IAP Political Forum
December 03, 2008, 10:24:40 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Support IAP -- join "High Society" with less fuss. Click "paid subscriptions" from your profile.
 
   Home   Blog Forum   Help Search Chat Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: A return to platos universals  (Read 306 times)
Philosofear
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +10/-10
Posts: 65


View Profile
« on: December 10, 2007, 07:55:44 PM »

A universal is typically regarded as a type, property, or relation that something (of substance) holds. Such that an apple is red and the "redness" being the universal. Now I have a new idea about truth that is correlated with universals as follows.

Universal truths- Are properties of things that are not restricted in time nor in place. (Eternal in both time and place)

Substance truths- Is the substance (like matter or mind, heh what can I say im a dualist Smiley ) which is not restricted in time (in other words its eternal) however it is restricted in place. (Now this whole "place" thing can get very confusing, however I would say that their are two types of place, one correlated to the physical three-dimensional place, and the other being the mind or non-physical sensual awareness of surroundings.) note* substances are composed of properties, however are not just the compositions of properties, but rather are a noumenon or "the thing in itself."

Specific truths- These are the truths that have occured in a place, at a specific time (so they are eternal in their place but not in their time.)

If confused resort to the table below

                                 Time           Place
Universal truth-            Eternal       Eternal
Substance truth-          Eternal       Specific
Specific truth-              Specific      Eternal

That basically sums up my primitive theory of truths, however, I realize that going back over it, it's definitely confusing so I don't expect much and I am open to any thoughts or critiques.
Logged
Callum
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +48/-164
Posts: 438


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2007, 09:17:31 AM »

philo
before I start on a discussion of this, can I just throw in the definition of truth that I thought held?  It was given by Technocrat (where's he these days?) back in the what is truth thread you started...

Truth is the state corresponding with reality. Factual "truth" is a correspondence of a statement with reality. Logical truths are tautologies. Truths are sound, valid statements.

Can we first agree that 'truth' is a "a correspondence of a statement with reality" ?
Logged
Factinista
Full Member
***

Karma: +17/-35
Posts: 224


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2007, 09:22:50 AM »

I too agree with Technocrat's definition of truth.

It seems more... truthfull  Wink
Logged
daedalus 2.0
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +69/-397
Posts: 1,145



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2007, 09:27:02 AM »

I'm with techno.  philofears definitions seems tailor made to open up holes for some presuppositions.
Logged

\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
Warr_E_Er
Newbie
*

Karma: +4/-0
Posts: 49



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2007, 10:15:19 AM »

How is 'logical truth' a tautology? Is all truth logical? Is all logic true?
Logged

I think, therefore I am loved

“Every baby starts life as a little savage. He is completely selfish and self-centered... If permitted to continue in the self-centered world of infancy, ... every child would grow up a criminal, a thief, a killer, a rapist.”

-Minnesota Crime Commission
daedalus 2.0
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +69/-397
Posts: 1,145



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2007, 10:59:59 AM »

How is 'logical truth' a tautology? Is all truth logical? Is all logic true?

I think he means in the way that logic sorts things. A=A, A cannot be A and not A, etc.

Or, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, because A rose is a rose is a rose.

Or, I am that I am.

It is tautological because in logic a fact would repeat itself as fact. It simply can't be not what it is, logically.
Logged

\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
IamMe
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +39/-126
Posts: 1,271



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2007, 02:18:32 PM »

How is 'logical truth' a tautology? Is all truth logical? Is all logic true?

Can you prove something using logic that isn't true?
Logged

\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell

If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
Callum
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +48/-164
Posts: 438


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2007, 02:35:11 PM »

How is 'logical truth' a tautology? Is all truth logical? Is all logic true?

Yea barney just about got it right (I'm not sure how we approach the Gertrude Stein quote!).  A logical truth is also known, in logical jargon, as a tautology, since it is in effect the repetition of a concept or idea - possibly in an equivalent form.  So not just A=A, but If (If A then B) then (if not-B then not-A).  As for "is all logic true" see the struggle RF and I were having until I lost patience.  The laws of logic are true (and as philosofear would say eternal).  Any reasoning/inferential sequence that conforms to them will yield a true conclusion from true premses.  Any reasoning that doesn't conform (or that contains an untrue premise) cannot guarantee a true conclusion (BUT could 'just happen' upon one! However, I don't think thiis what we expect from our inferential processes).  I'm a great one for pointing out that reasoning isn't valid - that is only to say that the conclusion isn't a rock-solid deduction from the premises.

In answer to IamMe - only by fooling people into believing that the premises are true when they aren't.  Or by the apparent use of loigal forms which aren't in fact valid.   Logic 201 is good at presenting sequences which appear to be valid but which are in fact not.  The usual reason for this is that they APPEAR to cover every option, but in fact don't.  Note by the way the equivocation between the LAWS of logic - unrelenting true and 'eternal' and their use in reasoning/drawing conclusions, as in 'your logic is not valid'.
Logged
Philosofear
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +10/-10
Posts: 65


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2007, 02:37:00 PM »

philo
before I start on a discussion of this, can I just throw in the definition of truth that I thought held?  It was given by Technocrat (where's he these days?) back in the what is truth thread you started...

Truth is the state corresponding with reality. Factual "truth" is a correspondence of a statement with reality. Logical truths are tautologies. Truths are sound, valid statements.

Can we first agree that 'truth' is a "a correspondence of a statement with reality" ?

I agree.

Logged
Callum
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +48/-164
Posts: 438


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2007, 06:40:06 AM »

Can we first agree that 'truth' is a "a correspondence of a statement with reality" ?
I agree.

Ta.  I'm not trying a socratean forced march, just trying to get a grip....   What do you mean by 'eternal'?  I have problems with a type of truth that is 'eternal' in place.   Or maybe I'm just continuing your own problems with place... even accepting the apparently unique unidirectional nature of time, why do you want to split it from space?  The classical idea of truths is that they are universal (or necessary) meaning they exist in all dimensions, or contingent meaning they miss out on at least one dimension - in practice this means they are true only for a part of time (can you think of any real examples of (non-indexed) statements that are true for all time, but only in certain places?)   I get the impression that you are trying to erect a schema for handling unorthodox ideas of ... non-material stuff, perchance?   If so, why not hit us with the full monty, in one go?  (If not, sorry for wandering off target!)
Logged
Warr_E_Er
Newbie
*

Karma: +4/-0
Posts: 49



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2007, 07:33:52 AM »

How is 'logical truth' a tautology? Is all truth logical? Is all logic true?

Can you prove something using logic that isn't true?

I always thought a tautology to be needless repetition.  More specifically, a fuction of how the 'redundant' terms are ordered.  For instance, a blue jay that is a bird is tautologous whereas a bird that is a blue jay is not.  Mere semantics I suppose.

Iamme's point is well taken.  I cannot prove something using logic that isnt true.  Yet, the tautology in this instance is true logic, not logical truth.  My original question 'is all truth logical?' remains outstanding.



philo
before I start on a discussion of this, can I just throw in the definition of truth that I thought held?  It was given by Technocrat (where's he these days?) back in the what is truth thread you started...

Truth is the state corresponding with reality. Factual "truth" is a correspondence of a statement with reality. Logical truths are tautologies. Truths are sound, valid statements.

Can we first agree that 'truth' is a "a correspondence of a statement with reality" ?

I agree.



Me too
Logged

I think, therefore I am loved

“Every baby starts life as a little savage. He is completely selfish and self-centered... If permitted to continue in the self-centered world of infancy, ... every child would grow up a criminal, a thief, a killer, a rapist.”

-Minnesota Crime Commission
Callum
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +48/-164
Posts: 438


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2007, 03:54:08 PM »

My original question 'is all truth logical?' remains outstanding.

If, as you agree, truth is a relationship between a statement and reality, then logic does not enter into it.  But once you say this is a statement derived from others, then both logic and truth are involved.  Truth is a prerequisite for sound inference, as is valid logical form.  Your question is mixing kinds of things that do not mix in that way.  There is a concept of a free lunch, there is a concept of free will: are all lunches willed?  (There is no such thing, of course, as either)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.1 seconds with 27 queries.