie still provides a measure of truth.

 

Truth can be a lie, a lie that is or is not true. What was intended as a lie could by chance be truth as well, then does the objective reality surpass the inherent desire to provide false information?

I think you might have this a little confused.

If I were to say to you that " I am 200 years old", that would be a lie.

 

If you were to say that "me saying I'm 200 years is a lie", that would be true.

 

But it doesn't give my statement any validity. So my statement has no truth, only yours does.

 

Also you have being genuine and genuine quality confused. They are two different things. Being genuine is a concept, where as with your rockbuilders it is a matter of origin.

Edited January 23, 2012 by JustinW

[G_Sherman]

I think you might have this a little confused.

If I were to say to you that " I am 200 years old", that would be a lie.

 

If you were to say that "me saying I'm 200 years is a lie", that would be true.

 

But it doesn't give my statement any validity. So my statement has no truth, only yours does.

 

Also you have being genuine and genuine quality confused. They are two different things. Being genuine is a concept, where as with your rockbuilders it is a matter of origin.

 

 

No.

 

Everything you are made of existed 200 years ago in one format or another. This is a stretch but if identity is derived from matter, anything that is used becomes an aspect of current or past identity.

 

There was no clarity in the statement, "I am 200 years old." The 'lie' or 'truth' becomes dependent on the context the speaker experiences and the recipient assumes.

[imatfaal]

the liar's paradox/epimenides paradox has been known for many years - self reference and recursivity are a problem, but a very interesting one for logicians. you may like to read Douglas Hofstadter's 'Godel Escher Bach' which is an accessible yet deep romp through recursivity, music, art, and godel's incompleteness theorems.

 

in a language as rich as English all statements could, by a hyper-critical reader, be taken to be unclear ie "There was no clarity in the statement" However, the extrapolation of that hurdle to understanding is that all language is so imprecise as to be unintelligible, which is 'clearly' false; there is a distinction between functional interpretation and theoretical critical parsing/analysis. I believe I understand the import of what I say/type, and the reactions of those around me who respond to me tie in with my mental predictions of how they would respond if they had the same interpretation as I did - what more can I ask for? Whilst I can imagine many problems with the sentence "I am 200 years old" - not least of which is that I have very little comprehension of the subject; there remains a simple and uncomplicated meaning which takes positive effort to avoid finding.

 

I also agree with JW on the genuine nature of the stone balls - I see no reason to withhold a qualification of genuine from the second stone ball, why should there be? a hiraku dorodango is not a genuine stone ball for example - that is a qualitative judgment, whereas las bolas are, another value decision.

[JustinW]

G_Sherman,

Everything you are made of existed 200 years ago in one format or another. This is a stretch but if identity is derived from matter, anything that is used becomes an aspect of current or past identity.

 

There was no clarity in the statement, "I am 200 years old." The 'lie' or 'truth' becomes dependent on the context the speaker experiences and the recipient assumes.

True, but still a stretch. Just because someone names a false statement false, doesn't mean that the false statement can grow any truer. The statement naming the false statement false has no bearing on the validity of the false statement.

[Dekan]

Both Aye and Bay produced genuine balls.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2012 by Dekan

[owl]

 

Consider this as well. "This statement is a lie." If the statement is a lie, then the statement is true. If the statement is the truth, then it is a lie but in stating it is a lie still provides a measure of truth.

Here is an old saw along the same lines, kind of a 'chase your tail' mind game:

 

The statement below is a lie.

 

The statement above is true.

 

One still wonders if earth has a "true shape" considering relativity.

(No, I'm not starting in again, just wanting to have the "last word" on the subject, gaming-wise.)