RE: Matt Dilahunty On The Logical Absolutes
November 19, 2016 at 10:28 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2016 at 10:30 pm by Angrboda.)
(November 19, 2016 at 8:08 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: 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.
noun: absolute; plural noun: absolutes
1.
Philosophy
a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.
(November 19, 2016 at 8:08 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: 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.
And you and Matt are simply confusing levels. A coherentist's theory of truth need not acknowledge any such symbolic equivalence. Logics and theories of truth are not on the same level.