RE: Matt Dilahunty On The Logical Absolutes
November 19, 2016 at 8:08 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2016 at 8:22 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
@ Jor
I mean, let's put it this way regarding your point about it not being absolutely true because there are other definitions of truth:
If we define "truth" to mean "cabbage" it doesn't make it any less true to say a thing is a thing. That the logical absolutes are absolute is not about them being unconditionally true regardless of how we define "true" it's about the fact that any meaningful sense of truth is based on the logical absolutes which self-evidently just are a reality. The problem you are having is with starting with a definition of truth before thinking about the logical absolutes... it's the other way around. You start with the fact that a thing is a thing and not a thing is not a thing and then you get to truth. The fact you can disagree and define things differently is irrelevant. Why?
Because universal =/= absolute. Doesn't matter whether people agree on how to define "truth" doesn't change the fact that all meaningful definitions of truth are based on A=A which is an absolute reality before truth can even be conceptualized meaningfully. It indeed is ontological.
I mean, you can't even have a defintiion of truth that disagrees with me until you first agree that truth=truth which proves me right.
^^^This is an example of what Matt Dilahunty meant when he said that any argument against the logical absolutes is self-defeating and affirms the truth of them.
I mean, let's put it this way regarding your point about it not being absolutely true because there are other definitions of truth:
If we define "truth" to mean "cabbage" it doesn't make it any less true to say a thing is a thing. That the logical absolutes are absolute is not about them being unconditionally true regardless of how we define "true" it's about the fact that any meaningful sense of truth is based on the logical absolutes which self-evidently just are a reality. The problem you are having is with starting with a definition of truth before thinking about the logical absolutes... it's the other way around. You start with the fact that a thing is a thing and not a thing is not a thing and then you get to truth. The fact you can disagree and define things differently is irrelevant. Why?
Because universal =/= absolute. Doesn't matter whether people agree on how to define "truth" doesn't change the fact that all meaningful definitions of truth are based on A=A which is an absolute reality before truth can even be conceptualized meaningfully. It indeed is ontological.
I mean, you can't even have a defintiion of truth that disagrees with me until you first agree that truth=truth which proves me right.
^^^This is an example of what Matt Dilahunty meant when he said that any argument against the logical absolutes is self-defeating and affirms the truth of them.
