An Alternartive to the Cogito
René Descrtes wanted to put philosophy on a rock-solid foundation - a truth such that to deny it would be to affirm it! His argument cogito ergo sum was just that in his French eyes.
I would like to offer an alternative to the cogito.
1. There are no truths = A
If A is true then it refutes itself and is false; a contradiction! A can't be true.
A hasta be false.
If A is false then
2. There are some truths (is true) [reductio ad absurdum]
We can be certain that statement 2 is true on pain of a contradiction. Just what the doctor ordered for radical skepticism.
Up for discussion:
1. Can we shift the house of philosophy from the cogito to the truth A?
2. In a sense, cogito ergo sum = there are some truths.
I would like to offer an alternative to the cogito.
1. There are no truths = A
If A is true then it refutes itself and is false; a contradiction! A can't be true.
A hasta be false.
If A is false then
2. There are some truths (is true) [reductio ad absurdum]
We can be certain that statement 2 is true on pain of a contradiction. Just what the doctor ordered for radical skepticism.
Up for discussion:
1. Can we shift the house of philosophy from the cogito to the truth A?
2. In a sense, cogito ergo sum = there are some truths.
Comments (39)
:lol: :death:
Quoting Agent Smith
What!?
So (if I understand it well) you want to make a new project of applying cogito ergo sum in a new scenario: the objects themselves which can hold some truths
A has to be false.
If there are no truths is false then the truth that there are no truth is not true and then there are truths, which means that there are no truths is true, meaning there are no truths so it's not true then that there are no truths, which means that there are truths such as the truth that there are no truths, meaning there are no truths so it's not true then that there are no truths, which means that there are truths such as the truth that there are no truths, meaning there are no truths so it's not true then that there are no truths, which means that there are truths such as the truth that there are no truths, meaning there are no truths so it's not true then that there are no truths, which means that there are truths such as the truth that there are no truths!
Well I still don’t understand it
If there are no truths then that truth is no truth either. The standard objection against relativism.
You're kidding, right?
Statement A self-destructs when it's applied to itself. It appears that, like with the liar sentence (this sentence is false), this is a very different and unique application of self-reference, self-referential situations generally demolish (Gödel's incompleteness theorems are a good example) rather than construct (sentence A is meant to provide a foolproof foundation for philosophy).
I think the notion of truth that deals with what is or is not the case in an objective propositional sense is a profoundly inadequate way to ground a philosophy. Philosophy should be about how events are useful and begin with the question of what is use? Relevance is a more fundamental notion than truth.
Irrumbado, ergo sum
Sentio, ergo sum
Sum, ergo sum
But relevance does not always be practice-bounded. The truth of gods has whatsoever zero impact on scientific practice, but at the same time a very deep impact on practice, be it everyday life or experiments at CERN.
It is your belief in the truth of gods I have in mind when I talk about pragmatic relevance. To me the idea of something true outside of its relevance as a meaning in your ( or anyone else’s ) life is incoherent. Your belief in gods informs all your actions, even the most trivial, and in that sense has significant impact on your way of thinking about science.
That's about the same as @universeness said to me in another comment:
"Your arguments/proposals/posits/science points have not convinced me that your polytheistic posits are coherent. "
Incoherent meaning not understandable?
I think that by knowing the universe and life in it we can know the gods and the heaven they live in. Which is not the reason to do science, but it can be. All life has a heavenly, eternal, non-material counterpart. The material processes imply mortal life but if it repeats eternally (by subsequent big bangs) a kind of immortality exists. I think we all are born again in a next big bang. But different lives. Which doesn't mean I don't like the present one!
Quoting 180 Proof
... or as Witty might say 'philosophy, like every other discursive practice, presupposes grammar'.
Quoting Joshs
:chin:
Excellent point! Thanks for making me realize that!
Descartes's cogito ergo sum can be rephrased as the self-contradictory statement I'm not thinking. or thereabouts!
I hadta get this off my chest! A thousand apologies if it's balderdash!
Don't take them too seriously. Their so-called sense is nonsense just the same. But cleverly packaged! So it looks sensible. Unwrap it in the right way and... POING!!! Clownshead on a spring... :starstruck:
I do not follow you. If there are no truths, then A will not be true. You have said that it would be true if there are no truths. But that's you asserting a contradiction. I think that if there are no truths, then there are no truths.
Presumably you think that what it is for there to be no truths is for the proposition 'there are no truths' to be true. But that's confused: that's a contradiction.
You have a point! :up:
Nonetheless, there's nothing more useful than truths, oui?
A = There are no truths
If A is true, it is false (contradiction)
Ergo,
A has to be false. That means
There are some truths, is true!
You have to say it is a proposition.
But if there are no truths then there are no true propositions.
It can be the case that there are no truths. But in that scenario there will be no true propositions.
Is it possible for there to be no propositions? Yes. A proposition is a kind of thought and if there are no minds there are no propositions. And clearly it is possible for there to be no minds . Thus it is possible - metaphysically possible - for there to be no propositions. And if there are no propositions then there are no truths (truth being a property of propositions).
Thus it is metaphysically possible for there to be no truths.
It’s balderdash, and you don’t give a s***t that it is, so your apology means nothing, like most of what else you write.
You used to be ‘Themadfool’, right? You do sometimes come up with some actual insights, but the signal-to-noise ratio has been pretty terrible lately.
Though useful for pragmatists and engineers, I think this notion of truth lacks substance. The truth about the universe are known indeed by interacting and enacting, but this leaves out the truth of the nature of what's interacted with or what's enacted. Which offers a fair part of the truth as well.
Thanks for the feedback! I'll see what I can do to improve.
The statement "there are no truths" was meant to be understood as "there are no true propositions". You yourself pointed out that only propositions can be true.
You could make more noise and increase the signal more than that... The ratio will get better! Lovely sound thiugh, noise! :smile:
Helpful tip! :up:
:chin:
Thank G... I'm an agnostic! What's the equivalent to "Thank God" in atheism/agnosticism?
:chin:
For now, let's say my thesis is restricted to worlds with minds.
You touched upon something that's been bothering me viz. the necessity for minds! A universe that contains information must also have minds, the two complementing each other to constitute knowledge [a mind (a belief), a true proposition, justification for that proposition].
On that view, God is a necessary being - He hasta exist or else there won't be knowledge (omniscience) or something like that.
The first one who says you make ñoise, I will personally... How philosophical can it get?
:grin: Thanks
Thank the Eternal Virtual Particle Vacuum! Thank Vipav! Doddamnit, I'm good!
By which I mean that Wittstone assigns too much importance to the language facilities of the brain, situated in a thin region of the neo-cortex. His caricature image of the philosopher is a figure with a language blob growing out of the neo-cortical language region. And because of the extra weight the figure has to lean to the other side (right side, if It not mistaken) to stay balanced.
If there are no true or false propositions, can you say then this is a true or false proposition? No, and then it doesn't make sense to talk about them either. There are only propositions then.
So the proposition should be: there are propositions. Which is evidently true.