Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Clarkeprops t1_jbik0nn wrote

I’m just saying that humans can’t have a corporeal form alive in the medical sense over 2000 years later. A different state of existence isn’t “Alive”. I’m saying alive with a body and a heartbeat.

So don’t ignore my example. Objective truth: The sun can melt an ice cube if it gets close enough, yea?

1

Giggalo_Joe t1_jbjmvj7 wrote

Salt can melt a snail, does that make it hot? Ice cream will melt if you do nothing, the world you live in is hot to the ice cream. I'm not ignoring your example, I'm trying to help you think differently. Your current method won't lead where you want it to go.

1

Clarkeprops t1_jbku2wf wrote

Salt doesn’t melt a snail. No.

1

Giggalo_Joe t1_jbl0d5e wrote

Ok, deydrate but...you kinda missed the point. Not trying to be your adversary here. Trying to help you learn how to think.

Let's look at it a different way.

The conversation started as one about 'objective truth'. That's a fairly high standard of truth and very little can be proven under it. You are thinking of truth in a different way, for lack of a better description let's call it 'practical truth'. In this we will essentially accept the world around us exists, and the data we receive from our perceptions in generally real (excepting things like hallucinations, mind playing tricks, etc.). So, with this frame of reference, you can start to look at things and say stuff like this table is X inches high, this table is made of cherry wood. But you can't say things like this table is brown because color is much like hot and cold. Color is subject to the lighting conditions. You may think, wait a minute "I can see that the table is brown." And that is a true observation, but not a true statement of the table itself. If the table is in a room, you can simply turn off the light and the table is no longer brown. Your brain thinks, "wait a minute, if I shine a light on it, I can see it is brown again." But in order to achieve that color you have to shine the light. And if you shine a light of a different color, the table changes color. You may want to say, "no that is the color of the light making it seem as if the table is different color." Nope, you only think the table is brown because of the color temperature of light you normally shine on it. If you lived on planet with a red sun, everything would look different and that would be the 'natural' color of the table instead, and if you shined a 2700K white light on it, that would be the same to them as you shining a red light on the 'brown' table. The point being, all color is subjective to the lighting conditions available. So while you may want to say something as simple as an orange is orange, that's not accurate. It is called an orange and that would be a practical truth, but to say an orange is orange is all dependent upon the lighting. So, the truth you are looking for doesn't exist. You can bring things down to another level and take things like lighting out of the equation and maybe get to something you might want to call 'everyday truth' but that's a simplification of a grand number of events and conditions happening all around you at all times. To sum it up, using the idea of 'objective truth': If a man is standing in the middle of a road, you must ask what evidence is there that he is a man? What evidence is there that he exists? How can you show he or the road even exist? Using the idea of 'practical truth': What road is he standing on? Is he on Earth? Then calculations come into play regarding how fast the Earth is moving as well as the galaxy. Technically, even the universe but that's a bit harder number to calculate so it can be ignored. But the conclusion is that a man standing on a object without moving is in fact moving. And then using the idea of 'everyday truth' yes, you can have what you are starting to think of as truth, the man is standing in the road because you can see him standing in the road. But this is a philosophy subreddit, and concepts of physics and existentialism are part of much of the conversation. Yeah it's a headache, but that's philosophy.

1

GetPsily t1_jbk5xmt wrote

It's true in the context of our idea about what we call the physical world, but really there's no way for you to find out the truth or reality of anything. Only through the help of knowledge passed down generation to generation do you experience anything.

So technically that statement is true, but actually it depends on what you mean by "sun", "ice cube", "close enough", and "melt".

One could argue the sun itself doesn't do anything to the ice cube. Do you define the sun as an entity that has heat separate from itself and applies it to the ice cube? Or is the sun itself heat? Etc....

What do you mean by ice cube? An ice cube 1000x the size of the sun will probably not melt.

What do you mean by close enough? An ice cube left out in the sun can melt on earth, but also the earth has huge ice caps that haven't melted. Etc

I think you get the point. For all intents and purposes that we would use, yes it is true. But it ain't necessarily so, or not objectively true without specific context. I think it was George Box that said "all models are wrong, but some are useful."

But at the same time the statement is false because an ice cube will likely sublimate in the vacuum of space before it came close enough to melt.

1

Clarkeprops t1_jbktybf wrote

This just seems like semantics. I’m not following you. Sorry.

1

GetPsily t1_jbm595x wrote

No that's actually what I'm saying. It's ALL semantics. Actual truth/reality is not words, only theories and concepts.

" A tree has leaves" is false because "tree" is a word, nothing like an actual, tangible tree. How can a word have leaves? The statement is true in the linguistic, semantic sense only.

Basically all truths experienced by us have to be translated into words before they can be spoken to ourselves or others. So anytime we communicate, the recipient gets the words, not the true, actual things.

EDIT: TL;DR: There is objective truth, but you can't tell anyone, including yourself.

2

Clarkeprops t1_jbrda91 wrote

Every time I talk philosophy with someone versed in it, I leave more confused than before.

1