>And I'm not saying that we can't have objective truths, they are all around us. I am saying hot and cold are not among them. Temperature is among them, but temperature is not hot or cold, it just is.
>If you want to follow this down a 10 year exploration, all you can prove as an objective truth at the moment is "I think therefore I am." Nothing beyond that.
Doesn't this first quote contradict the second? The temperature of an object is measurable and objective and is defined as the average kinetic energy of the molecules of the substance/material. That is not subjective or relative to the surrounding objects.
Why is this not provable to be objective in the 2nd quote but in the 1st "Temperature is among them" when referring to objective truths?
velezs t1_jbjc42d wrote
Reply to comment by Giggalo_Joe in There is nothing to say about truth, admits Simon Blackburn. Here he presents the deflationist approach to truth – one that aims to put an end to the search for a theory of truth, which Blackburn now recognises is futile by IAI_Admin
>And I'm not saying that we can't have objective truths, they are all around us. I am saying hot and cold are not among them. Temperature is among them, but temperature is not hot or cold, it just is.
>If you want to follow this down a 10 year exploration, all you can prove as an objective truth at the moment is "I think therefore I am." Nothing beyond that.
Doesn't this first quote contradict the second? The temperature of an object is measurable and objective and is defined as the average kinetic energy of the molecules of the substance/material. That is not subjective or relative to the surrounding objects.
Why is this not provable to be objective in the 2nd quote but in the 1st "Temperature is among them" when referring to objective truths?