Necessary Truths Exist

[genkaus]

that's not in any definition of objective I've ever read. why don't you try reading the definition yourself.

based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings
philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

none of that says it must be contingent upon reality.

Did you even read your own definition? Read the bolded part again - existing in real world. Which mean, it is contingent on reality.

then they are not statements of fact or propositions.

So what? A proposition contingent upon a non-proposition can be objectively true without relying on any necessary truths - which defeats your whole argument.

must I also teach you the definition of proposition?

Propositions, we shall say, are the sharable objects of the attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity. This stipulation rules out certain candidates for propositions, including thought- and utterance-tokens, which presumably are not sharable, and concrete events or facts, which presumably cannot be false.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/

if it can't be true or false, it's not a proposition. that's a part if its very definition. it doesn't matter which theory of truth you subscribe because you can't go against the definition of the word, that would be what they call a contradiction.

Read it yourself - specifically the bolded part. Clearly, the non-propositions that a proposition is contingent upon are not subject to truth or falsity. This is where your failure to understand the theoris of truth comes into picture.

and the wiki link you gave concerning the law of excluded middle counts ignorance as "third possibility" though it's not necessary since ignorance is not a degree of truth. furthermore, ignorance is not exclusive of the other two options, true or false. if the truth value of a proposition is unknown that doesn't mean it doesn't have a truth value at all, which is what you are suggesting. and no, it doesn't mean its truth value is an option other than true or false either.

You really want me to bring up Liar's Paradox?

[Walking Void]

Please add this to your argument for necessary (or as You coined transcendent) truths:

A necessary truth is not time sensitive (therefore it does not change over time).

[Rational AKD]

Did you even read your own definition? Read the bolded part again - existing in real world. Which mean, it is contingent on reality.

when talking about reality it refers to what the world has, not the world itself. a world has no properties if it contains nothing so it's not fair to suggest it is contingent on a world. a world wouldn't be a world if nothing existed in it.

So what? A proposition contingent upon a non-proposition can be objectively true without relying on any necessary truths - which defeats your whole argument.

really? give an example of a proposition contingent on a non-proposition.

Read it yourself - specifically the bolded part. Clearly, the non-propositions that a proposition is contingent upon are not subject to truth or falsity.

a proposition can't be contingent upon a non-proposition. the only examples given by Stanford of non-propositions are thought and word utterance. so what does this mean? mind and communication can't be subject to true and false. so the mind must exist because we think and communication must exist because we communicate. great... how does that help you?

You really want me to bring up Liar's Paradox?

no need. I already know the difference between conceived truth and actual truth, as you should. do you ever hear someone say "the truth was this but not it has changed"? of course not. they always say "I thought this was the truth but I was wrong." the act of deception has no effect on actual truth.

Please add this to your argument for necessary (or as You coined transcendent) truths:

A necessary truth is not time sensitive (therefore it does not change over time).

no need. if it was "time sensitive" then it would not be necessary. it would be contingent upon time, which is also contingent. calling them necessary or transcendent truths already imply they are not time sensitive.

[genkaus]

when talking about reality it refers to what the world has, not the world itself. a world has no properties if it contains nothing so it's not fair to suggest it is contingent on a world. a world wouldn't be a world if nothing existed in it.

Talking about what the world has is talking about the world itself. Existing within the real world automatically makes it continent on reality.

really? give an example of a proposition contingent on a non-proposition.

The proposition "Obama is president of US" is contingent upon the fact of whether or not at a given time, Obama is the president - the latter being a concrete event would be a non-proposition.

a proposition can't be contingent upon a non-proposition. the only examples given by Stanford of non-propositions are thought and word utterance. so what does this mean? mind and communication can't be subject to true and false. so the mind must exist because we think and communication must exist because we communicate. great... how does that help you?

Did you miss the other part about concrete events? Try reading it through the next time.

no need. I already know the difference between conceived truth and actual truth, as you should. do you ever hear someone say "the truth was this but not it has changed"? of course not. they always say "I thought this was the truth but I was wrong." the act of deception has no effect on actual truth.

Actually, I hear it all the time - "The truth was this but now it has changed". This indicates that the truth of a statement is contingent upon the facts of reality and as the facts change, so does the truth.

[GodsRevolt]

Is your argument saying that there needs to be at least one "first" truth, which is independently true of other factors, that other truths would then be contingent on?

[LostLocke]

no need. I already know the difference between conceived truth and actual truth, as you should. do you ever hear someone say "the truth was this but not it has changed"? of course not. they always say "I thought this was the truth but I was wrong." the act of deception has no effect on actual truth.

Well, we could use the above example is this to.

The statement "Obama is the president of the US"

Right now that statement is the truth.
4 years from now that statement will not be the truth.

Isn't wasn't that I thought it was the truth but I was wrong, in this case the truth did change.

[Rational AKD]

Talking about what the world has is talking about the world itself. Existing within the real world automatically makes it continent on reality.

no it's not. I can talk about a single thing the world has independent of other things it has. what I am saying is something that is necessary is not contingent upon anything the world has apart from itself. so what exactly is your point? a necessarily existing truth is contingent upon its own existence? well duh. tautology 101.

The proposition "Obama is president of US" is contingent upon the fact of whether or not at a given time, Obama is the president - the latter being a concrete event would be a non-proposition.

you realize all you did is take a proposition and reformulated it into a fact which is equivalent to the proposition you stated. you haven't proved anything.

Did you miss the other part about concrete events? Try reading it through the next time.

concrete events can be formed into propositions, however. the fact that there was a point in time that Obama became president can be shared in the manner "Obama became the president of the US in 2008" which would be a proposition. concrete facts and events can't be false themselves (being that if it's concrete it's true by definition) but can be communicated as propositions and in fact can only be communicated as propositions. and those propositions are equivalent in meaning of content to the concrete events themselves (the same as how a word is equivalent to its respective definition).

Actually, I hear it all the time - "The truth was this but now it has changed". This indicates that the truth of a statement is contingent upon the facts of reality and as the facts change, so does the truth.

maybe you should look up the definition of fact now.

something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

if an event A truly happened, then there is no fact that can change the fact that A happened. if A has actual existence, then A has actual existence regardless of what we think of A. you are equivocating fact and perceived fact. there is a difference between perception and reality.

Is your argument saying that there needs to be at least one "first" truth, which is independently true of other factors, that other truths would then be contingent on?

a first truth or truths, yes. that's what I'm saying.

Well, we could use the above example is this to.

The statement "Obama is the president of the US"

Right now that statement is the truth.
4 years from now that statement will not be the truth.

Isn't wasn't that I thought it was the truth but I was wrong, in this case the truth did change.

temporal truths don't quite work that way. when speaking of a truth in relation to time, the time must be specified in the same way when speaking of your location displacement must be specified. so it's not that the truth changes overtime, it's that events occur over time and those events must be specified in time in order to be considered truth.

[LostLocke]

temporal truths don't quite work that way. when speaking of a truth in relation to time, the time must be specified in the same way when speaking of your location displacement must be specified. so it's not that the truth changes overtime, it's that events occur over time and those events must be specified in time in order to be considered truth.

I'm not quite seeing how adding time to that statement would change anything.

Let's say "Obama will be president of the US"
10 years ago that statement would be truth. 10 years from now it will not be truth.

And you could replace "will" with "is" or "was".

If I'm not getting right, give me an example of what you mean.

[Rational AKD]

Let's say "Obama will be president of the US"
10 years ago that statement would be truth. 10 years from now it will not be truth.

that's because both statements are general ones referencing different points in time. if the reference is specified, it can clearly be seen why one is true and the other is false and it has nothing to do with the truth changing. "Obama will be president after the year 2003" is the equivalent of the first statement, and "Obama will be president after 2023" is the equivalent of the second statement. as you can see, it's a difference in statements, not truth.

[LostLocke]

Yes, if you put those qualifiers at the end of the statements, you can make absolute decisions about their truth.

But without those qualifiers, the truth of that statement is not absolute but only relative to the time in which they were spoken.