Sphere70 wrote:Well, that Truth can't either be spoken or shown is maybe the only Truth - which itself is untrue.
You are correct, the first part of this sentence is untrue, but obviously not as a logical consequence of itself, since that would mean it is true.
All words are false
Again, not true. Words are neither true nor false. What they convey may be either. If you are implying the truth can never be conveyed in words, then you are saying it can never be conveyed, which would make all teaching impossible. If you are implying truth can be conveyed, just not in words, then can this be true:
It would logically not follow from the previous statement, but if it were somehow the sole exception to "all words are false," then both words and images would be false. What's left? Hand gestures?All images are false.
If you are saying the truth cannot be conveyed in any fashion - and I accepted that as true - how did you just convey it to me, since I previously did not think that?
It's all a matter of taste of entertainment.
Pictures vs. words may be a matter of taste, certainly, both on the issuing and receiving ends. But entertainment? It seems in many if not most cases, words and pictures are not intended solely as entertainment. For instance, a red octagonal sign with the word STOP on it should not be regarded as entertainment, should it?
Debating if a picture shows the Truth (or truth) more than words is really the wrong discussion, that is to say there isn't a right discussion.
I think there are plenty of right discussions, but that is probably not what you meant. You meant that the one we are having isn't an example of one. That's for you to decide, I suppose - but at least an actual discussion might keep David from from getting trigger-happy.