Non-Truth and Non-finality

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Breath
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:49 am
Location: In my skin

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Breath »

Montgomery77 wrote:
Breath wrote:You signal that we are in a word game when you say you are pursuing an inquiry. Before you can meaningfully pursue any inquiry, you must ground the act of inquiry itself.

What is an inquiry? what is a question?

What is a question? is first and foremost a statement, simply because what? is a question.
The alternate meaning is an absurd one.

What is a question? is questioning questioning. There is no foundation for that act, because it rests on an infinite regress.

Amen, I tell you, the beginning (ENDINGBEGINNOW) of thought would be to open this regress, not as a "going back", or any "infinity" but to the opening of Openess itself.

In other words, that which opens questioning and indifference, progress and regress, finitude and infinity, etc


The ENDINGBEGINNOW of philosophy is to restore the memory of that free and commanding signified, to discover Urwörter [originary words] in the language of the world by learning to by-pass the limiting logic of signification.
It seems to me that you see a problem where there isn't any. Why search for a memory of the given when the given is (there)?
Montgomery77
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:40 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Montgomery77 »

Haven't we, in the way we have come to understand "given-ness", pre-supposed something beyond given-ality?

Does not the essence of what the given is, receive its constitution by what it is not?

Clearly, the given is not irreducible, it therefore cannot ground us as an absolute point of departure.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3346
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by HexHammer »

Montgomery77 wrote:The problem of "metaphysical truth" has no "solution", no "resolution.", no finality.


For the same reason there is nowhere to begin to trace the graphics of the empty set, difference, Nontology, "god before the gods", etc. For what is put into question is precisely the quest for a rightful beginning, an absolute point of departure, a first principle.

The problematic of thought is opened by putting into question the value of the origin. What I will propose here will not be elaborated simply as a logical discourse, operating according to principles, postulates, axioms, or definitions, and proceeding along the discursive lines of a linear order of reasons. In the description of Nontology , everything is strategic and adventurous.

Strategic because no transcendent truth present outside the field of writing can govern theologically the totality of the field. Adventurous because this strategy is a not simple strategy in the sense that strategy orients tactics according to a final goal, an ultimate truth or theme of domination, a mastery and ultimate reappropriation of the development of the field.

Finally, a strategy without finality, what might be called blind tactics, or empirical wandering if the value of empiricism did not itself acquire its entire meaning in opposition to Nontology. If there is a certain wandering in the tracing of origin, it no more follows the lines of nontological thinking than that of its symmetrical and integral inverse, empirical-perceptual- logic. The concept of play keeps it beyond this opposition, announcing, on the end of thought and beyond it, the unity of chance and necessity in calculations without end.
This is pure nonsense and babble!
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Non-Truth and Non-finality

Post by Necromancer »

As this is Epistemology, why not stick to Plato's Three-Part Definition as requirement for truth/knowledge:
1. Fact p
2. Observer a believes in p
3. a's belief in p is justified.

One can take this further with The Closure Principle etc., that 3. becomes "a's belief in p is justified by hypothetical syllogisms (A entails B entails C entails D and so on)".

I can add a bit of Tarski: The sentence "snow is white" (laboratory-wise and by classification) is true if, and only if snow is white. :)

What if people started to take the OP serious? Heh, no truth? :shock: What is World? Indeed what is the thing in front of me that looks like a tree? Or any object made by human beings, like a car? A motorcycle? A computer? The list goes on and on. I think it's reasonable to give up and say that Truth reflects the reality we're in and we're relating to. :)

A few good books to start, examples:
Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Jonathan Dancy (old now, but sufficient, please identify a newer if you must)
The Philosophy of Language (5th ed.) by A. P. Martinich (old too, newer editions are for sale and other good books too)
Post Reply