What is the truth?

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Dom

What is the truth?

Post by Dom » Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:32 pm

My offering is that it is the expression of reality where each word has a concept and each concept has a word. I am, however, open to contrary suggestions... :D

ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Post by ThomasGR » Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:15 pm

Try thinking without using words.
It's easy, and so you'll get the answer :D

Dom

Post by Dom » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:13 pm

ThomasGR wrote:Try thinking without using words.
It's easy, and so you'll get the answer :D
eh?

ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Post by ThomasGR » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:25 pm

What's so difficult to understand?!
You said every word has a concept, and every concept has a word.
Now get reed of the words, what remains? Only concepts.
That's the truth you are in search! True? :)

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Re: What is the truth?

Post by Emma_85 » Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:13 pm

Dom wrote:My offering is that it is the expression of reality where each word has a concept and each concept has a word. I am, however, open to contrary suggestions... :D
Well, our definition of what is true or false is tied to words, so I'm not too sure what you are talking about Thomas unless you are talking of some other kind of 'truth'. What kind of thruth are you talking about exactly Thomas?
What I mean is that we basically define words to have a certain meaning, we give a concept a name, like Dom said, and so as concept a = word that is true. If that's where we start then flase is defined as using words incorrectly basically.
Eh... I'm not too sure where this is all leading though...
phpbb

amans
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:12 pm

Post by amans » Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:09 pm

I suggest we distinguish between 'existence' and 'statements'. Can a thing, such as the number 7, or a dish washer, or a restaurant be true, just because it exists? I guess this is not the kind of truth referred to when talking about truth... 'Statements' are closer to the point, I suppose: '3 plus 4 equals 7', 'this dish washer did the job in 10 mins.' or 'they serve delicious food in that restaurant'. These statements may be true or not, or they may be more or less true. Just my 0.02. :)

ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Re: What is the truth?

Post by ThomasGR » Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:58 pm

Emma_85 wrote:
Dom wrote:My offering is that it is the expression of reality where each word has a concept and each concept has a word. I am, however, open to contrary suggestions... :D
Well, our definition of what is true or false is tied to words, so I'm not too sure what you are talking about Thomas unless you are talking of some other kind of 'truth'. What kind of thruth are you talking about exactly Thomas?
What I mean is that we basically define words to have a certain meaning, we give a concept a name, like Dom said, and so as concept a = word that is true. If that's where we start then flase is defined as using words incorrectly basically.
Eh... I'm not too sure where this is all leading though...
I had in mind that concepts are an entity by themselves. Words are only a medium to express and share them with others. Very often, especially in abstract philosophical terms words tend not to work anymore well but are rather filtering the concepts and deform them to the point as they fit into the words. Normally it should be the other way, words to be formed as to fit into the concepts, but this is beyond our realm. Since than we cannot mold the words, but are sufficient with filtering and deforming the concepts, why not drop the words and make exclusively use of concepts? This has it's disadvantages, (though we both might live the same truth, we cannot share it anymore), but than truth is not for eveyone's digestion.
A classical example is when solving puzzles, a concept we call intuition will give us the solution spontanously. This eureka-second when one jumps and shouts "AHA", it was always infront of my eyes! Trying to decribe this process will always fail.

Kalailan
Textkit Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 9:44 am
Contact:

Re: What is the truth?

Post by Kalailan » Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:14 am

ThomasGR wrote:
I had in mind that concepts are an entity by themselves. Words are only a medium to express and share them with others. Very often, especially in abstract philosophical terms words tend not to work anymore well but are rather filtering the concepts and deform them to the point as they fit into the words. Normally it should be the other way, words to be formed as to fit into the concepts, but this is beyond our realm. Since than we cannot mold the words, but are sufficient with filtering and deforming the concepts, why not drop the words and make exclusively use of concepts? This has it's disadvantages, (though we both might live the same truth, we cannot share it anymore), but than truth is not for eveyone's digestion.
A classical example is when solving puzzles, a concept we call intuition will give us the solution spontanously. This eureka-second when one jumps and shouts "AHA", it was always infront of my eyes! Trying to decribe this process will always fail.
I am not sure that "concepts are an entity by themselves", and that "words are only a medium to express and share them with others".
Let us examine this list, which i have taken from 'Philosophical Investigations', by Wittgenstein, #27:
"Water!"
"Help!"
"Let's go!"
"Great!"
"No!"
What concepts do they convey?
One might say that the word 'water' usually decribes a noun, and that only when used like that ("water!") does it bear a different meaning.
But is not the "primary meaning" of the word a usage in itself?
Can we not imagine a language which primarily consists of such uses of words as "water!"?
Someone who speaks that language might conclude that "Words are commands" or "Words are requests".
Obviously, it is very hard to see how such a language can exist, as our language isn't such, but i do not think that it is ruled out by this difficulty.
<must go, might come back later>
phpbb

ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Post by ThomasGR » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:25 am

This topic is a real example of the limitation of language. We can write whole books and sound like old dotard academicians, but won't say anything that every person knows already.

Let us look at "apple". An apple is there without using the word. The concept "apple" is present, the word "apple" is just giving names to something already existing, with or without the word.

Than again speaking the word "apple", does it express fully the concept?
It does only deform a concept to get ready to be used in a language.
The concept "apple" is more and it's up to the user to comprehend it.
"Apple" (the concept) can be red or green, mellow or bitter, juicy or dry, soft or hard to touch, tasiting delicious or create vomits etc. "Apple" (the word) does not say anything but minimalises the concept to something very abstract that equals to nonexistence. Only when getting rid of the word one is able of fully perceptions of the concept "apple". That perception of course is restricted to every individual. It cannot be shared, not discribed, not be discussed.

Kalailan
Textkit Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 9:44 am
Contact:

Post by Kalailan » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:16 pm

ThomasGR wrote: Let us look at "apple". An apple is there without using the word. The concept "apple" is present, the word "apple" is just giving names to something already existing, with or without the word.
While it might be true that an apple exists without "using the word", the concept of apple does not exist on it's own.
without perception there would be no 'concept', but merely an apple.
Than again speaking the word "apple", does it express fully the concept?
It does only deform a concept to get ready to be used in a language.
The concept "apple" is more and it's up to the user to comprehend it.
"Apple" (the concept) can be red or green, mellow or bitter, juicy or dry, soft or hard to touch, tasiting delicious or create vomits etc. "Apple" (the word) does not say anything but minimalises the concept to something very abstract that equals to nonexistence.
Your description of "apple (the concept)" is not at variance with what you would call "apple (the word)".
When i say "apple" to someone they might imagine a "red or green, mellow or bitter, juicy or dry, soft or hard to touch, tasiting delicious or create vomits" apple. the word does not limit their imagination more than a concept does.
when you say the a word "minimalises the concept" i must infer that when you say 'concept' you mean a specific apple; for a general concept of apples is "very abstract" and "equals to non existence".

Conclusively,
I don't think that anyone can think about concepts without words.
It is self contradictory.
phpbb

Post Reply