Necessary Truths Exist

[Rational AKD]

What you posted were ordinary applications of the word, which are vague and equivocate, which is a mistake given we're discussing the philosophical views on it.

I posted common uses of the word. if truth is contingent upon minds, then it is also controlled by minds. if it is controlled by minds, then it is not objective. most people would disagree if you told them truth is subjective.

Truth doesn't necessarily assume a realist position, maybe correspondence does but even then it doesn't presume to know such is the case, it makes an assumption that it is

that's why I said *assuming a realist position. truth is used as a word representing an objective reality assuming one exists.

Here, you agree with the difference between truth and fact, while here:

would you stay on task... i'm making an inside argument making an "even if you're right" point. stop bringing up old posts.

And you make the same mistake. To say that the proposition "the Sun exists" in a world without minds is incoherent

no... i'm not saying "the proposition 'the sun exists'..." i'm saying "the thing known as the sun exists..." learn the difference between a reference to things and a reference to sentences.

Truth is not what's being represented, facts are

the two are equivocal and often interchangeable as shown evident by the replacement of every word "truth" with the word "real" I did in the argument. I can say "i'm telling the truth" and "i'm speaking facts" and they both mean exactly the same thing. the only difference is semantics.

Truth encapsulates facts, it's not the facts it encapsulates, which is why we have the correspondence theory of truth, not a theory of reality itself being true. Using truth in that manner in philosophy is sloppy and is the sort of thing that leads to equivocations

as I said, the two words are most often equivocal. the theories of truth are to support post modernism philosophy, which is a step backwards in philosophy.

Okay, so now you're straw manning. Where did I say that there was nothing behind the experiences?

you took the skeptical position of "we can't know if anything is behind those experiences." this is what they would call a skeptical solipsist view, that it is plausible our experiences are mere illusion but equally plausible they aren't.

I didn't take the position that the would-be illusion was substantial.

do you even know what you're responding to? I was not saying you took that position but simply responded to this question you asked me:

Even if everything was just an illusion in my mind and solipsism were true, are you saying that the illusion doesn't exist?

So in other words (as I've said) the facts a proposition refers to changes, no? I've been trying to figure out why you thought there was a disagreement here

no, the facts of the proposition refer to a specific place and time, and the truth of the proposition only changes if the context of the sentence is removed forcing you to impose your own. to say at this point in time "Obama is the president" is equivalent to "in 2013 Obama is the president." the word "is" is referring to the president time and the truth of that sentence doesn't change over time because it has a specific context and reference.

Now you're contradicting yourself. By saying facts don't change, you're saying a fact is always the case which, unless you're speaking in the context of a particular philosophy of time, is self-evidently absurd and contrary to speaking contingent facts as you have.

maybe I should be a little more clear. facts change over time, but facts referenced by propositions don't change since the proposition always references the place and time either specifically or generally. if I say "Obama is the president" I am correct, and I am not incorrect because 10 years go by, because when I said "is" I was talking about this time in 2013. my reference doesn't change unless someone removes it.

The proposition regarding Reagan being president is false because the fact regarding who is the president is no longer the case.

yes, but if that were stated when he was president, that person wouldn't be incorrect. nor would his sentence change from true to false simply with passage of time, because the person was referencing that point and time, not a future time.

which seems to equate truth and fact

Jupiter being larger than other planets is a fact. i'm sorry, but it seems that you have the impression that it is impossible to reference a fact. Jupiter's existence is a fact. Jupiter's size is a fact. Jupiter's size being larger than all planets in this solar system is a fact.

Either that, or it tries to impose mind onto a possible state of affairs where there emphatically isn't one.

so Jupiter is in fact not larger than the other planets of the solar system?

It wouldn't be true without minds, but it would be a fact (assuming realism).

again, quit bringing up the ancient past and respond to what I say now. I realize you have a problem with the semantics so I've shifted the focus of my argument to the fact that Jupiter is large, not the truth.

Actually it does in a rather hilarious way: it doesn't even conclude as you wish it to now. These transcendent facts would merely be the necessary facts of reality, such as the fact of identity, the fact of non-contradiction and the fact of existence.

haha, you think that's not what I was trying to argue from the start? lets take a trip back to post #4.

I can name you 3 necessary truths. the law if identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of exclusive middle

it's pretty much exactly what you said except I called them laws instead of facts.

None of these concluded necessary facts do anything for you, and certainly cannot establish a necessary being as your original argument sought to do

really? that's what you thought I was trying to do? no no no no no. lets take a trip back to post #1.

it is an argument of my own design, and rather than a religious argument it's purely philosophical.

Conclusion: necessary transcendent truths [not beings] exist.

Further, have you actually considered WHY those facts in particular are such? Because reality itself is such, reality is logical (in some sense). Of course, I must also mention that there are systems of logic that treat identity and non-contradiction as either contingent or true.

as I said from the beginning, this argument is only to debunk the philosophical position of logical fictionalism, the position that logic is something that is made up by us or derived from speech rather than necessarily part of reality.

Well, I guess this doesn't exist then:

oh, I see what you're complaining about now. sorry, I messed up the semantics. what I meant to say was: "what I have disagreed with is you stating the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system, wouldn't be real without minds to say so." there, all better?