Thread replies: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: fea577811ca43dd22b9732bb8c90d196.jpg (100KB, 640x960px) Image search:
[Google]
100KB, 640x960px
I’ve been thinking about what the ultimate nature of truth actually is. Every person has a different sort of truth in their mind, which is subjective to their interpretation of the world through their senses. Yet we still seem to think that there’s truth, and that there’s a right and wrong answer to something. When you think about it, everyone’s interpretations of things are just a bunch of noises and sounds and sensations of things they’ve touched, etc. We add structure to these things ourselves and make patterns off of what we’ve absorbed through our senses. I think in order to establish what is truth, you’d have to establish what is thought, because thought inexplicably takes meaningless noises and stimuli and creates some sort of meaning out of it.
When you see that the stimuli that enter the brain are ultimately meaningless, you might even say that words are ultimately meaningless. Yet human beings minds, I believe seek patterns. Perhaps patterns are what distinguish a thought from a meaningless symbol. A pattern itself is something which is meaningless with meaning attached to it; it’s a string of same things which are next to each other; next is a concept which has meaning, and so on; it’s just a never ending hierarchy of contradictions, where something that shouldn’t have any meaning keeps trying to add meaning to the next thing, but ultimately it leads nowhere. Perhaps this ultimately paradoxical endless string of meaningless patterns is the ultimate nature of truth. Truth itself is a paradox.
1/2
>>
Yet it would seem that there’s a problem with saying that a string of meaningless symbols, adding meaning in a hierarchy of contradictions, could be the only ultimate nature of truth, because obviously there is falsehood, untruth. Perhaps in the hierarchy, when one says something false, one would attach erroneous, meaningless non sequiturs to the hierarchy, which break the chain of contradictions leading to more contradictions; of meaningless symbols leading to contradictory self referential concepts of meaning, which are paradoxical because the ultimate nature of the stimuli is meaningless. In this way, I believe the nature of truth is paradoxical, the nature of the pattern seeking mind creates an illusion of truth.
2/2
>>
>>2398815
>because obviously there is falsehood, untruth.
For each philosopher, through his mix of praxis and of discourses, we choose to follow the
deductions that he makes according to the logic that he chooses. Since philosophy is done in
natural language, there is more vagueness, emphasis, circularity than in mathematics, because the
words of the natural language has more ontology since it is the task of the philosophers to do this.
At some point in the deductions of the philosophers, we will be surprised, we will disagree, we will
not follow the deduction because, in a logic foreign to us, each logical elementary step is intuition
orimagination,intuitionorimaginationwhichdependsonouraffinitiesaswellasourcapabilities.
This is where we continue, stop to believe in his doctrine or learn another one, or explore our
own philosophy. In such a quest, the truth presents itself in degrees of appeasement : the higher
the truth, the less agitation, the more the appeasement up to an irremediable appeasement.
Thread posts: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1