Wow, I'm even shocked I posted that. I want to apologize and thinking to wash my mouth out with soap.
Ultimately our relationship with this world is subjective. Isn't that what you're trying to show with the brain in a vat game? I don't agree. Is it really? I wonder what you're implying? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
More accurately, I think the "truth" for Jan is probably whatever Jan thinks it is. He'll flip-flop from one position to another depending on what suits his line of argument at any given time.
In part, I suppose. But interestingly, there you're arguing for total objectivity, claiming that you have absolute objective knowledge of something, rather than merely a personal opinion.
No I don't. The truth is the truth. That we may honestly think something to be the truth, to find out that you were mistaken, does not mean you weren't being truthful. A lie is a distortion of the truth. That means you have to know the truth in order to lie. A mistake is an error, fault, misconception. It says nothing about the truth itself. The Truth stands alone. jan.
No, it's not, not if you assert the subjective nature of truth as you do below. There are two notions of "truth" being considered: one that means being in accordance with reality - I.e. Objective; the other meaning a belief that is accepted as corresponding to reality - I.e. Subjective. When you say "a truth is a truth" you seem to be implying the first, yet your subsequent statement suggests the second. You thus seem to be offering inconsistent messages. Again. Yes, lies are conscious descisions to tell something that you don't believe to be true. But a lie could actually be the truth (in the first sense).
Let me be more specific about the truth: as at the time of writing this post, you do seem to me to be offering inconsistent messages. This truth will not change, even if you subsequently, somehow, convince me to change my view on whether or not I think you are offering inconsistent messages. It will always be true that, at the time I am writing this post, you seemed to me to be offering inconsistent messages.
Actually I was reffering to claims I quoted from post 229. Despite your assertion that it is true, do you think that it is possible you could be mistaken? jan.
Which included the claim that it seemed you were offering inconsistent messages. If you mean with regard the definitions of "truth" that I suggested, yes, there do seem to be two somewhat distinct notions of it. Most dictionaries should attest to that. And it is true that you seemed to be referring to both, thus being inconsistent. You refer to "it" but given that there were numerous elements to what you quoted, perhaps you could be more specific? What exactly are you asking me whether or not I think it possible I could be mistaken?
No. And I did respond to the claim you quoted from post 229: To repeat what you quoted from me that I wrote in post #229: "You thus seem to be offering inconsistent messages." You then asked if it was true (post #230). I then replied referring to this claim (post #231) and clarified my position on the other two aspects you quoted of mine from #229 (post #233). What more are you seeking, Jan? Do you need it in Braille?
You're funny Baldeee. My question, "is that true" was directed at the whole quote. This is the quote I referred to... There are two notions of "truth" being considered: one that means being in accordance with reality - I.e. Objective; the other meaning a belief that is accepted as corresponding to reality - I.e. Subjective. When you say "a truth is a truth" you seem to be implying the first, yet your subsequent statement suggests the second. You thus seem to be offering inconsistent messages. Again. Jan.
