Londoner wrote:SpheresOfBalance wrote:Londoner wrote:
So far, so circular. The problem arises when we try to apply that criteria to anything specific; when we move from 'all that actually is the case' to 'this particular proposition is the case'.
The topic is "What is truth?" So no, you're talking about knowing how to arrive at truth, I'm not! I'm simply defining what truth is, despite either knowing or not knowing any particular truth. Of course, arriving at truth is the problem isn't it. There is one light at the end of the truth tunnel though. Once humanity can no longer find plausible solutions to query as to any particular truth, it's probable that they have finally found it.
I think the problem is more that if '
truth is all that actually is the case' any given example would have to be identical with '
what is the case' - it shouldn't include anything
more than
what is the case.
But I do not think we ever stand in that simple relationship to
what is the case. For one thing, any empirical experience of the world must also involve me, so it is a combination of
what is the case' and also me, my particular sensory equipment, the way my mind interprets the data and so on.
Similarly I do not see how we could express any particular truth, since the words do not relate directly to
what is the case', in the sense of a word being nothing but a simple and transparent sign for an object, or a sensation. Any words with which we frame our truth must also incorporate logical relations, which again come from us and not from
what is the case.
(This argument is largely pinched from later Wittgenstein & co.)
I understand what you and Wittgenstein & co. are saying. I'm saying that it is a misconception, that you all are wrong, that you all are trying to split hairs where hairs need no splitting.
The facts:
We are of the universe!
We were created by the universe!
Within us is contained the elements of the universe!
We are the same as those things that are the universe!
Our senses were created by the universe so as to sense the universe, so our language!
Nothing within the universe is not of the universe!
If the universe be true, so all it's constituents!
One does not have to know the truth of the entire universe, to know the truth of some of it's constituents!
One of the constituents (us) of the universe cannot not know the truth of the universe, because it is us and we are it!
That knowing the entire truth of the universe, shall take us many many millennia does not mean we cannot know it's truth!
If the complete knowing of the universal truth takes it's animals a googleplex of millennia it doesn't mean the universes animals are incapable of knowing it, it just means that in their relative beginning, it seems to their small minds that they are incapable. If one is as small as a microbe, how can it know the truth of the human host in which it is contained, let alone the universe in which the human is contained. In the beginning it has no concept, and falsely "believes" that it cannot know the "truth" of the universe. Incorrect! Time is the solution, as long as it can sustain itself for that long, it shall in fact know the truth of the universe or rather the universal truth complete!
Humans are simply infants that fail to see, nay, refuse to admit that they might currently be incapable, because of pride, ego, self image, etc! So then the best they can do is to say it's impossible, rather than to admit that in fact they're just still far too small! In time, not only could we be larger than this universe, but we could create one! With enough time!!!!
Now, we haven't even been able to get past our own moon. We, my friend, are currently insignificant despite our puffed up pride thus denial. We can't even balance our own planet! We'll probably never know!
But as Henry Ford said, 'If you say you can or you say you can't, you're right!'