.

[RCSaunders]

Is this last statement true?

Could whatever this last statement is, to you, be refuted?

What is the difference between 'truth' and 'absolute truth' to you?

My mistake. I thought this was a philosophy site, not a twenty questions game show.

Why would I say what I did not mean? [You do not have to answer that question--it's rhetorical.]

You, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT back up and support your CLAIM here.

See, everyone who CLAIMS things like; "there are NO absolute truths" REFUTE "them self" every time they TRY TO back up and support their CLAIM.

Your CLAIM here is a SELF-REFUTING CLAIM.

Sorry! I just cannot take you seriously. Don't worry about it. It won't do you any harm.

[Iwannaplato]

What is the absolute truth of everything? I propose it is the A=A.

Then we don't know much. It might be a fundamental idea on which other truths are based, but I can't see how it is the truth of everything. I mean with that truth, say, we cannot know anything about bird migration. We might presume it in our arguments and evidence for whatever we know about bird migration, but that knowledge needs other stuff.

[simplicity]

What is the absolute truth of everything? I propose it is the A=A.

This would be like saying that A is like A. It is nonsensical.

The Absolute Truth of everything exists outside of our intellect because thinking cannot access Reality (Truth) [for all kinds of reasons].

[RCSaunders]

Is this last statement true?

Could whatever this last statement is, to you, be refuted?

What is the difference between 'truth' and 'absolute truth' to you?

My mistake. I thought this was a philosophy site, not a twenty questions game show.

Why would I say what I did not mean? [You do not have to answer that question--it's rhetorical.]

You, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT back up and support your CLAIM here.

See, everyone who CLAIMS things like; "there are NO absolute truths" REFUTE "them self" every time they TRY TO back up and support their CLAIM.

Your CLAIM here is a SELF-REFUTING CLAIM.

"Back up and support," for whom? It's unlikely you'd understand it.

When I explain two bit error detection and single bit error correction for digital memory and transmission systems, some of my students just cannot understand it. All the "backing up," and, "supporting," in the world will never make them understand it, just as you cannot understand my explanation of why there is no such thing as absolute truth. Don't worry about it. It's a common short-coming.

[Age]

My mistake. I thought this was a philosophy site, not a twenty questions game show.

Why would I say what I did not mean? [You do not have to answer that question--it's rhetorical.]

You, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT back up and support your CLAIM here.

See, everyone who CLAIMS things like; "there are NO absolute truths" REFUTE "them self" every time they TRY TO back up and support their CLAIM.

Your CLAIM here is a SELF-REFUTING CLAIM.

Sorry! I just cannot take you seriously. Don't worry about it. It won't do you any harm.

You do NOT have to take ANY thing seriously, but when you say that what you say is true but ALSO CLAIM that it is ACTUALLY NOT, absolutely, true, then it is you who could NOT be taken seriously.

[Age]

My mistake. I thought this was a philosophy site, not a twenty questions game show.

Why would I say what I did not mean? [You do not have to answer that question--it's rhetorical.]

You, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT back up and support your CLAIM here.

See, everyone who CLAIMS things like; "there are NO absolute truths" REFUTE "them self" every time they TRY TO back up and support their CLAIM.

Your CLAIM here is a SELF-REFUTING CLAIM.

"Back up and support," for whom? It's unlikely you'd understand it.

Okay. But, actually, you do NOT understand it.


When I explain two bit error detection and single bit error correction for digital memory and transmission systems, some of my students just cannot understand it. All the "backing up," and, "supporting," in the world will never make them understand it, just as you cannot understand my explanation of why there is no such thing as absolute truth. Don't worry about it. It's a common short-coming.

LOL

But you NEVER even gave AN explanation, did you?

And, I even asked you to explain the difference.

But you did NOT.

So, if this is how you "treat" your students, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO wonder WHY some students do NOT understand you.

[RCSaunders]

You, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT back up and support your CLAIM here.

See, everyone who CLAIMS things like; "there are NO absolute truths" REFUTE "them self" every time they TRY TO back up and support their CLAIM.

Your CLAIM here is a SELF-REFUTING CLAIM.

"Back up and support," for whom? It's unlikely you'd understand it.

Okay. But, actually, you do NOT understand it.


When I explain two bit error detection and single bit error correction for digital memory and transmission systems, some of my students just cannot understand it. All the "backing up," and, "supporting," in the world will never make them understand it, just as you cannot understand my explanation of why there is no such thing as absolute truth. Don't worry about it. It's a common short-coming.

LOL

But you NEVER even gave AN explanation, did you?

And, I even asked you to explain the difference.

But you did NOT.

So, if this is how you "treat" your students, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO wonder WHY some students do NOT understand you.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the explanation was to simple and I assumed you knew what a proposition is and what an attribute is.

What I said was:

Truth is not a thing or entity, it is an attribute and has no ontological meaning. It is strictly an epistemological concept pertaining to propositions.

"Truth," is the name of that attribute of all correct propositions. If what a statement (proposition) asserts is correct it is, "true," if what a statement asserts is not correct, it is false, that is, "not true." "Truth," is just the attribute that differentiates between correct and incorrect statements. There is no other kind of truth.

Like any other attribute, truth does not exist independently of that which it is an attribute of. Just as, "long," or, "short," do not exist independently of things that are long or short (there is no absolute short or long) truth does not exist independent of the propositions truth is the attribute of (there is no absolute truth).

If you do not understand that, I'm afraid you have failed in this class.

[RCSaunders]

You, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT back up and support your CLAIM here.

See, everyone who CLAIMS things like; "there are NO absolute truths" REFUTE "them self" every time they TRY TO back up and support their CLAIM.

Your CLAIM here is a SELF-REFUTING CLAIM.

Sorry! I just cannot take you seriously. Don't worry about it. It won't do you any harm.

You do NOT have to take ANY thing seriously, but when you say that what you say is true but ALSO CLAIM that it is ACTUALLY NOT, absolutely, true, then it is you who could NOT be taken seriously.

"Absolutely true," is redundant. A proposition is either true, or it isn't. If a proposition is less than true in any way, it is false, period.

Even if, "absolutely true," weren't absurd, it would not imply there is something called, "absolute truth." There is no such thing as truth independent of propositions.
Truth is an attribute, not a thing.

[Age]

Sorry! I just cannot take you seriously. Don't worry about it. It won't do you any harm.

You do NOT have to take ANY thing seriously, but when you say that what you say is true but ALSO CLAIM that it is ACTUALLY NOT, absolutely, true, then it is you who could NOT be taken seriously.

"Absolutely true," is redundant.

TO YOU.

You do NOT, YET, seem to understand that this is YOUR truth ONLY, and NOT necessarily thee ACTUAL Truth AT ALL.

Unless, of course, you actually believe that what you individually or personally believe is true is irrefutably true, then you will be, literally, on your own.

A proposition is either true, or it isn't. If a proposition is less than true in any way, it is false, period.

Or, just partly true.

Even if, "absolutely true," weren't absurd, it would not imply there is something called, "absolute truth." There is no such thing as truth independent of propositions.

If this is what YOU believe is TRUE, then that is perfectly fine. But what you BELIEVE is true does NOT necessarily MEAN that 'it' is ACTUALLY true.

SEE, you have YET to PROVE that YOUR proposition "there is NO absolute truth" is true.

Truth is an attribute, not a thing.

This does NOT matter. Understanding, reason, space, and time can also be said to be"not things", but to say so only DETRACTS from YOUR CLAIM that; " There is no absolute "truth" ", and does NOT prove this CLAIM and BELIEF of YOURS here.

[Sculptor]

A=A is only nominally correct.
As soon as you use A to represent something real, it fails.
It fails because every thing has some uniqueness about it.

[RCSaunders]

A=A is only nominally correct.
As soon as you use A to represent something real, it fails.
It fails because every thing has some uniqueness about it.

Actually that is the point of, "A is A." It means whatever actual something is meant by A, it is that unique something and not possibly anything else. A is that A and not anything else (like B) and nothing else (like B) is that A.

"A is A," just means, "an entity is what it is and not anything else."

That is also why, "A=A," is incorrect except in math or symbolic logic. That is a totally different proposition.

[RCSaunders]

You do NOT have to take ANY thing seriously, but when you say that what you say is true but ALSO CLAIM that it is ACTUALLY NOT, absolutely, true, then it is you who could NOT be taken seriously.

"Absolutely true," is redundant.

TO YOU.

You do NOT, YET, seem to understand that this is YOUR truth ONLY, and NOT necessarily thee ACTUAL Truth AT ALL.

Unless, of course, you actually believe that what you individually or personally believe is true is irrefutably true, then you will be, literally, on your own.

A proposition is either true, or it isn't. If a proposition is less than true in any way, it is false, period.

Or, just partly true.

Even if, "absolutely true," weren't absurd, it would not imply there is something called, "absolute truth." There is no such thing as truth independent of propositions.

If this is what YOU believe is TRUE, then that is perfectly fine. But what you BELIEVE is true does NOT necessarily MEAN that 'it' is ACTUALLY true.

SEE, you have YET to PROVE that YOUR proposition "there is NO absolute truth" is true.

Truth is an attribute, not a thing.

This does NOT matter. Understanding, reason, space, and time can also be said to be"not things", but to say so only DETRACTS from YOUR CLAIM that; " There is no absolute "truth" ", and does NOT prove this CLAIM and BELIEF of YOURS here.

does NOT prove?

Only a con man tries to convince other there are, "degrees," of truth.

Nobody cares whether you want to use language imprecisely or not, but it sounds silly to say, "absolute truth," as if something less the truth could be true. It's like saying this is, "absolutely empty," or, she's, "absolutley pregnant," or he's, "absolutely dead." Those kinds of expressions might be useful rhetoric in satire or political speeches, but they are still redundant. Something is either empty, pregnant, or dead, --or it not--there are no degrees. Something is either true or it isn't.

[Sculptor]

A=A is only nominally correct.
As soon as you use A to represent something real, it fails.
It fails because every thing has some uniqueness about it.

Actually that is the point of, "A is A."

No "A is A" can be described in two ways. False or meaningless.
If A is A actually means A=A then it is false, because it is a claim of equivance. If A is A then it is an empty statement.

It means whatever actual something is meant by A, it is that unique something and not possibly anything else. A is that A and not anything else (like B) and nothing else (like B) is that A.

But that is true for everything from A - Z in an infinite series of nominations.

"A is A," just means, "an entity is what it is and not anything else."

That is also false since ANY entity can be characterised in various ways. An apple is also a fruit, as is a pear.

That is also why, "A=A," is incorrect except in math or symbolic logic. That is a totally different proposition.

And no that is not why A=A, since there can never be more than one unique form of A.

[Sculptor]

Only a con man tries to convince other there are, "degrees," of truth.

Is that fair? I think not. Mud is wet and water is wet have degrees of validity.
Trump is nice; Trump is evil. They depend of context, but both are true.

[Age]

"Absolutely true," is redundant.

TO YOU.

You do NOT, YET, seem to understand that this is YOUR truth ONLY, and NOT necessarily thee ACTUAL Truth AT ALL.

Unless, of course, you actually believe that what you individually or personally believe is true is irrefutably true, then you will be, literally, on your own.

A proposition is either true, or it isn't. If a proposition is less than true in any way, it is false, period.

Or, just partly true.

Even if, "absolutely true," weren't absurd, it would not imply there is something called, "absolute truth." There is no such thing as truth independent of propositions.

If this is what YOU believe is TRUE, then that is perfectly fine. But what you BELIEVE is true does NOT necessarily MEAN that 'it' is ACTUALLY true.

SEE, you have YET to PROVE that YOUR proposition "there is NO absolute truth" is true.

Truth is an attribute, not a thing.

This does NOT matter. Understanding, reason, space, and time can also be said to be"not things", but to say so only DETRACTS from YOUR CLAIM that; " There is no absolute "truth" ", and does NOT prove this CLAIM and BELIEF of YOURS here.

does NOT prove?

Only a con man tries to convince other there are, "degrees," of truth.

Nobody cares whether you want to use language imprecisely or not, but it sounds silly to say, "absolute truth,"

TO YOU.

as if something less the truth could be true.

But OBVIOUSLY what you BELIEVE is "true" is NOT necessarily true, at all, to "another". So, which one has 'the truth'?

It's like saying this is, "absolutely empty," or, she's, "absolutley pregnant," or he's, "absolutely dead."

But they are OTHER things.

You say one thing is true, which "another" says that thing is NOT true? So, which one KNOWS and has 'the truth'?

Those kinds of expressions might be useful rhetoric in satire or political speeches, but they are still redundant. Something is either empty, pregnant, or dead, --or it not--there are no degrees. Something is either true or it isn't.

And, it can be VERY EASILY argued that the proposition that, "there is no absolute truth" is NOT true, VERY SIMPLY by the way. So, which proposition is true, right, and correct?

You might say one is, while "another" might say the other is. So, which one of you two KNOWS and has 'the truth'?