The question about there being 'wrong' statements by themselves

[Kyriakos]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that subjective statements aren't true statements?

I'd be inclined to disagree, and suggest that only subjective statements are true.

I agree with you, cause i wasn't agreeing with what you thought i was claiming

(bounded/specific system true statement= subjective statement)

 

[BvBPL]

As far as the essential chairness of it goes, though, sitting in it describes it rather eloquently, imo.

Yeah, that's what a Zen master would say because Zen is concerned primarily with utility. The Zen master is the most biased one in the room, but at least he acknowledges the existence of other viewpoints. He validates their existence even though he his is superior.

Plato doesn’t get this far. He presumes a unitary truth to which all others are falsities. Not merely worse, but actual non-truths.

Take the chair. You’ve pretty accurately described the essential part most interesting to the Zen master and, probably, to the Platonic ideal of the chair that you can sit your fat patoot on it. But that doesn’t describe the totality of the chair.

What about the artistry of the chair? Does the simple utility truth apply to a chair that could be sat in, but also represents a greater artistic comment?

Sure, you can sit in the chair, but is that really what it is there for?

Then there’s a throne. Say, an empty throne that isn’t meant to be sat upon but is intended to be empty.

That’s obviously a chair, but its purpose is manifestly not to be sat upon. Under the Platonic idea, the throne is a non-chair.

Plato’s fault is that he views the truth as a unitary idea. There isn’t one truth to chairness, there are instead a number of facets to chairs. Instead of a single truth, there are a number of descriptions of the chair. Without one truth, the scope of wrongness is reduced and the possibility of knowing is increased. Where you recognize multiple facets you understand that there are many different possible ways to view a thing. That’s not to say at all that any one way is better than another (that’s the job of our Zen master), but the multiplicity of facets means that talking about one unitary truth isn’t useful.

 

[Triewd]

This thread is to be honest with you way above my level so my contributions are going to be poor however I think some definitions are in order:

Relative = depends on something else before it can be evaluated.
Absolute = exists independently; non-comparative
Subjective = left to the individual to evaluate.
Objective = something not influenced by personal opinion; fact-based.
Relative and Subjective have little in common other than their inability to define independently; another influence is inherent.
Absolute and Objective aren't synonyms but neither is influenced by outside entities.

I have thought for a bit and I believe that I have found a true statement:

Everyone will eventually die it is inevitable.

This is based on the principle of Entropy (which you could argue is part of a closed system - although entropy applies to everything so I don't actually think its closed...... )

Now if someone where to make the statement: you will not die ever.

They would be making a wrong statement.



Well they would be objectively wrong.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Your contribution is fine, no need to claim it isn't.

As for death: even if death is a stable in (again) bounded systems (such as human life as observed by humans), it still does not have to mean it is 'true' from other points of view. For example the loss of the human body (or any other mass) while having a very obvious effect in a sense-based point of view, does not have to equal destruction from some theoretical and very different point of view where mass is not a factor or sense anyway.

This doesn't mean that such a view is crucial, nor that it has any role in whether death is for humans a stable or not (it might be regardless of all that). But it does signify that our own senses are not having to be crucial in what is 'true', cause they are way too particular and finite/bounded.

 

[Borachio]

Everyone will eventually die it is inevitable.

Having once lived, is it possible to ever truly die?

Sure, if we take the usual view of time and processes, then your statement is true.

But is the conventional view correct?

Isn't there something to be said for the passage of time being entirely illusory? And that past, present and future co-exist in a pan-dimensional hyper reality?

 

[Kyriakos]

Bumping this due to a relevant exchange in the 0.999... and 1 thread :

Yup.

There are no a'priori truths in rigorous philosophy. Any internally consistent worldview is equally valid. Nobody has ever come up with a method of proving a damn thing beyond doubt.

That is quite correct, yes, in the views of many ancient notables too (including Socrates).

The reason it is true is that we neither sense nor express what we sense or think in a manner which itself is not a medium: we are not 'directly' sensing anything, we use our particular human organs/mind to do so. Moreover we do not 'directly' communicate anything, we use language which itself is not discreetly tied to what we sense or think.

As a sidenote of some importance, in at least late 5th century/onwards greek philosophy this is a very fundamental issue, namely that the various syllogisms or even dialectics (which itself is not about 'truth', btw, but about constructing a rigorous system of arguing while trying to be consistent, which is why Aristotle wanted to replace it with 'syllogism' that is more tied to axioms and thus can be inherently 'true' in the confined system it rests upon) are not presenting something we can pick up as 1-to-1 referring to our own individual thinking system or anyone else's. We only sense our own thinking process. So Socrates did argue that even if one makes a statement that is 'clearly' false (eg: if you jump from the top of a high building you will fly away) then provided the person stating is is indeed of the honest view it is true we have to note that while it is false in the system commonly used, it is true for what this person had in mind (maybe he thought that 'fly away' means 'free-fall'; maybe he thought of something even weirder, but inherently consistent, etc, maybe he even was talking in full allegory consciously or not).

If there is room for circular math threads, maybe there can be room for circular philosophy threads too