The Nature Of Truth

Really fires up your synapses.

>Implying there's no such a concept as thing-in-itself that has been subject of debate for centuries prior

>>9134274
I believe that the baseline of reality is words and categorized meanings to transmit and generate itself, and secondly, faith in those meanings and their use. Meanings themselves rely on something deeper to maintain them, as do we.

Even Christ teaches us Egregore.

And this kids, is what happens when you dont start with the greeks

>>9134274
There are flaws in your logic. I'll attempt to touch lightly on a few of the more critical ones.

>thought inexplicably takes meaningless noises...etc.,

It is not inexplicable entirely. Neurology has made great leaps unraveling the process by which we make sense of external stimuli. Likewise, there are philosophers, like Kant, and psychoanalysts, like Jung, who have done a great deal to explain the processes of thought.

>when you see that stimuli which enter the brain are ultimately meaningless...etc.,

By the same methods through which we know there are stimuli entering the brain, we also know precisely what these stimuli are in the natural world. The stimuli themselves are merely physical phenomena, but the interpretation of these stimuli by the brain is physical reality. We are able to know that this is reality by the same method by which we know they are stimuli. Do you understand? If we are to presuppose these stimuli are what we have described them to be, then we must also suppose we have interpreted them accurately via a method analogous to our interpreting physical reality.

Ergo, words possess a great deal of meaning, as they are a means of conferring and confirming upon the nature of reality objectively.

Think about this as well, if our words and observations via the senses carried no objective meaning, man could not have advanced to the point we at today because we could not have communicated objectively about nature. You and I could not carry on this discussion, as the meaningless subjective nature of experience and language would prevent us from exerting any dominion over objective reality.

Were we all within a reality with which we could not deal with objectively, all of man would then have to be within the same subjective reality in order to deal with our amalgamate subjective reality objectively.

Were this true, then Matrix-esque simulation theories would be astute.

>a pattern itself is something meaningless with meaning attached to it

A pattern is reality unfolding as it will. Man looks at it objectively and derives meaning from reality itself. A pattern is merely sequence and repetition. Man does not create the sequences and repetitions of nature, man recognizes the them. Hence, the pattern and the meaning of the pattern lie outside of man, as the meaning must be derived from analyzing the objects themselves.

Since I've addressed your analysis of patterns, you would need to compile a new proof for the nature of Truth as paradox.

>>9134471
true

>>9136247
It's always fun to read a well thought out reply on /lit/

Thanks anon, I enjoyed your input

>>9134471
Thank God I'm starting with the Greeks, still stuck on Mythology though.

>>9136707
You're welcome. I enjoyed the discussion; thank you for your kindness.