this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
703 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59689 readers
5511 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see you have never taken a Philosophy 101 course. "Truth" is a lot more complicated than you think.
https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/478w0k/is_truth_subjective_or_is_there_objective_truth/
Here the more pragmatic use of truth is being used, which most of the people would agree in its objectiveness. Either the real person did the call or not.
Even in the philosophical concept of truth different schools of thoughts have different views on its objectiveness. Here is a better resource I think.
And I see you didn't understand your philosophy 101 course.
All the ideas we have about this stuff comes from a pre-science era and nothing we discovered backs up what they argued.
That is why Plato can make up another dimension and a psychic connection, that is why Hume could pretend to not know what cause and effect was, that is why Desecrates could think that if he has an idea it has to be true...
Something to consider for a moment. If you are really determined to maintain the stance that truth is subject that would mean this stance is subjective. Hence there must be exceptions, but your stance allows none. Any statement of the effect that statements are never fully true is going to produce contradictions.
That's not what Descartes said, by the way.
"I think therefore I am" was all about "I know I must exist, because I'm here to think about it". It wasn't about "if I think something it must be true".
In Discourse he sets about trying to establish what things you can know for sure, vs which things are subjective (and could just be a trick of the mind or an illusion). He establishes the first principle that the one thing he knows is definitely true is that he is an entity that is capable of thought (because otherwise, who else is doing all this thinking?) and therefore at the very least he must exist, even if nothing else does.
If you're of the position that truth isn't subjective, "Cartesian doubt" should be right up your alley. Trust nothing until you can prove it! Not a bad position for a philosopher to take.
I read his work thanks. He continues and "proves" god by mental inference.
The whole thing is backwards anyway. The physical world is the thing you should most be sure mental constructs the least. I am a lot more confident that if you light me on fire it will hurt than I am that there is no largest prime number.
Existence exists, and we can measure it. Theories are just models with explanations, laws are models without. Our thoughts are just as physical as anything else. Abstractions are symbols that sometimes match the real world. And I have no idea why nearly all of us fight so hard to not accept the universe as it presents itself to be.