hi everyone. first, I would like to apologize for my absence; I've had quite a lot of things to do lately. but here I would like to post something new. it is an argument of my own design, and rather than a religious argument it's purely philosophical.

Purpose: to establish the existence of necessary truths debunking the notion "there is no objective truth." there are many philosophers who subscribe to a view of logical factionalism, which this argument can also debunk assuming logic is a tool for finding truth.

Argument:
P1: in order for a proposition to be true, it must be true because it is contingent upon a factor or it’s necessary in its own truth.
P2: there must exist fundamental propositions that can’t be true by a contingent factor (there can’t be an infinite amount of propositions all contingent upon the former).
C1: therefore there are fundamental propositions that can only be true by the necessity of their own truth (P1, P2)
P3: if a proposition is necessarily true, then it is not contingent upon reality
C2: therefore there are necessary truths that transcend reality (C1, P3)
Conclusion: necessary transcendent truths exist.

Assumptions: surprisingly the number of presuppositions of this argument is low. the only things it presupposes is the existence of truth and that we are capable of knowing some of these truths. this means the only way to deny the argument is to deny logic itself.

Objections:
1. P2 is wrong there can be an infinite number of propositions all contingent upon eachother-- this is false. when a proposition's truth value is contingent, it means it's passing its credit of truth to something else. to have no necessarily true proposition at any point in this chain is like having a limited number of propositions reasoned to be true by a circle of contingency. you can't reason the circle itself to be true and you can't reason an infinite cycle to be true. there must be something that is necessarily true if there is anything that is true.
2. truth doesn't really exist-- this is a self refuting position. if you claim "truth doesn't exist" then you can't say that statement is true. a principle is not above its own criteria, if truth doesn't exist then you can't say it's true that truth doesn't exist because that would be an apparent contradiction.
3. you can't know what is true and what is false-- like the last, this is easily refuted. if you can't know what's true or false then you can't know that statement to be true. the sad part is you can't say this statement is true even if you presuppose it in the first place. forget trying to substantiate it, you can't even say it's true.

Nice argument you've got there. I'm trying to conceive of what a "transcendent truth" would be like, because naturally, I only know of apparent truths within the realm of this universe.

For the time being, I think I can agree with you that there's a non-empty set of "transcendent truths", but I don't exactly know what they would contain or what they actually entail in terms of facts/knowledge etc.

The past few months I've been warming to the notion which, likely due to epistemological holism, implies that for any fairly substantive description of the world or existence to be true and valid, it must be linked arm-in-arm with all the other necessary views on which it is dependent. In a recent argument about morals, two members were arguing about the importance of a pseudo-linguistic message, and what messages are real messages, and what messages were only apparent messages. Unfortunately the two differed in which they thought was which, and engaged in rounds of mutual assertions contradicting the other. What to my mind was occurring was a conflict between two very different theories of meaning, being fought out using the periphery fruit of each. I doubt this occurred to either, and so it went. One path to progress in that instance would have been to realize the critical dependence of arguing from a shared theory of meaning, and until one was achieved, to concentrate on the question of which theory of meaning was most appropriate and why.

The older I am getting, the more I'm persuaded that theories that only speak to a narrow slice of that holism established by the interdepency of theorems are only going to produce works of temporal, provisional utility, of no great strength, little power to persuade, and less to compel. Such narrow approaches typically lean on theories and assumptions, many of which have little or no justification for them, being largely products of consensus and culture, rather than analysis and investigation. Thus many times houses of cards, which may themselves be sturdy, are built upon shifting sands. To my mind, if you want a secure and valuable response to a question, you can't worry solely about closing the explicit links that are up front; you have to close all the loops, whether they are visible or hidden, even though practically, this is an unattainable goal. But you must strive for it. If you don't, or do so weakly and less successfully, no matter how 'apparent' the truth of your visible logic, it is likely ultimately a weak and sickly thing of little value. As it relates here, there are massive holes where you've plugged in conventional components less through justification of them selves than by their justification in terms of their ability to make your work whole. And there are massive holes where the entrails just lead off impotently into the darkness. A less serious objector might point these out, and thus weaken the effectiveness of your argument. A better philosopher will locate where these empty spaces are, and which ones can be used to make the entire structure implode. Weak or strong objector, the strongest objector is time. Eventually, the flaws will out, given time. The less well you've connected up all the loops, or made defenses at junctures where loops can't be closed, the less effective, and less long lasting your new "truth."

I haven't formally analyzed your argument, but it appears to me to have some rather massive and troubling holes, specifically in the areas of epistemology, ontology, theory of meaning, and the question of nominalism. If those superficial impressions bear out, and you've plugged many holes with "conventional" reasonings, then it's likely this argument, even if received as sound, is not long for this world.

(October 31, 2013 at 6:12 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Nice argument you've got there. I'm trying to conceive of what a "transcendent truth" would be like, because naturally, I only know of apparent truths within the realm of this universe.

For the time being, I think I can agree with you that there's a non-empty set of "transcendent truths", but I don't exactly know what they would contain or what they actually entail in terms of facts/knowledge etc.

I would argue that if we know any necessary transcendent truths, they would have to be in the fundamentals of logic. without logic, we can't come to any conclusion about anything. all sciences are grounded in the use of logic. with this, I can name you 3 necessary truths. the law if identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of exclusive middle. there's nothing that shows why these laws are true, but they are almost unanimously accepted by humans as true. if any one of these laws are false, then all logic and reason might as well be thrown out the window along with any hopes of finding truth.

(October 31, 2013 at 7:24 am)Rational AKD Wrote:

(October 31, 2013 at 6:12 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Nice argument you've got there. I'm trying to conceive of what a "transcendent truth" would be like, because naturally, I only know of apparent truths within the realm of this universe.

For the time being, I think I can agree with you that there's a non-empty set of "transcendent truths", but I don't exactly know what they would contain or what they actually entail in terms of facts/knowledge etc.

I would argue that if we know any necessary transcendent truths, they would have to be in the fundamentals of logic. without logic, we can't come to any conclusion about anything. all sciences are grounded in the use of logic. with this, I can name you 3 necessary truths. the law if identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of exclusive middle. there's nothing that shows why these laws are true, but they are almost unanimously accepted by humans as true. if any one of these laws are false, then all logic and reason might as well be thrown out the window along with any hopes of finding truth.

Don't neglect that a false argument may support a true truth.

(October 31, 2013 at 7:24 am)Rational AKD Wrote:

(October 31, 2013 at 6:12 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Nice argument you've got there. I'm trying to conceive of what a "transcendent truth" would be like, because naturally, I only know of apparent truths within the realm of this universe.

For the time being, I think I can agree with you that there's a non-empty set of "transcendent truths", but I don't exactly know what they would contain or what they actually entail in terms of facts/knowledge etc.

I would argue that if we know any necessary transcendent truths, they would have to be in the fundamentals of logic. without logic, we can't come to any conclusion about anything. all sciences are grounded in the use of logic. with this, I can name you 3 necessary truths. the law if identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of exclusive middle. there's nothing that shows why these laws are true, but they are almost unanimously accepted by humans as true. if any one of these laws are false, then all logic and reason might as well be thrown out the window along with any hopes of finding truth.

But would logic be the same beyond this universe? If there's something beyond this universe, then maybe logic works in a way that is completely different to the logic in this 4D realm we live in. Maybe transcendential logic allows for something more than just e.g. p and ~p being the only possibilities. Perhaps there's a 3rd logical option - one that we can't conceive of.

(October 31, 2013 at 7:08 am)apophenia Wrote:


The past few months I've been warming to the notion which, likely due to epistemological holism, implies that for any fairly substantive description of the world or existence to be true and valid, it must be linked arm-in-arm with all the other necessary views on which it is dependent. In a recent argument about morals, two members were arguing about the importance of a pseudo-linguistic message, and what messages are real messages, and what messages were only apparent messages. Unfortunately the two differed in which they thought was which, and engaged in rounds of mutual assertions contradicting the other. What to my mind was occurring was a conflict between two very different theories of meaning, being fought out using the periphery fruit of each. I doubt this occurred to either, and so it went. One path to progress in that instance would have been to realize the critical dependence of arguing from a shared theory of meaning, and until one was achieved, to concentrate on the question of which theory of meaning was most appropriate and why.

The older I am getting, the more I'm persuaded that theories that only speak to a narrow slice of that holism established by the interdepency of theorems are only going to produce works of temporal, provisional utility, of no great strength, little power to persuade, and less to compel. Such narrow approaches typically lean on theories and assumptions, many of which have little or no justification for them, being largely products of consensus and culture, rather than analysis and investigation. Thus many times houses of cards, which may themselves be sturdy, are built upon shifting sands. To my mind, if you want a secure and valuable response to a question, you can't worry solely about closing the explicit links that are up front; you have to close all the loops, whether they are visible or hidden, even though practically, this is an unattainable goal. But you must strive for it. If you don't, or do so weakly and less successfully, no matter how 'apparent' the truth of your visible logic, it is likely ultimately a weak and sickly thing of little value. As it relates here, there are massive holes where you've plugged in conventional components less through justification of them selves than by their justification in terms of their ability to make your work whole. And there are massive holes where the entrails just lead off impotently into the darkness. A less serious objector might point these out, and thus weaken the effectiveness of your argument. A better philosopher will locate where these empty spaces are, and which ones can be used to make the entire structure implode. Weak or strong objector, the strongest objector is time. Eventually, the flaws will out, given time. The less well you've connected up all the loops, or made defenses at junctures where loops can't be closed, the less effective, and less long lasting your new "truth."

I haven't formally analyzed your argument, but it appears to me to have some rather massive and troubling holes, specifically in the areas of epistemology, ontology, theory of meaning, and the question of nominalism. If those superficial impressions bear out, and you've plugged many holes with "conventional" reasonings, then it's likely this argument, even if received as sound, is not long for this world.

I told you the only 2 assumptions the argument makes. though you do seem to have an interesting belief there. let me share mine.

I think every conclusion we draw is based on the single assumption: we can know what is true. there is no reasoning that we can establish to substantiate this assumption, but there's also no reasoning we can establish without it. if this one assumption was false, then there would be nothing we could know to be true, including that we can't know anything to be true. if someone assumed this assumption was false, they would have to admit they can't truly know that it's false. it's literally an impossible belief. the only way for us to live is by taking the assumption that we can know truth and building from it because we can't build from the contrary assumption.

---

(October 31, 2013 at 7:35 am)FallentoReason Wrote: But would logic be the same beyond this universe? If there's something beyond this universe, then maybe logic works in a way that is completely different to the logic in this 4D realm we live in. Maybe transcendential logic allows for something more than just e.g. p and ~p being the only possibilities. Perhaps there's a 3rd logical option - one that we can't conceive of.

the concept of an alternative to P and ~P violates the law of exclusive middle. but I think you misunderstand what I mean by the argument. what I meant by "transcendent truths" was that the propositions are not contingent upon reality. they are always true no matter what changes you make to reality. even if physical reality doesn't exist, these truths don't change. that's what I mean. and I'm not arguing for a necessary transcendent logical system. the system is contingent upon how we develop it. what I'm arguing for are propositions that are necessarily true in and of themselves which I would say are the fundamental propositions all logic is based off of such as the 3 I gave.

---

(October 31, 2013 at 7:34 am)apophenia Wrote: Don't neglect that a false argument may support a true truth.

I know that, but there would be no way to determine if it is true or not. that's what I'm saying.

I'm not weighing in now, but I want to say I find that argument very elegant. If it's really an original argument, then kudos! There's real food for thought there.

-edit-

I lied. Let me weigh in with a question: isn't this basically another form of the infinite regression "paradox"? Why couldn't there be an infinite number of levels of truths, with no end? Isn't rejecting the possibility of infinity begging the question already? It sounds like a logical equivalent of "The universe can't be infinite, and can't have created itself, so it must depend on God, who is self-dependent, for its existence." (no, I'm not accusing you of a secretly theistic argument, I'm just pointing out what seems to me like a similar logical pattern)

(October 31, 2013 at 6:03 am)Rational AKD Wrote: C1: therefore there are fundamental propositions that can only be true by the necessity of their own truth (P1, P2)

Frankly this just sounds like circular reasoning, just claiming that something is true because it is true.

You're using the Principle of Sufficient Reason, right? Perhaps you should read up on some of the devastating problems with it, especially Hume's criticism. The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good article on it.

Not to come off as a bit of an asshole, but if you're going to be posting arguments you didn't make and/or using concepts (the PSR) without specifying what they are, it's a bit less likely people will be likely to respond.

---

As for your argument, where to start? P3 is false by definition. Reality refers to EVERYTHING that exists. It is thus incoherent to say that "there is something that transcends everything that exists".

Furthermore, truth necessitates the existence of a mind, which is a subset of reality. I truth is the correspondence between a belief or assertion and reality, there can be no truths without minds.


But ALL of that aside (and assuming this argument does not assume the PSR), I can answer this argument with what necessary truths there are:

-The Law of Identity

-The Law of Non-contradiction

-My existence as thinking thing ("I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am")

Those first two are self-attesting truths that cannot be denied without first assuming them as true. They aren't "transcendent", they are necessary features of all language and thought. They're very much rooted in reality and the reality we experience.

I thus can reject your argument as unsound.