poor, paul. he was clearly trying not to get too technical in the themes discussed.
@CaptainFrantic
4 жыл бұрын
"Does truth exist?" ... "No." ... "Is that a truth?" ... "Erm ..."
@CaptainFrantic
4 жыл бұрын
@Psychiatrysts My point is that it's a completely nonsensical question. To answer negatively to the question is to assert that it is TRUE that there are no truths, which is clearly contradictory to the claim. This is just pure philosophical sophistry and hand waving having no real use or facility in the world of man. To ask "What is a truth?" is clearly acceptable as a philosophical exercise. "Does truth exist?" is just utter, utter nonsense.
@monkerud2108
4 жыл бұрын
no dummy, this guy is an idiot in a certain sense. it doesnt mean its an axiom you can derive a true contradiction from, in my opinion objective fact exsists in one form, the true reality, meaning every causal relation in reality, just meaning all of reality. an articulated idea is a fact even if its wrong in this sense, because it exsists as part of the causal structure of reality, it doesnt mean our ideas are correct representations of what we try to imagine they describe in a abstract way/descriptive way they are always their own uniqe thing and thats that. pretty much sums up all of possible metaphysics right there, what can you derive from it? well you're always wrong to some approximation and always right so some approximation, empirical methods is all you have to work with, but the actually physical reality of everything is real and true. so basicly you cant find facts in their proper form, only in syntetic methodic ways, go read some kant and add a reality argument to it, but that doesnt disallow you to empirically calibrate yourway to any approximation of anything in principle, so in the limit of infinite computation and intellegence you can be almost exactly right, but mostly you're always far of the mark.
@monkerud2108
4 жыл бұрын
and yeah most philosphers are idiots who read a lot and are decent oretors... in my opinion there is a conseptual cournal of not truth but comprehension in most ideas, the difficult part is predicting the future, or behaviors, thoughts people have ect, what we do not have a decent approximation to comprehenssion with regards too. take physics, physics is a pure empirical calibration of axiomatic mathematics and techniques of measurment and epistomoligical interplay between the 2 disciplines of comprehension and practical teoretical ability. we wont know what actually the best approximation possible to description of all of causal reality, but most scientist sure do think with their head up their butt with regards to sane philosophical grounds, infact it doesnt help the theory, one guy who thinks quantum mechanics is fundemental and another that thinks the world is classical will always calucate the same force within the same formalism and get similar results for exsperiments done with the same method, i rather prefere an open horizon, because i think the actually full set of events and objects we can ever hope to formalize and use in calulations are an infnite sea as compared to our modern drop of water. the fact is that comprehending all of realities possabilities is not a task for a human brain, the brain is finite in capability and time, and mostly quite retarded, even von neuman misses the ball in regards to his philosphy even if he was brilliant at maths, my quest in teoretical physics has shown me many errors made by towering geniuses, but the most common human mistake is that towering geniuses exists at all, sometimes people have good calculation abilities, sometimes they are retorically strong, other times they think deeply and hard about problems with little preconcived notions of what is actually a good idea, and sometimes a kid discovers that the emperor has got no clothes on. i think the best thing to do is to be humble and work on whatever you find intresting or important to yourself, even if its being an activist against injustice, you should do somthing because others might benefit, or you want recognition, you should in your own egoistic mindset value the outcome and the journey alike, and value the people you meet along the way, and fight for what you see as the right thing to do in your own mind, this doesnt mean love and compassion is folly, but without the self intrest in caring about others, if it doesnt make you happy to see other flurish, then it is nothing but pretence.
@monkerud2108
4 жыл бұрын
@Psychiatrysts kinda redundant argument, truth isnt well defined anyway. objective reality is better, but its not reachable by arument rather any argument is part of reality itself, with interconnection to the causal structure, empirical exsperience is the interplay between ideas, their exspression through human actions and their colition with the rest of reality. retorical finesse is bullshit. nitzche is right in regards to it all being a kind of show, but its always a real show, thats my point here.
@monkerud2108
4 жыл бұрын
@@CaptainFrantic the question has definitions no? is asking how you are feeling today less of a redundant question because you have to intietivly make up an answer? :P its all in the brain my friend every statement is real, in reality so to speak, and the concepts are always approximations to true relationships in reality, but the question itself is always TRUE in a sense, it exsist and it has interplay with reality, in a completely causal and logical way. if i ask you if bread is a toad, you can say no, but is a ask you what is a toad, you'll have to refere to other made up stuff, does that mean a toad is nonsense? or does that mean that the idea of a a toad is a part of a causal structure with a feature i would call intietive comprehenssion? you tell me maybe a bread is a toad who knows, maybe someone knows that xD. i dont see the fundamental difference, just the utility of the comprehendable statement.
@alexboghossian04420
3 жыл бұрын
Hi mister Paul boghossian,c'est wishes from france.. Alex boghossian
@NesKimStyle
3 жыл бұрын
Brilliant man
@dennistucker1153
4 жыл бұрын
There may or may not be absolute truths. I think that most truths are subjective.
@beees3499
3 жыл бұрын
It think it would be difficult to know if a few, some or most truths were subjective. I agree some proportion of truths are subjective but I wouldn't be inclined to think it was 'most'.
@JoeHinojosa-ph8yw
3 ай бұрын
God knows what is Truth
@person-centredtherapy-timh9745
4 жыл бұрын
The title is nonsensical.
@justriley9157
3 жыл бұрын
this guy is in an altered state of reason and intellect
@ericb9804
2 жыл бұрын
0:43 - the facial tick gives him away. His "correspondence" is just a blatant metaphysical claim, but at least it doesn't have to be "heavy duty," apparently. How exactly do we tell the difference between "widely accepted to be a fact" and something that "really is a fact?" What this guy is loathe to admit is that calling "truth" "that which is widely accepted" changes nothing about our epistemology. 12:30 - His question: "Is there is a single reality to which our thoughts are responsive?" - Answer: Probably. It sure seems that way, anyway. But so what? We don't know what this "reality" is by appealing to our senses, but by appealing to each other because the world as it is, is always the world as it appears to be. He really goes off the rails at the end - somehow he thinks his "intellectual impression of truth" is something other than "my imagination."
@vjnt1star
4 жыл бұрын
For the colors, the sounds, the smells etc... I dont think they are real in the sense out there as part of the objective world but their experience by the observer is real. And the experience can vary from from one species to another and even from one individual to another within the same species. When you think about it the way we humans perceive the world is just one perspective and it is not more valid or more true than another perspetive. The snow is white, yes for us but it does not mean it is an intrinsec property of the snow
@CaptainFrantic
4 жыл бұрын
Color does not exist in the external world, just wavelengths of light which our brains INTERPRET as color. Gravity, however is very much 'out there' and is not dependant on a brain to interpret it.
@monkerud2108
4 жыл бұрын
so where does the information reside? if its anywhere at all why arnt that place a part of reality? this is retarded retorical argumentation mate. the exsperience isnt outside reality, it's meer existance is evidence of its reality.
@shonagraham2752
4 жыл бұрын
Those wavelengths correspond to colours! Smell is sensing of particles - particles exist! The chlorine gas you smell really is out there and you'll die if you don't accept that! Sounds are vibrations the movement of air particles!
@CaptainFrantic
4 жыл бұрын
@@shonagraham2752 Wavelengths are not colours. Smell is not "particles". Particles do not exist, only fields. Gas does not contain a smell. "Particles" do not contain or produce sound. All of these things you describe are out there in some sense but the way our brain interprets those things (colour, sound, smell etc) is ENTIRELY fabricated in our brains. We build a representation of the external world in our heads and then we (you) confuse this representational model with external reality.
@shonagraham2752
4 жыл бұрын
@@CaptainFrantic all the visisble wavelengths are colours - clue is in the word visible and particle do exist from molecules, atoms, electrons, neutrons , protons, quarks, bosons they exist and we have technology that senses them just because that technology is part of our bodies doesn't make what it does any less than what a Geiger counter does! YOU confuse the mechanics of our body's with the consciousness of our bodies!
@NicholBrummer
4 жыл бұрын
does Paul Boghossian exist? Descartes an answer.
@colingeorgejenkins2885
4 жыл бұрын
CGJUNG told the truth, maybe the only one that did
@MarkoKraguljac
4 жыл бұрын
His naivety regarding "intuition" is both endearing and sad. Aren't we magnificent?
@Noble_Savage
4 жыл бұрын
hogwash
@markslist1542
4 жыл бұрын
Facts don't exist independently of the mind? This guy does not deserve a teacher's salary.
@lolroflmaoization
2 жыл бұрын
Try to listen and understand, that is exactly the opposite of what he is saying, the is the view that he is arguing against, but he stated it early on because it is held by some, and he thinks it's a mistake.
@maxramsahoye
4 жыл бұрын
Truth is a true proposition.. begging the question. What is a true proposition?
@thstroyur
4 жыл бұрын
I think he simply means that operationally, as opposed to abstractly ("the" Truth): you can think in terms of 0s and 1s, if you prefer. Then, you can make the question: why is this premise=1? Congratulations - you just entered the rabbit hole that is justification theory
@tylerhulsey982
Жыл бұрын
He goes on to say it is correspondence with a fact...
@TheVicBarman
4 жыл бұрын
No mention of God. Odd.
@bradmodd7856
4 жыл бұрын
not widely accepted to be a fact?
@PaulSmith-pf2uq
4 жыл бұрын
Brad Parker That was NEVER a fact. It was always mythology for the naïve and gullible to be controlled by their fear of an imaginary hell.
@bradmodd7856
4 жыл бұрын
@@PaulSmith-pf2uq I think it was a fact at many times in history, and still is in some parts. Things got sciency lately, now science has run out of puff and somehow philosophers and mystics still have a job
@PaulSmith-pf2uq
4 жыл бұрын
Brad Parker Science has not run out of puff. Please read Richard Dawkins' "Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide: A Beginner's Guide to Atheism". I think, Philosophy has nothing to do with religion. The very word means Knowledge Philia. If religious organisations' workers wanted to Philosophise, they would have started with proving the existence of that mass murderer and repeat offender of theirs who feels it's ok of a perfect and powerful entity to judge imperfect and week beings for his entertainment. But they didn't, because they knew such entity was non existent. The mythical size fortunes they were amassing, on the other hand, were very real and their power over the ignorant and the gullible quite a hit! There is nothing Philosophical about religion, it's just a scheme. What we need is a better Education to help people think critically. Not crooked mystics.
@TheVicBarman
4 жыл бұрын
@@PaulSmith-pf2uq Gosh. I think YOU need to read John Gray's Seven Types of Atheism instead of being brainwashed by Dawkins - actually, no, not brainwashed, utterly misinformed by Dawkins. Utterly foolish.
Пікірлер: 51