What is driving your pursuit of the truth?

glaucon
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so its a case of it being true that existent things aren't true?

(the plot thickens ....)

???

Simply because one denies that oranges exist, does not necessarily imply that all fruit are apples.
oh?
so its true that only some things are true?

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
yes

alternatively it could be true that X=Y

And it could also be true that there is a disjunctive relationship: there are either Y's or X's.
yes, it could be true that there are actually X's and Y's

..... in short, truth reigns supreme. Everytime you attempt to clarify what is (or isn't) true, you confirm truth.

What is driving your pursuit of the truth?

glaucon

oh?
so its true that only some things are true?

Incorrect.

You consistently mistake assertion for the applicaction of truth.

What you're doing here, in attempting to play logic games is to mistake the propositional assertion of the property true, with a particular existential instantiation. In short, you're making a category mistake.

It is not the case that it is true that only some things are true; it is the case that truth can only be applied in certain cases.

yes, it could be true that there are actually X's and Y's

And that there may be only one or the other.

..... in short, truth reigns supreme. Everytime you attempt to clarify what is (or isn't) true, you confirm truth.

Wholly incorrect. This is a strictly semantic application of the concept truth, which is not the object here.

Wholly incorrect. This is a strictly semantic application of the concept truth, which is not the object here.
so the final word is that there is a truthful way to define truth?
Or have I misunderstood you since the only truth is that truth cannot be defined?
Or is it the truth that there are several ways to define truth?

if any of these statements are not true, please tell me what is.

so the final word is that there is a truthful way to define truth?

No.

Or have I misunderstood you since the only truth is that truth cannot be defined?

No.

Or is it the truth that there are several ways to define truth?

No.

if any of these statements are not true, please tell me what is.

This question succinctly explains your complete lack of understanding.

Stop trying to play word games. As I've explained, truth is not a mutually exclusive property.

From the beginning, as usual, you are fixed upon one understanding, and refuse to pay attention.

What is true, is that you could actually contribute to discussions here, but are much too narrow-minded.

No.

No.

No.

This question succinctly explains your complete lack of understanding.

Stop trying to play word games. As I've explained, truth is not a mutually exclusive property.
so it is true that the word truth is not mutually exclusive property?
how is that different from my third point? (several ways to define truth)?

From the beginning, as usual, you are fixed upon one understanding, and refuse to pay attention.
so the only way I can prove that the above statement is not true is by agreeing with you?
:scratchin:

What is true, is that you could actually contribute to discussions here, but are much too narrow-minded.
now remember, truth is not mutually exclusive property

so it is true that the word truth is not mutually exclusive property?

...

Alas, as I've long suspected LG, you are incapable of understanding basic syllogistic and propositional logic (to say nothing of the English language..).

I seriously advise you to look into a first year University Intro Logic course. I have no doubt that the experience would be invaluable to you.

Until then, you cannot be taken seriously in any discussion.

I wish you good luck.

Alas, as I've long suspected LG, you are incapable of understanding basic syllogistic and propositional logic (to say nothing of the English language..).

I seriously advise you to look into a first year University Intro Logic course. I have no doubt that the experience would be invaluable to you.

Until then, you cannot be taken seriously in any discussion.

I wish you good luck.

On the contrary, as indicated in our bizarre dialog, trying to argue about the non-existence of truth is complete rubbish

What drives my pursuit of truth consists of many things.

1) Attaining the knowledge in order to make correct judgements and decisions about the world around us.

2) Educating those who cannot see truths.

3) Attempting to overrule religion with the substitution of science.

What drives my pursuit of truth consists of many things.

3) Attempting to overrule religion with the substitution of science.
given that science deals with issues of the senses and religion deals with issues beyond the senses how do you propose to do that?
By advocating that the terms "sense perception" and "reality" are synonymous?

I find it interesting that so far, no one has dealt with the illicit assumption (and its attendant implications..) the two questions make.

To wit: that there is such a thing as 'truth'.

I'm assuming here, that by 'truth', greenberg refers to an objective ontological state of affairs.

No, not necessarily. I wanted to avoid the problems connected to the definition of truth, hence I focused on the motivation and the justification for pursuing truth. I figured asking about these would actually yield more information on what people think truth is than simply asking for a definition of truth. It is a pragmatic spin.

I figured asking about these would actually yield more information on what people think truth is than simply asking for a definition of truth. It is a pragmatic spin.
So, did it work on me?

So, did it work on me?

1) Desire
2) Ignorance

Nr. 2 is rather open, though - ignorance justifies your pursuit of truth? Why - because you deem you are entitled to overcome ignorance, or you generally deem that ignorance should be overcome?

My own ignorance, yes. I generally deem that ignorance should be overcome.

Learning truth, or more accurately to me, Knowledge is an adventure.

If you are someone in pursuit of truth, I'd like to ask you these questions:

(1) What is your motivation for pursuing truth? Ie., what is driving you to pursue truth?

(2) What is your justification for pursuing truth? Ie., why do you think it is right to pursue truth?

Thanks for your replies.

Aversion to bullshit.

Otherwise, I'd be full of shit.

1) A yearning to know
2) My sciforums id

it is the case that truth can only be applied in certain cases.

Just wondering, what do you mean by this?

If you are someone in pursuit of truth, I'd like to ask you these questions:

(1) What is your motivation for pursuing truth? Ie., what is driving you to pursue truth?

(2) What is your justification for pursuing truth? Ie., why do you think it is right to pursue truth?
Motivation: intellectual curiosity.
Justification: none needed. What is "right"?

People beating crap out of each other for the fun of it.