What is truth?

[Don Juan]

mitchellmckain, since you give very high merit to deflationism, then please explain why the evaluation of truth in the second sentence, reduced as emphasis or style, be ignored in order to say that the two sentences have the same content?

The approach to truth I am talking about reflects on this observation: It is, so how come it is?

[Don Juan]

Don -

Existence and truth are not the same. If they were then everthing would be true, even the lies.

This will happen BadgerJelly if the world is without structure and context, forms and details, generals and specifics, levels and hierarchies, etc. For example, in the Santa Claus issue, one of the bounds that maintain its place in the structure of the context is that Santa Claus is at least a mental construct. By considering context, lies, Badger, emerge from truth - at least you will still be using your brain cells, actions, and language to make the lie. Truth is that connection from context to existence, but then existence is the door to that connection, the reason why I posited that "Truth it seems at best consists in the existence of something."

And, if we’re going to taek such a path we can say that an existent lie is a lie purposeful or not? That is yet another nuance of language.

Do you mean by this that you do not know the meaning or context of a lie so you cannot order it in your world as a lie?

Remember that “concepts” needn’t be articulated “linguistically.” I don’t need a communicable term for “fire” in order to appreciate the pain of burning my hand in said “fire.” Here there is a sensory experience felt as “hot thing” followed by “too close and hot thing hurts” - all non-verbally, yet pre-lingual and “languaged” in some abstract way (if you allow me the freedom to express the term “language” beyond the obvious; as a general conscious apparatus to navigate from experience to experience and order teh patterning of existence.)

Ok, then what?

[BadgerJelly]

Don -

By considering context, lies, Badger, emerge from truth - at least you will still be using your brain cells, actions, and language to make the lie.

Conflations are lies too, or should I say mistakes? The “lie” has nothing to do with an ontological existent “truth” other than through social interaction as a proposed and useable ontological truth (for use in the empirical sciences within its scheme of rules and methodologies - “truth” is not a direct concern of natural science.)

Do yoou wish to treat ontology as epistemology?

The only sense I can make of it all is to say that any particular “language” suits the story of existence in such a way as to make sense to us. If we make some sense of it then the story is true enough to at least register as a tool worthy of navigating from one event to another.

Within the context of “unicorns” or “Santa” it is fruitless, in technical terms, to refer to them as “lies.” Such phrasing is fit for colloquial language though and we all understand what is meant in that broader sense of the word “lie.” I assumed we were talking about “truths” and “falsehoods.”

Truth is that connection from context to existence, but then existence is the door to that connection, the reason why I posited that "Truth it seems at best consists in the existence of something."

The issue here is the problem of an assumed, or rather unnoticed, separation between “context” and “existence.” Because of this, even though I get the gist of what you’re trying to reach for here, your words fall into nothingness because you are effectively denying the existence of context by making the the hidden claim that “context” and “existence” are polar opposites with “truth” acting as heirophany between them.

It appears you say that truth unites context and existence, whilst I say context unites truth and existence - either way it’s little more than a lingual dance and one we sadly must partake in to try and delve deeper still to the “experience” beyond the articulation; of which there appears no path to through any known empirical means in our ignorant time (and perhaps there never will be.)

Don’t get me wrong, I see what you mean by “Truth it seems at best consists in the existence of something,” being partial to the phenomenological disposition. To me though “truth”, at its heart, is the means by which explore ignorance - which is vast. It can either be a healthy way to be wrong, or an unhealthy way to be right.

No matter what the truth will remain “unknown,” and once that is accepted the exploration begins in earnest. Sincerity may be one way to put it.

[Don Juan]

Don -
Conflations are lies too, or should I say mistakes? The “lie” has nothing to do with an ontological existent “truth” other than through social interaction as a proposed and useable ontological truth (for use in the empirical sciences within its scheme of rules and methodologies - “truth” is not a direct concern of natural science.)

Possibly there rests our difference because a lie for me exists within this universe, at least on earth, at least in our personal and social communication. I cannot deny the wholeness of this world and the energies spent in the emergence or creation of lies. I am not looking at truth in exactly the same way as it can be viewed from the perspective of one who is thinking about natural science, but from the perspective of the question ‘what is truth?’ and its very existence as a starting point.

Do yoou wish to treat ontology as epistemology?

I cannot answer that question - I wonder what presupposes your question. There is a different sense I am taking these aspects. I am not coming from a fragmented world Badger, ontology and epistemology are some sides of the same coin...

The only sense I can make of it all is to say that any particular “language” suits the story of existence in such a way as to make sense to us. If we make some sense of it then the story is true enough to at least register as a tool worthy of navigating from one event to another.

...Neither I am looking at these from the perspective of language alone….

The issue here is the problem of an assumed, or rather unnoticed, separation between “context” and “existence.” Because of this, even though I get the gist of what you’re trying to reach for here, your words fall into nothingness because you are effectively denying the existence of context by making the the hidden claim that “context” and “existence” are polar opposites with “truth” acting as heirophany between them.

I am not separating context from existence – I am only making a distinction since one of my primary premises is wholeness.

It appears you say that truth unites context and existence, whilst I say context unites truth and existence - either way it’s little more than a lingual dance and one we sadly must partake in to try and delve deeper still to the “experience” beyond the articulation; of which there appears no path to through any known empirical means in our ignorant time (and perhaps there never will be.)

There is a sense that the word ‘unite’ as verb can be misleading to say about my assertion. I am talking of something emerging from context; for lack of words, I often use connects, but of course I would possibly prefer ‘extension of that context’ or an ‘involution within that context’. So again, your assertion about my contemplation is not what I mean.

Don’t get me wrong, I see what you mean by “Truth it seems at best consists in the existence of something,” being partial to the phenomenological disposition. To me though “truth”, at its heart, is the means by which explore ignorance - which is vast. It can either be a healthy way to be wrong, or an unhealthy way to be right.

Basing from the above, my apologies, but it seems you don’t on some important parts. Perhaps I can only be blamed because English is not may native language and I cannot express the theory with clarity.

No matter what the truth will remain “unknown,” and once that is accepted the exploration begins in earnest. Sincerity may be one way to put it.

With this, you will be rejecting your very own propositions – truth cannot be ascribed to them as you seem to be implying?

[BadgerJelly]

Don -

With this, you will be rejecting your very own propositions – truth cannot be ascribed to them as you seem to be implying?

We question. We find answers by limiting the context. Within a limit “truth” exists as best we know it. On the universal scale we tend toward the presumption of the possibility of some more highly contextualised “truth.” As our knowledge expansion so does our reach of “truth” and our ignorance.

So it’s probably better to say I am skeptical about my own propositions and only willing to state any given “truth” within strictly delimited universal rules.

If you explai further what you meant by “Truth it seems at best consists in the existence of something” I’d appreciate it.

Thanks for the musings :)

[mitchellmckain]

in the sense that people change, not only in time but also depending in relational ways such as wearing different hats in different parts of their life.

...and are you referring to yourself? Just asking.

This is an unavoidable necessity for a honest scientist living an honest life. Science requires objective observation. Life requires subjective participation. Thus there are these two hats at least.

[Don Juan]

Don -

With this, you will be rejecting your very own propositions – truth cannot be ascribed to them as you seem to be implying?

We question. We find answers by limiting the context. Within a limit “truth” exists as best we know it. On the universal scale we tend toward the presumption of the possibility of some more highly contextualised “truth.” As our knowledge expansion so does our reach of “truth” and our ignorance.

So it’s probably better to say I am skeptical about my own propositions and only willing to state any given “truth” within strictly delimited universal rules.

If you explai further what you meant by “Truth it seems at best consists in the existence of something” I’d appreciate it.

Thanks for the musings :)

Badger,

I question too as can be seen in one of my basic principles: I am, so how come I am? But only after some observation. I would rather spent more on observation than questioning - at least I would use questioning in order to observe further. So questioning for me comes secondary to observation.

Maybe this is one of the reasons why I tend to differ with the position of Descartes. For me, his move to doubt was a deliberate deception of his self in order to realize a first principle - how could he justify his doubt and that point he stopped doubting? I think it was in excess to even think of an all-powerful demon, still a deliberate deception, to deceive him - did it not occur to Descartes' mind that if this is an all-powerful demon, it might be using Descartes' doubting to even further trick him. Can Descartes doubt his doubt, and doubt that further, and further, etc. A powerful demon stopping where Descartes stopped doubting? That seems to be shallow continuation for him.

Of course it is necessary to test what we know against actual evidence - note - actual evidence and using the premise of actual observation (and not imagining or assuming a powerful demon), but this after a good amount of observation. When we observe, we do distinctions, data gathering, contrastive comparisons, and mapping of the stretch of the increasing area we observe. With this we establish the space upon to consider and with observation also we limit our contemplation to those regions relevant to us. But then this is not to say finding truth by limiting the context because whatever is the foundation of the space in which our region of interest is located cannot be ruled out - what we ruled out are the contents in the space, not the space itself. In fact we are not ruling out, but sharpening our observation to a certain region in that space.

[mitchellmckain]

mitchellmckain, since you give very high merit to deflationism, then please explain why the evaluation of truth in the second sentence, reduced as emphasis or style, be ignored in order to say that the two sentences have the same content?

The approach to truth I am talking about reflects on this observation: It is, so how come it is?

Without even a quote to clarify what sentences you are referring to I have no idea what you are asking and since the claim which follows refers to this I have no idea what you are claiming either. Nor do I have any idea what the phrase "reduced as emphasis for style" means. Did someone say that two sentences had the same content?

[Don Juan]

My mistake, this has to do with my comment in page 1:

With this then, I would tend to differ from Frege's observation that these two sentences have the same content:

1. I smell the scent of violets.
2. It is true that I smell the scent of violets.

The second sentence has the similar content with the first sentence but with the ascription part of its content also. These two sentences operate on different parts of their whole context as they are being considered together or separately.

and in relation to Frege's:

"It is worthy of notice that the sentence ‘I smell the scent of violets’ has the same content as the sentence ‘it is true that I smell the scent of violets’. So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth." (Frege 1918) -https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

[Braininvat]

Regarding 1 and 2...

Look up redundancy theory. Frank Ramsey. 2 adds nothing to 1.

[Don Juan]

Regarding 1 and 2...

Look up redundancy theory. Frank Ramsey. 2 adds nothing to 1.

Yes, redundancy theory is a kind of deflationism.

In my point of view, 2 adds something to 1. 2 has the content of 1 plus at least the ascription. Whether that of 2 is an emphasis or a matter of style, it calls for a whole new context in contrast to 1. There is a energy corresponding to that, as well as information. The mere existence creates an influence -- how much more is an emphasis or a style! One of the signs of influence could be that deflationists still need to note that 2 and 1 have the same content even the emphasis in 2. Even the "It", "is", "that" carry information and have corresponding energy. Can # 2 be reduced to 1? It depends on context, but then because of context, even the identical propositions can be different.

[mitchellmckain]

1. I smell the scent of violets.
2. It is true that I smell the scent of violets.

The second sentence has the similar content with the first sentence but with the ascription part of its content also. These two sentences operate on different parts of their whole context as they are being considered together or separately.

mitchellmckain, since you give very high merit to deflationism, then please explain why the evaluation of truth in the second sentence, reduced as emphasis or style, be ignored in order to say that the two sentences have the same content?

The approach to truth I am talking about reflects on this observation: It is, so how come it is?

So that is what you are talking about... If you insist... Though I still do not see what this has to do with the topic.

I would not say the two statements are so different that "they have different content." The difference is emphasis. When we makes statements the assertion of truth is implied. The second make the implicit assertion of truth explicit in order to call to attention the question of its truth value. For example, one way the phrase is often used is for contrast.

It is true that Brian is a boy, but he seems to have more interests in common with girls than most boys.

You point out that one thing is true despite things which may point in a different direction.

This does not ignore the difference to say that the they have the same content, but highlights and explains the difference as being something other than content.

I don't see "your approach to truth" being clarified by this at all.

[Don Juan]

So that is what you are talking about... If you insist... Though I still do not see what this has to do with the topic.

I would not say the two statements are so different that "they have different content." The difference is emphasis. When we makes statements the assertion of truth is implied. The second make the implicit assertion of truth explicit in order to call to attention the question of its truth value. For example, one way the phrase is often used is for contrast.

It is true that Brian is a boy, but he seems to have more interests in common with girls than most boys.

You point out that one thing is true despite things which may point in a different direction.

This does not ignore the difference to say that the they have the same content, but highlights and explains the difference as being something other than content.

I don't see "your approach to truth" being clarified by this at all.

I think the argument has to be more specific, that is, you may need to point out that:

This does not ignore the difference to say that the they have the same content, but highlights and explains the difference as being something other than the content of the first proposition or that the two propositions share.

with the italized and bolded added to specifically map the actual. The territory mapped by the proposition is not necessarily totally mechanical that parts of it can be purely separated in our distinctions. The difference is a part of the content of the second proposition and as such if ignored or totally separated would put in question your definition of what is a 'content' and how you apply this to the propositions.

The approach welcomes a distinction and moves to focus on it presupposing context for more distinctions. It accepts the content but implicates a content-in-context situation.

In addition, emphasis is a big issue because we are not only talking of sentences and words here, but propositions and terms.

[mitchellmckain]

The approach welcomes a distinction and moves to focus on it presupposing context for more distinctions. It accepts the content but implicates a content-in-context situation.

Agreed! My thought as well.

In addition, emphasis is a big issue because we are not only talking of sentences and words here, but propositions and terms.

Emphasis does not alter the truth value.

[Don Juan]

Emphasis does not alter the truth value.

It seems to me that it will depend on the context that leads to the emphasis and the status of the proposition. If the content shared by the two propositions is true to a certain context and that the emphasis is a matter of style in that context, then possibly your assertion may hold. The reason I have reservations with this claim on emphasis and truth value is that in my perspective we are already dealing with two different propositions - the two propositions, unaltered, are not identical in their context, content and truth value - if you may notice that even identical sentences would in my perspective will only be similar because the contexts they are embedded in will not be identical; but of course we can say that the two propositions exampled by Frege share similar contents, and that this shared similar content is a part of the content of the second proposition. That we can reduce the content of the second to the content of the first would depend on context and would involve change or a transformation.

[Don Juan]

The approach welcomes a distinction and moves to focus on it presupposing context for more distinctions. It accepts the content but implicates a content-in-context situation.

Agreed! My thought as well.

I do not know however if we share the same implications of that approach. The approach presupposes that the content emerged inside-out from the context to distinction, and thus the approach proceeds outside-in from the distinction to the context. Thus in the question 'what is truth,' I did not go immediately answering it, but I accept the distinction and begin to question it and its context - It is, then how come it is. Observation is very important, and the immediate and nearest system to observe is the question itself and its context. Thus my answer to "What is truth?" become "That which make the very question emerge."

[Brent696]

>>>>What theory of truth do you prefer?<<<<<<

A theory or a preference would not be Truth, I can only tell you what it is.

Truth, ultimately, can only be absolute Being. As finite creatures, we tend to think of truth as "this" and not "that" as we exist and don't exist at the same time. Time and Space, as they provide context for existence here, provide "localities" whereby a multitude of individual consciousnesses can coexist, at least temporally. But as the whole Universe exists in finitude, there is no permanency here of anything, and so ultimately there can be nothing true.

Absolute Being, as in the Infinite nature of God as He would exist transcendent to our finite creation, Truth would be the nature of His Being as He is the only thing which IS.

And so we might say God speaks the truth, but this is only as there is no dichotomy to His Being, the only accurate statement would be to say "God is Truth"

[mitchellmckain]

>>>>What theory of truth do you prefer?<<<<<<

A theory or a preference would not be Truth, I can only tell you what it is.

Truth, ultimately, can only be absolute Being. As finite creatures, we tend to think of truth as "this" and not "that" as we exist and don't exist at the same time. Time and Space, as they provide context for existence here, provide "localities" whereby a multitude of individual consciousnesses can coexist, at least temporally. But as the whole Universe exists in finitude, there is no permanency here of anything, and so ultimately there can be nothing true.

Absolute Being, as in the Infinite nature of God as He would exist transcendent to our finite creation, Truth would be the nature of His Being as He is the only thing which IS.

And so we might say God speaks the truth, but this is only as there is no dichotomy to His Being, the only accurate statement would be to say "God is Truth"

sounds like...
The truth that can be spoken is not the unchanging truth. Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu 4th century BC.

The problem is that such rhetoric is usually a preamble before saying ...
But God has spoken/written to me (such as in my special book), so I can tell you the truth of God.
And this is said by so many that we have thousands of such claims. This is why in philosophy we prefer to dispense with imaginary truths which are supposedly supernatural and unchanging and instead look for truth with solid reasons behind them for that gives them more of an absolute character than the declarations of religion/god which are all relative to the particular religion you want to buy into.

[Brent696]

>>>>>The problem is that such rhetoric is usually a preamble before saying .........And this is said by so many that we have thousands of such claims. This is why in philosophy we prefer to dispense with imaginary truths<<<<<

You are not speaking as a philosopher but as an antitheist, "imaginary truths" as you respond to what you merely IMAGINE I might say, and not to what I have said.

>>>>>>>>we prefer to dispense with imaginary truths which are supposedly supernatural and unchanging and instead look for truth with solid reasons<<<<<<<

Lets try part of the definition of philosophy """""the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."""""

I don't suppose you can tell me how one deals with the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, without delving into that which is super (beyond) the natural.

So TRUTH, in the natural, IS, light as opposed to darkness, sound as opposed to silence, heat as opposed to lack of heat, Knowledge as opposed to ignorance, and finally TRUTH as opposed to lies.

Truth is that which expresses itself by possessing BEING. As opposed to a LIE, that expressed itself as an UNREALITY.

Now, all of this is RELATIVE to each other within the boundaries of Time and Space, or rather this Universe as it is expressing itself in all its finitude around us.

But yet this universe is FINITE, so just how REAL is it as it is only a matter of time before it is no more. So SOMETHING must exists super (beyond) the natural laws of this universe, laws that only came into creation as the universe did, and whatever that SOMETHING is that simply EXISTS, whether this universe does or not, that SOMETHING would be absolute BEING as it is not contingent upon time or space or this universe for it's existence.

You can call it God or you can call it silly putty, but for this finite Creation to begin, something has to exists in and of itself, independent of that which knows only temporal expression.

And just so we are clear how inane your position is in its condescension,

>>>>>>>>sounds like...
The truth that can be spoken is not the unchanging truth. Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu 4th century BC.<<<<<<

"""""""Laozi was an ancient Chinese philosopher and writer. He is the reputed author of the Tao Te Ching, the founder of philosophical Taoism, and a deity in religious Taoism and traditional Chinese religions"""""""

So thank you very much for clearly pointing out how philosophical my position is, [as opposed to] how unphilosophic yours seems to be.

[mitchellmckain]

>>>>>The problem is that such rhetoric is usually a preamble before saying .........And this is said by so many that we have thousands of such claims. This is why in philosophy we prefer to dispense with imaginary truths<<<<<

You are not speaking as a philosopher but as an antitheist, "imaginary truths" as you respond to what you merely IMAGINE I might say, and not to what I have said.

Incorrect. Since I am in fact a theist (Christian), you couldn't be more wrong. So am thus not even atheist let alone anti-theist, but I am a theist who appreciates the work of both philosophy and science, not sharing the delusion of many theists that life and thought begin and end with their particular religion.

The reason for calling them "imaginary truths" is found in your own words about how truth is only accessible to some being that only some people believe in. Thus it is not like the sun in the sky which anyone can point to or the laws discovered by science which anyone can demonstrate. Instead they are things which some people (including myself) choose to believe in but which could be no more than imagination as far as other people can tell.

>>>>>>>>we prefer to dispense with imaginary truths which are supposedly supernatural and unchanging and instead look for truth with solid reasons<<<<<<<

Lets try part of the definition of philosophy """""the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."""""

I don't suppose you can tell me how one deals with the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, without delving into that which is super (beyond) the natural.

Logic and observation -- those are the tools of the trade for philosophy. The supernatural which cannot be objectively observed but which some like myself believe in are thus part of a different subject of study called theology.

So TRUTH, in the natural, IS, light as opposed to darkness, sound as opposed to silence, heat as opposed to lack of heat, Knowledge as opposed to ignorance, and finally TRUTH as opposed to lies.

Consider the following 3 dualities:
1. Absolute and relative: The absolute is based on reason while the relative is base on convention. Some things in life will always be relative because sometimes it is more important to have a rule than what the rule actually is, like which side of the street we drive on. But if we have a good reason why one thing is better then it is foolish to stick to the relative dictates of convention -- thus the absolute takes precedent over the relative.
2. Objective and subjective: The objective is based upon things which can be demonstrated and is thus reasonable to conclude must be true for everyone. The subjective is based on personal experience, so while that is the more immediate experience of truth there is no guarantee such things are the same for everyone and there can be no reasonable expectation that other people agree. But when we have objective evidence then it is only reasonable to set the subjective experience aside, so the objective must take precedence.
3. Secular and religious: The secular rule of law is the only thing which makes religious freedom possible, protecting us from the excesses of particular religions. And thus the secular must take precedence over the religious.

Since only the things based on absolute reasons, objective evidence, and secular safeguards can expect the agreement of others in a free society, it is unreasonable to make subjective religious knowledge/truth the basis for calling other people ignorant.

Truth is that which expresses itself by possessing BEING. As opposed to a LIE, that expressed itself as an UNREALITY.

Now, all of this is RELATIVE to each other within the boundaries of Time and Space, or rather this Universe as it is expressing itself in all its finitude around us.

But these are claims which you cannot prove and without logical reasons (based on objective observations) it becomes even more relative to the thousands of religions and sects in the world.

But yet this universe is FINITE, so just how REAL is it as it is only a matter of time before it is no more. So SOMETHING must exists super (beyond) the natural laws of this universe, laws that only came into creation as the universe did, and whatever that SOMETHING is that simply EXISTS, whether this universe does or not, that SOMETHING would be absolute BEING as it is not contingent upon time or space or this universe for it's existence.

You might believe the universe is finite, but you cannot prove it. Nor can you prove that there is an infinite being. I believe in an infinite God, but that is a matter of my own choice and faith and I will not discard rationality simply for the sake of intolerantly pushing my beliefs on other people.

You can call it God or you can call it silly putty, but for this finite Creation to begin, something has to exists in and of itself, independent of that which knows only temporal expression.

I can well believe that you worship something like silly putty, both easily shaped to your own desire and upon which you can press any image which suits you (because this is something I see many religious people doing). This is not necessarily a completely bad thing, for a rational person should determine what kind of being it is good to worship or he might find himself worshiping a devil. But to be sure this can be carried too far, remaking God in your own image with your own values and motivations, so that you are effectively only worshiping yourself (though some here might not think this is a bad thing).

>>>>>>>>sounds like...
The truth that can be spoken is not the unchanging truth. Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu 4th century BC.<<<<<<

"""""""Laozi was an ancient Chinese philosopher and writer. He is the reputed author of the Tao Te Ching, the founder of philosophical Taoism, and a deity in religious Taoism and traditional Chinese religions"""""""

So thank you very much for clearly pointing out how philosophical my position is, [as opposed to] how unphilosophic yours seems to be.

Taoism is a religious philosophy.

What my religion teaches is the following: "“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."

You demonstrate a rather bad habit of jumping to judgments, first that I am "anti-theist" and now that my position is "unphilosophical." This is a symptom of believing things without good reason for doing so.

-----------------

In any case, it is becoming rather evident that we are straying pretty far here from the topic of the thread which are the theories of truth in philosophy.

[Brent696]

>>>>>>>>What my religion teaches is the following: "“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."<<<<<<<<

Really?

>>>>>You demonstrate a rather bad habit of jumping to judgments, first that I am "anti-theist" and now that my position is "unphilosophical." This is a symptom of believing things without good reason for doing so.<<<<<<<

Really?

>>>>>>In any case, it is becoming rather evident that we are straying pretty far here from the topic of the thread which are the theories of truth in philosophy.<<<<<<

Not "we" but you have, apparently spending all your time figuring out how to judge me, while calling yourself a Christian, while calling God an imaginary Being. Wow!

[Reg_Prescott]

Brent....

Do I know you, soldier?

*raises eyebrow*

[Brent696]

Brent....

Do I know you, soldier?

*raises eyebrow.

Been on Delphi a couple of months, also 15 years ago, new to this forum, your moniker is not slapping me so I am not sure.

[mitchellmckain]

>>>>>>>>What my religion teaches is the following: "“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."<<<<<<<<

Really?

Really. Christians believe in the Bible, and that quote is found in Matthew Chapter 7.

>>>>>You demonstrate a rather bad habit of jumping to judgments, first that I am "anti-theist" and now that my position is "unphilosophical." This is a symptom of believing things without good reason for doing so.<<<<<<<

Really?

Yep. That you called me such things is a demonstrable fact. And anyone who actually knows me will see that you have been jumping to unfounded conclusions. So the question is why are you saying such things when you obviously do not know me.

>>>>>>In any case, it is becoming rather evident that we are straying pretty far here from the topic of the thread which are the theories of truth in philosophy.<<<<<<

Not "we" but you have, apparently spending all your time figuring out how to judge me, while calling yourself a Christian, while calling God an imaginary Being. Wow!

Incorrect. While you have been making up untrue things about me and making judgements about how "Christian" I am, I have only been exposing the flaws in the things you have said and pointing to the the patterns which are easily documented in the content of this thread. Don't you know the difference? Or is anyone who disagrees with you in any way wrong, anti-theist, un-philosophical, un-Christian, (and no doubt you will think up some more names to call me in your next post).

(next is a comment I have removed to a new thread in the religion section)

And now you are making up things and claiming I said them when I did not. Nowhere and at no time have I ever called God an imaginary being. On the other hand, your "silly putty god" and the "flying spaghetti monster god" which I have heard other people talk about sound a great deal like something which has been imagined for the purpose of rhetoric alone.

[Reg_Prescott]

Brent....

Do I know you, soldier?

*raises eyebrow.

Been on Delphi a couple of months, also 15 years ago, new to this forum, your moniker is not slapping me so I am not sure.

Aha!!!!

Call me Colin (AllShips).

Seems we all know each other. Say hi to Vatbrain. :-)

[Braininvat]

Yes, I recognized Brent right off, given that he has the same numerical suffix over at Delphi.

A brief mod reminder: this thread meanders a lot, so let's at least keep it in the epistemology/ontology arena where it started. Newbies may want to get to know members better before they hurl descriptors like "inane" or "anti-theist. "

[Brent696]

I'm sorry, I didn't find anything about the subject in all that. So there's really nothing to respond to.

[Brent696]

>>>>>>Aha!!!!

Call me Colin (AllShips).

Seems we all know each other. Say hi to Vatbrain. :-)<<<<<

So if I'm doing this right, I pick the "quote" of the person I want to respond to and they get the email.
And the "quick reply" at the bottom just replied to the last post on the thread?

Trying to make sure I'm not emailing every tom dick and harry.

So Colin, (allships), Reg, Prescott, what do I call you. Colin Prescott sounds like it comes from money, least where I grew up. All like regal and all like......Dude

[Brent696]

Well I covered the ontology as I described what Truth is, he's got the epistemology covered as he telling me all the things I don't know.

Really VB, the guys going a little overkill, I'm trying to blow him off now since its obvious nothing productive will come of this. Live and learn I guess.

[Reg_Prescott]

>>>>>>Aha!!!!

Call me Colin (AllShips).

Seems we all know each other. Say hi to Vatbrain. :-)<<<<<

So if I'm doing this right, I pick the "quote" of the person I want to respond to and they get the email.
And the "quick reply" at the bottom just replied to the last post on the thread?

Trying to make sure I'm not emailing every tom **** and harry.

So Colin, (allships), Reg, Prescott, what do I call you. Colin Prescott sounds like it comes from money, least where I grew up. All like regal and all like......Dude

Colin is fine.

Been banned so many times I don't know what I look like anymore.

But Braininvat is super-cool. You'll like him.

Oh, and this is Reg Prescott....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo7l1QAe_es

Because he reminds me of my life: a bloody mess LOL