PDA

View Full Version : 'Truth Value'



SuuT
Monday, August 21st, 2006, 12:24 AM
"Truth" is so utterly contextual and is couched in so many relative quid pro quo, caveats, and asides that one must attempt to speak in the most general terms: to give, in most cases, very little more than a plastic scaffold upon which another can construct applicable particulars.

The main problem one confronts with this reality is channeling or deflecting charges of lack of 'clarity' from those who are--presently--considered credible with respect to what is clear. This is logic which exceeds the capacities of those of the Aristotelian or Boolean (etc.) bent.

A philosophy that attempts the inclusion of any reasonable variables as elemental, and rudimentary, to its definitive elegance, and totality of description, will appear (ironically!) vague, cryptic, pedantic, elusive...

"Logic" as it currently stands, when left as the ultimate arbiter of 'Truth Value', yields nothing more than linear self-consistency. This is nothing new; and yet it has not been dealt with.

Why?

Because it is here that we teeter on the edge of a dangerous relativism for all, in all spaces, and all times, and in all possible worlds.

This, simply, must come to pass.

"Logic", as it currently stands, is corrupt; as it applies self-identical values to relativism and cannot account for anything other than itself. And, in this sense, is a virus of circular parameters: it speaks of nothing and nothingness with the power and prowess of ubiquity...

Within this nothingness is no way out; we, therefore, cannot concede to Logic as the ultimate arbiter of Truth Value.

Logic = trapped in being.

Truth--is exactly what Logic cannot account for.

Siegfried
Monday, August 21st, 2006, 12:56 AM
The Truth is 'logical' because it cannot contradict itself. Intuitive knowledge is surely possible, but it can never be logically inconsistent with truths known through, for example, 'the scientific method'. Any apparent contradictions can be overcome through dialectic reasoning, a method which was highly developed in Hegel's work.

SuuT
Monday, August 21st, 2006, 01:20 AM
The Truth is 'logical' because it cannot contradict itself. Intuitive knowledge is surely possible, but it can never be logically inconsistent with truths known through, for example, 'the scientific method'. Any apparent contradictions can be overcome through dialectic reasoning, a method which was highly developed in Hegel's work.

(T)ruth (i.e. absolute/capital "T" truth) is, itself, illogical and self-contradictory: Hegel, himself, (along with others) tried and failed to escape this paradoxical element of both logical formulation, and the Dialectical process (which, itself, is flawed by the assumed need for the synthetic aspect: a fundamentally moral assumption, I might add).

"Intuitive knowledge" and Logic are, largely, antithetical means at arriving at 'Truth Value' (which is a play on words, actually; rooted in the paradox of absolute (T)ruth--which no one can demonstrate). This relates, also, to the 300 year debate over whether or not all arguments are actually inductive in nature; or, visa versa (deductive): no one can prove their case either way. This is troubling for the logician--and it should be.

Why?

Because, logically, only one is correct; or, both are wrong--which is absurd.

In short: we have a paradox. One cannot prove anything by way of Logic that is absolute, other than the illogical.

Moody
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 04:59 PM
As Suut suggests, the law of contradiction only works when identical entities are are posited A=A.
But Nietzsche says that there aren't any identical entities!

So much for logic and Truth.

Nietzsche understood truth as a kind of metaphor, and therefore replaced the studies of the existence of Truth , and the nature of Truth [i.e., whether it be [i]necessary, a priori, analytic or contingent, a posteriori, synthetic] and also replaced the theories of Truth corresponds or coheres with reality or not], with the over-arching study of the value of Truth.

Of course, this in itself presupposes the existence of Truth - Nietzsche had not adopted an eliminatist or redundancy theory of Truth.

In general he says that Truth does not deserve the high value that has been bestowed upon it by philosophers hitherto. Therefore he cannot be lumped with the Pragmatist school, as he thinks that Truth is not very useful.

Essentially, he believes that there is Truth, but not only is it impossible to know, it is actually highly dangerous and destructive and therefore better that we do not know it.

The nearest he can get to it is that Truth = will to power,

MockTurtle
Monday, February 26th, 2007, 11:31 AM
Essentially, he believes that there is Truth, but not only is it impossible to know, it is actually highly dangerous and destructive and therefore better that we do not know it.

This is accurate in the sense that he believed that 'truth' itself represented a form of human sluggishness, as discussed frequently in the Nachlass. As you pointed out, the real issue is determining the utility of truth itself, even if it could hypothetically be attained at any given time.

452 (January-Fall 1888)


Taken from 'The Will To Power', book two, page 248 (Kaufmann/Hollingdale translation 1967):

"Truth" is therefore more fateful than error and ignorance, because it cuts off the forces that work toward enlightenment and knowledge. The affect of laziness now takes the side of "truth" -- ("thinking is distress, misery!"); as do order, rule, happiness in possessing, pride in wisdom -- vanity in summa: it is more comfortable to obey than to examine; it is more flattering to think "I possess the truth" than to see only darkness around one -- above all: it is reassuring, it gives confidence, it alleviates life -- it "improves" the character, to the extent that it lessens mistrust.

Truth in Nietzsche's mind is valuable only insofar as it can be used in the search for power. Truth and power are for him wholly disconnected entities, and he doesn't actually equate truth with "the will to power" precisely. The quality of something being 'true' doesn't necessarily speak anything about it in relation to the struggle for power, although truth can be a potential commodity in that it can oftentimes attract power to its side. However, the concept of "truth in itself" is unsettling because it signifies a state of comfort (i.e. certainty, reassurance, etc.), lack of skepticism, and also a lack of upward motivation.