Truth

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But truth value is always determined by its referents. Objectively only uncertainty would remain in any isolated "explicit truth claim". Truth equals subjectivity itself (by the sums of its relating) as Kierkegaard already concluded in a more existential tone:

• Here is such a definition of truth: the objective uncertainty, held fast in an appropriation process of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth available for an existing person. There where the way swings off (and where that is cannot be discovered objectively but only subjectively), at that place objective knowledge is annulled. Objectively speaking he has only uncertainty, but precisely there the infinite passion of inwardness is intensified, and truth is precisely the adventure to choose objective uncertainty with the passion of inwardness.
  
  Kierkegaard in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript

[Leyla Shen]

What the hell are you talking about now, Father Platon?

Kierkegaard here gives a clear definition not of truth, but of "Truth". Please make an argument such that it can be judged on its own merits inasmuch as it relates to the question in the opening post.

What does Kierkegaard's apologetic on the existence of god and the nature of Christian faith in the absence of such "objective truths" as a historical Jesus, walking on water, water into wine, splitting the red sea, etc, have to do with the question in the OP, which does not require any such "referent" outside of "statement = true" to be what it is?

[Bobo]

Take the statement 'x is true', that means that x must be an antecedent properly tied to a consequent. With true as a consequent we have that '(x is true) is true' and x must be an antecedend with a proper consequent... And so on. So x doesn't have a proper truth value.
Taking the statement 'this statement is x' 'this statement' is not a statement that can be regarded as equivalent to the sum of it's parts. Since this statement can be referring to 'this statement' or 'this statement is x'.

[Kunga]

Is it true that the statement "This statement is true" is true?

It is true, that you made the statement : "This statement is true"


As far as any others truths go, it is all relative. Relative to what you know.
Example :

If you were 10,000,000,000 years more advanced (evolved) than another species.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Kierkegaard here gives a clear definition not of truth, but of "Truth".

You are introducing the capital letters, not him and not me. But if you want some formal propositional logic then you should formulate the OP as such. Just having a statement with uncertain meaning and definition will have no logical conclusion. Your "this" is incomplete and only suggests something. Pure ambivalence and a good demonstration of Kierkegaard's "objective uncertainty". At best it's a simulacrum because of its self-referential implication.

What does Kierkegaard's apologetic on the existence of god and the nature of Christian faith in the absence of such "objective truths" as a historical Jesus, walking on water, water into wine, splitting the red sea, etc, have to do with the question in the OP, which does not require any such "referent" outside of "statement = true" to be what it is?

That truth value is always determined by its referents. Which always ends up being existential if you follow it through seriously enough. It really doesn't matter if we talk about walking on water or ice-scream.

[Leyla Shen]

Take the statement 'x is true', that means that x must be an antecedent properly tied to a consequent. With true as a consequent we have that '(x is true) is true' and x must be an antecedend with a proper consequent... And so on. So x doesn't have a proper truth value.
Taking the statement 'this statement is x' 'this statement' is not a statement that can be regarded as equivalent to the sum of it's parts. Since this statement can be referring to 'this statement' or 'this statement is x'.

Right, because “this statement” is not a statement in itself by definition since it doesn’t express anything—it’s not actually stating something. “This statement is true”, however, is exactly a statement of integrity, i.e. if it is a statement by definition, then it is necessarily a true statement. Therefore, if you treat the said statement as a proposition, it is false exactly because it is not proposition. If you treat it as a statement, however, it is necessarily true.

[Leyla Shen]

Your "this" is incomplete and only suggests something.

Yes, it "suggests" the whole statement. DUH.

[Bobo]

Right, because “this statement” is not a statement in itself by definition since it doesn’t express anything—it’s not actually stating something. “This statement is true”, however, is exactly a statement of integrity, i.e. if it is a statement by definition, then it is necessarily a true statement.

I don't think "this statement is true" is a proper statement because 'true' would refer to "this statement is true" as "this statement is (this statement is (this statement is true))".

Therefore, if you treat the said statement as a proposition, it is false exactly because it is not proposition. If you treat it as a statement, however, it is necessarily true.

It's not false either, if it is not a proposition it just cannot have a truth-value assigned to it.

[Leyla Shen]

I don't think "this statement is true" is a proper statement because 'true' would refer to "this statement is true" as "this statement is (this statement is (this statement is true))".

Isn't that the same thing? The "this statement" of "this statement is true" is "this statement is true". What about if we were having lunch together in the park and I said to you "this apple is bad"? What's the difference? Is it not a statement?

[Leyla Shen]

L: Therefore, if you treat the said statement as a proposition, it is false exactly because it is not proposition. If you treat it as a statement, however, it is necessarily true.

B: It's not false either, if it is not a proposition it just cannot have a truth-value assigned to it.

So, you are arguing that it's not true that that something can be true by definition?

[Bobo]

The apple example is in the form 'a is b'. While 'a is true' requires 'a' to have an antecedent and consequent, I don't think it does have it.
Hmm, I'm saying that, by definition, 'true' cannot be part of a proper proposition. Anyway, you can provide us with your own definitions.

On the platonism thing it seems that you would need an antecedent to be its own consequent (holding 'x is x' instead of 'x is not x') and then raising that state to the level of truth, as 'x is x' is true, and maybe comparing the truth 'x is x' with x...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Your "this" is incomplete and only suggests something.

Yes, it "suggests" the whole statement. DUH.

That's why I said that the whole statement is incomplete and only suggests something. Ambivalence!

Truth by definition, no, existence and contrast by definition. But "this statement" is not well defined and has little qualities, least of all logical values.

This statements exists. It exists because you're thinking of it. It refers to the many relationships you have with the words and placements.

[fontana]

Once I was in a bathroom with a mirror in back of me. I turned to look at the image of my backside. It was not true.

[Leyla Shen]

Lol fontana.

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert, hello? Anyone home? The “this statement” in “this statement is true” refers no more or less to the words “this statement” than the “the apple” in “this apple is bad” or the "all bachelors" in "all bachelors are unmarried" do!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The “this statement” in “this statement is true” refers no more or less to the words “this statement” than the “the apple” in “this apple is bad” or the "all bachelors" in "all bachelors are unmarried" do!

It's just a referent. You are forgetting the bachelors probably have been defined to mean "unmarried men" and apples to mean "a type of edible fruit". Or one assumes to have these definition in place (as implicit meanings with informal logic). But something like "this statement" does not have any referral to anything during evaluation since the statement has not been completed. The evaluation of "this statement" is never finished. That's why it's ambiguous.

So although it cannot be called "true", since the context might still provide further meaning over time, the status remains just ambiguous with the likely probability of being false. And it would be nonsensical if not many things actually work like this: implicitely.

[Leyla Shen]

The only ambiguous and forgetful thing in this whole thread is your mind, dear!

t's just a referent. You are forgetting the bachelors probably have been defined to mean "unmarried men" and apples to mean "a type of edible fruit". Or one assumes to have these definition in place (as implicit meanings with informal logic). But something like "this statement" does not have any referral to anything during evaluation since the statement has not been completed. The evaluation of "this statement" is never finished. That's why it's ambiguous.

Fallacious. Everything you have said about "apples" and "bachelors" holds true for "statement".

I think you might just be destined to create a useful house robot, though. :)

[Leyla Shen]

The apple example is in the form 'a is b'. While 'a is true' requires 'a' to have an antecedent and consequent, I don't think it does have it.

Agreed.

Hmm, I'm saying that, by definition, 'true' cannot be part of a proper proposition. Anyway, you can provide us with your own definitions.

Agreed: the argument for which comprises the entire content of my posts together with the definitions therein provided. But if I’ve been remiss in that regard in any way, please point out where and I’ll endeavour to remedy it.

On the platonism thing it seems that you would need an antecedent to be its own consequent (holding 'x is x' instead of 'x is not x') and then raising that state to the level of truth, as 'x is x' is true, and maybe comparing the truth 'x is x' with x...

If I may, let's take this a step back.

Contextualisation:

L: But it actually is, by definition, a statement. The only way we can determine its truth value with falsification as the criterion is to understand it exactly that way. That is, to understand it as the proposition that "This statement is true" itself conforms with the definition of "statement", which it does. But what gnaws at one about it, I think, is the problem of Platonic Forms. "Spirit", "Being", "Idea", "Truth"—and all of them elevated to the status of proper noun, no less!

Nietzsche called Plato and his ilk dogmatists for this very reason. "Christianity," he said "is Platonism for 'the People'"...

I think it useful to point out another of Nietzsche’s statements to give additional philosophical depth to what Nietzsche has said, paraphrased somewhat perhaps:

“There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.”

To my mind, he has said more than enough right there! :)

You see, philosophical truth is a dangerous thing. Unlike with the madman who is feared because he might cut you up into little pieces mercilessly, truth upsets people because it challenges the dogma--their ignorance--upon which they have predicated their entire existence.

Platonic Forms is Plato’s explanation of universals, viz; ideated abstractions -- qualities that any set of two or more things have in common. Plato posits from this that, in contradistinction to the material world of objects and transformation via the senses, reality itself exists in such abstractions in the most fundamental way and, therefore, when such universals are studied, they and they alone lead to knowledge proper. Nietzsche takes a dig at this idea with the remark, “Christianity is Platonism for the People” because it is only possible to remove the individual and the senses which at all times inform his immediate life by turning him into a senseless universal.

Insight is not universal, but individual.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Fallacious. Everything you have said about "apples" and "bachelors" holds true for "statement".

So what you're suggesting is that upholding any ambiguous puff of smoke can be declared "truth" or even "real" just by the fact that it's being stated, felt or sensed? This is me just guessing what you're trying to say.

Or perhaps you are talking about "senses which at all times inform his immediate life". But the five senses themselves do not carry actual "information", something else is in place as can be witnessed when recalling a dream or taking enough drugs. That something is deeply linked with larger informational and cultural structures to the degree that it's hard to isolate some "cause" unless it's the most basic and practically meaningless example.

Or perhaps when you're saying "insight is not universal, but individual." Like truth, yes. That's why I quoted Kierkegaard for you. Thanks for catching up!

[Leyla Shen]

Jeez, Mr Immaculate Conception: to be truthful you might note I was way ahead of you with Platonic Form, Ding Dong, and you could have engaged more than your ego, but you didn't, now did you?

[Leyla Shen]

You've become a bloody troll! Disappointing, really.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You've become a bloody troll! Disappointing, really.

Leyla, you're a wonderful and intelligent human being with little control over your tongue but you simply don't appear to have the capacity to reason philosophically at any deeper level and neither you've shown much interest for any serious inward process. Every time it approached some point of interest you launch into attacks or read all over the points being made. Yes, you talk the sweet talk at times but with each and every probe it turns into more nonsense. Covering it up with jokes, cheap psychological observations and bluster or attacks cannot hide it for ever: you've yet to find out who you are.

[Dennis Mahar]

bouquet and brickbat.
the point of Kierkegaard is the only possibility for authenticity is to admit your own inauthenticity.
meaningmaker.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Bouquet and brickbat. The point of Kierkegaard is the only possibility for authenticity is to admit your own inauthenticity. Meaningmaker.

Now that's trolling, Lilalee. Remember the difference!

Dennis, it's called speaking ones truth. And knowing it's relative and open for revision when contexts change. But speaking it nevertheless.

[Dennis Mahar]

Yeah, meaningmaker.