I wish these videos were more in depth! There are some really interesting ideas in here but I feel like we've barely scratch the surface. Even having links to further reading under the video description would be much appreciated!
I really think certain part of philosophy is way more effective to solve psychological problem than psychology itself, especially those who are confused about life, society, relationship, self worth etc. Because it teaches you to ask the *right* question, which is overly underappreciated in today's society.
The more ways you have to falsify your ideas the more close you are to true knowledge. After a while you'll have to learn how to appreciate the sight of the vast Unknown...
I don't speak English but I'm watching this video because i don't found this kind of video in Spanish, thank you, also when I watch this, I can improve my English
It's also important to note that there are as many versions as these theories of Truth as there are philosophers. The main guidelines may 'cohere' but there is a lot of fuzziness around the edges, like most things. For whatever it is worth I like pragmatism for most things. so when I say most things I think different theories of Truth work in different areas like maths, logic, love, personal relationships, passion Etc.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas that actually would be a good job for me one of the weird things of my past is that I used to read the dictionary every single night for about 5 years. But I don't think Webster's could pay me enough. I sold out and am now a robot reading code 10 hours a day. But my last comment was neopragmatism in a nutshell. That was Richard rorty's response and I think it really does make sense in a lot of ways but of course not every way.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas it depends how we define good and bad. I believe the Stoics have the most useful definition of good and bad as far as morality goes. I am not a vegan.
"All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed and third it is accepted as being self-evident." Great video! Epistemology is a deep subject and you did a great job explaining it.
Thank you so much for new ideas and for the effort to make this vids, but it would be more academic and objective if you added the sources and other links for further readings...
'The cat is on the mat' is indeed a proposition that needs not being clearer or ostensible as to it conveying a truth, so that adding to it the expression 'it is true' is just redundant. And it is true because it corresponds to or, better still, it refers to the idea acquired through the senses, of there being a cat on the mat. So, the written or spoken proposition - which is also an idea - is true as it expresses the idea it refers to. Truth can only be a relation, and one between ideas or propositions (which are basically the same thing), while 'being real' is a label - and an idea as well - loosely attached or added to other ideas to indicate, for instance, that their source wasn't a dream, a hallucination or still a remembrance. By the way, we only have ideas or propositions at our grasp, like, for instance, of perceiving no matter what, of doing things like driving, eating, building, playing, etc. And though to most of them we attach the 'this-is-real' label, there's no way for us to know for sure that we are actually having those experiences. It seems that there's no other thing we can be sure we are doing than to think, and that there's no better or saner thing to do in such a circumstance than trying to be coherent.
What about phenomenology and hermeneutics? Breaking with the Subject-Object relation seems to be a tendency on more contemporaneous philosophy, from what I can tell, moving toward an Subject-Subject relation.
@@Convexhull210 ... what does it mean that truth is object oriented? and if epistemic truth is both subjective and objective, what are you getting out of saying truth is objective?
@@stevenhoyt I don't think truth is subjective because by it's nature, it excludes. If something is true then it can't be false, and if something is false it can't be true. We can't violate the laws of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle and the law of identity.
@@Convexhull210 ... first, we can violate logical laws. logical laws have nothing to do with truth, as in "the way things really are". you're presuming a substantive view of truth. we don't need such presumptions. we only need justification, grounds, for asserting, believing, uttering, and so on. that is, we can't know anything beyond what justification implies. if so, then since we cannot escape our perceptions, our use of the term 'true' is subjective. if so, then if there is intersubjective agreement on truth conditions, then 'true' is objective. it is so ... so ... we've never actually had any inkling of what some supposed nature of truth is or is even supposed to be.
@@stevenhoyt no we can't violate the laws of logic. The laws of logic are absolute. Your comments use the laws of logic to argue against the laws of logic. So you are now arguing in a circle You say we can't know anything beyond justification. How do you know that? That's a knowledge claim that requires justification. If true, then we can know that. So you have just proven that we can know. Justification only makes sense of you assume truth behind it. Post modernism is easily the most self-defeating philosphy because it denies what it affirms.
The challenge proposed at the video's end (To find "the simplest theory of truth that accounts for all the cases has the best chance of being true") is essentially Occam's razor, no?
Truth is valueable because if something is true then you can rely on it and do actions that will pay off. Very simple strategy. Therefore the correspondence theory is the best theory of truth, because if you have truth there, you are on the safe side while in all the other theories you can have truth but still get disappointed, i.e. you can't rely on it.
Someone let the philosophers have way too much coffee again, haha. JK I know this is a whole area of study that stretches back to the Greeks. Nice short introduction to the topic. You've got my like :-)
Objective reality but what about perspective reality? What if what i see is different from what you see? Its actually not simple if you dig in. We only know reality from our own perception.
@@andyd568 Good points. However, I'm not saying subjective experience doesn't exist. It does, in the form of abstractions like humour and speech. However, interpretive phenomena like humour or speech cannot be said to be 'true'. It is a subjective experience that is not shared as a material commonality. Therefore truth doesn't apply to humour and speech. They are immaterial and open to interpretation. As previously stated, truth is applicable only to what aligns with shared objective reality. A cat cannot be said to be a dog but a phrase can be said to mean two things. This is the difference.
So you favor coherentism then? I say that because both the examples you give at the end (and the person portrayed) fit that theory with the greatest ease.
Deflationism isnt the "removal of truth". It simply the recognition that the truth = what is. Therefore if you are making a claim about what is, it is redundant and unnessecary to repeat yourself.
I believe the most coherent and pragmatic and realistic philosophy of Truth can be found by studying the philosophy of the Catholic Church. We are created so we are valuable. Our Creator defines The Truth. When we follow His Truth we follow the plan for our lives and this leads to a life of meaning.
My definition of TRUTH is...a belief that survives all challenges to it. It is not limited to individuals. It accounts for many truths being subjective. It can also account for absolute truths(if there are any). It account for the passage of time and evidence changing. If a truth does not survive a challenge, it is no longer considered to be a truth. Within any statement of a truth, it will either survive in whole or part of it may survive or all of it could perish.
With scientific background and after experiences with people having "alternative opinions" about COVID topics: I would say that most of the partial "truth" are WORSE then any other kind of machinations distorting our VIEW OF REALITY. First you need to make your discussion partner UNSURE about their "truth" and this can be very tricky if they had deeply ENGRAVEd into their minds some purposefully dis-interpreted outline of the PHENOMENON. Many times these people are otherwise capable thinkers willing to defend their views at almost any price. You can have a great technical (intellectual also pragmatic) understanding of the topic, but when it comes to explaining to laypersons who were "indoctrinated" with MISCONCEPTIONs based almost solely on true elements of the whole picture, the it will not be enough to simply show them the MISSING piece(s): they can acknowledge that there's much MORE to it then they know, and still be convinced that they own a working, true description of reality and you just showed them some interesting EXTENSION(s) to the basics. So you'll have to show them WHY their idea(s) is/are wrong if they lack those elements. Mostly, they will not have the PATIENCE to learn the topic from scratch: especially because very likely the whole picture (even after great simplification) is more COMPLICATEd than they are willing to accept. So you'll have to build upon deformed basics, correcting the most substantial portions on the go.... Dunning-Kruger effect can have a huge toll on those wishing to know more about the world around them but lacking some essential "prerequisites": for example enough time to lear all the necessary details of all the involved concepts. Their opponent has to find a "shortcut" (some good analogy) as impressive and convincing as the misleading explanation. Requires as much creativity as some of the best ART out there. More often than not, the misled people write comments on social media to spread some true or new "Truth": by the act of prophetising and gaining followers (or likes at least) they become even more SURE. Some of them (fortunately, only the minority) are hard to effectively challenge, because they are very skilled at using logic and analogies to SMEAR those line of thoughts where their concepts are most biased. This kind of "RATIONALISING" is one of the lead causes why they are easily manipulated to believe new thoughts aligning with their stance. Most of the intellectual effort (even unconsciously) is aimed at integrating the new pieces of puzzle. They are also led astray by intellectually apt persons into a whole MESS of misinterpretations and so the biggest problem is: whenever they start to see one of the FAULTs, their intuition warns them to halt, as some part of their mind is still aware that half of their knowledge is COMPOSED from purposefully distorted pieces of facts and so most of the conclusions derived from them have MAJOR FLAWS. They trust their sources, mostly because they have great paranoia against establishments "serving" the governments or some "big" companies...etc.etc. They have to find consoling answers, why they aren't able to align with the "mainstream". All the cognition based mostly on TRUST is close to BELIEF-systems which are just one step away from FAITH. Most of us can't prove that 1+1=2, many people even think that this equation has to be accepted as an axiom. How many of us - relying on scientific thinking - have studied the axioms of math, anyway? So, I'm arguing that the majority of us has "only" trust in the foundations of truthful REASONING. Even if our position is based on countless experiences of descriptive and/or predictive research, verified with scientific rigour, eventually we have to trust previous science if we don't want to spend our life with "reinventing" and "redescovering"... However, laypersons will naturally perceive even hundred year OLD theories as something very new. The "conspirators" tend to PROJECT their FEELINGS then treat the projections with such trust as if they were somehow magically connected with factual truths, which is the second very distinctive feature - closely related to the first one, rationalising - of the "victims" of des-informations. Whenever the RELIGIOUS parts of the brain/mind - in order to support the individual's worldview MISALIGNED with established truths - make so strong connections with regions of logic and factual reasoning, there is sadly a fat chance that (s)he is already sucked into some VORTEX of conspiracy "theories". The longer such CONNECTIONs last, the more organically they grow into all the healthy areas of thinking, especially because memories are so tightly linked to emotions. The "mythology" is like an ever growing cancer with lots of metastasis, so it can't be simply REMOVED or somehow repaired..... You must have a very great INTUITIVE understanding (a wisdom-like knowledge of all the fundamentals involved in the actual topic), such that you can easily find analogies from other areas, possibly such examples, which are not too specific but also not much abstract). And in the end you still end up with eliminating some symptoms of one of the metastatic growth or if very successful: the clump even shrinks, but the cancer continues in its way.
I don't really see the usefulness of anything but coherentism. Sure, we have a unique perspective and we make errors based on that. But with the assumption that at least something of reality shines through and we might cascade phenomenons of reality (e.g., light that is not visible to our eye but to electronics can be converted to visible light) it will work. Because otherwise, if nothing of our perspective reflects reality, how could we know anything at all about reality?
A classic question. Maybe one's perspective could *include* direct awareness of some aspects of reality (like logic) that also transcends one's perspective...
+googsey101 I'm still waiting for an actual definition that I can actually understand. If one sees evidence for logic in reality then I don't see how it transcends one's perspective. Is it not an extension of one's perspective? A perspective that has been shaped by reality through evolution in a process that has been running for billions of years.
The way I would put it is that logic might appear to be a concept that is not limited or changed by who is employing it. So in that sense it could be understood as a concept that is not dependent on the perspective from which it is observed. YOU only see it from your perspective, but it SEEMS to be unchanged if it were hypothetically observed from other perspectives. As such it might seem to be useful in some way for communicating with others.
“The SIMPLEST theory of truth that accounts for all the cases has the best CHANCE of being TRUE” BUT WHY? From where do you get this: Simplicity=More likelihood of being true from, there is like an undeclared unanimous agreement on this view being the correct view for attaining truth among a large number of Philosophers but I never see them Rationally justifying this process or process or way of attaining truth or a Theory for Truth?
That was very interesting video, thanks! I recently watched a Vox video discussing Trump's politics and comparing it to Putin's way of ruling. And the main idea, which is pretty frightening, is that truth is an opinion. And once we look at the truth from this point of view, well, pretty much everything and nothing is true. Which can do "wonders" for democracy...
That's strange, because vox is very famous for bending the truth to fit their very obviously left wing political narrative. If they can do it, why can't Trump?🤔
Truth is what is. Simple as that. How we can distinguish between truth and falsehood is a separate question. Truth is by definition universal amd the same for everyone. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to lie to you
@@ralphricart3177 tell you what. I’ll believe you if you teleport to my living room right now. If our very existence is subjective surely you can just exist somewhere else whenever you want. I’ll wait.
Deflationism sounds a lot like naive truth theory to me, and we know from the liar's paradox, Curry's paradox, and all the variants thereof that naive truth theory is not true.
Is the nobility of suffering worth the logical fallacy of its truth? The truth often hurts because philosophers do not realize that truth, by definition, isn't true . . . The linguistic morpheme, "th" infers that an analysis is in progress. Truth infers an analysis of the probability that it is true (100% factual just as 1 + 1 = 2), an inference that a truth is never 100% true. Ergo to seek truth insures that one suffers to the exact degree that that truth was not true. Are we reaching synthesis as what is true from testing our truths OR are we killing what is true, one truth at a time?
Why would a college professor produce a video on the nature of truth without defining the key word, truth? This is an embarrassing blunder. Without a clear definition any discussion of these theories begs the question.
Only a grad student would overcomplicate things… truth is a statement’s adherence to the world. Only statements can be true/false; only objects exist… thanks for coming to my TedTalk
This is not true. The Scripture doesn’t record Jesús’ response but it also doesn’t say he didn’t have an answer. He answered this question with His life. His entire existence was to teach us The Truth. In short. That our lives have meaning, value and purpose because our existence was caused by our Creator. And he loves us so much that he reveals the Truths about who we are and how we are to live. When we obey Him we are blessed to experience the deepest joys and sorrows so that we are truly alive. And along the way we will each make the world a better place. Much more to say on this. Study Catholic philosophy to learn more.
@@HonestlyTho-ThePodcastShow Wait a minute... it sounds like you might be subscribe to protestant ideas of that the Scripture is the final authority - which leads to everyone being able to interpret the Bible however they want - so what gives anyone the authority to say anything is a heresy? What is the standard you are using? The Catholic Church bases everything it teaches on Scripture. It is this protestant idea that has led the world to thinking that "anything goes" even in the Christian world which reinforces the same idea the post-modernists have been saying - there is no objective truth. The Catholic Philosophy starts with - what is the Truth of God? How do we know it? Preserve it? Defend it? The major principles of protestanism do not make logical sense and they all fight to divide the Body of Christ which is His Church.
@@PatrickSteil if u suppose something then it's best if you ask first...protestants are just tantrum Catholics majority of them atleast...I'm a bible believing apostle following jesus believer. I dont believe in the heresy of the trinity
Fun fact, MOST people, don't kknow how to seek truth, they live a lie thinking they know, it's sad. I have only meet 1 person that knows more about truth than anyone else Ive ever meet, atleast from my perspective.
That explanation of Coherentism is over-simplified and ignores a main point in the name. For a Coherentist, Truth is that which *coheres with reality* _and_ is self-referentially consistent.
Except the "reality" is a privileged set of items (e.g., axioms or experiences), typically taken to be mind-dependent. But yes, there is more complexity.
Be that as it may, you did omit that part of the meaning. As for the scare quotes, Rationalists distinguish between Reality and Actuality just as between Essence and Existence, even as Platonists distinguish between the Forms and the particulars in which they inhere. The trouble with dismissing this is the challenge typical of pure Empiricism: Scientism. In fact, both "Reason" and "Experience" work as justifications for belief in the JTB definition of Knowledge; they simply work in different contexts. Would anyone deny the efficacy of Mathematics? But it is pure ratiocination, not based on "Experience."
Giovanna Liviana: i guess you could argue that it is incoherent to deny or ignore your access to reality and therefore you could reduce it to having coherent beliefs..? same for pragmatists, you should not simply assume that self-deception is useful, otherwhise you'll peterson yourself. :P
Giovanna, where are you getting your definition from? I see nothing about cohering with reality at the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on coherentism (see Versions of Coherentism).
Well, I received my BA in Philosophy in the 1980s and have read considerably more in the field since then. The guy who did the presentation responded to me above and didn't take any exception to what I said. I can't recommend Stanford, though. Maybe check out Antony Flew's _Dictionary of Philosophy._
Axiom = Self-evident Truth. John 1:1 - (paraphrase) - "The Word of Truth (Logos) is ever faithful (loyal, true, isomorphic) to Reality/Life (That which is/That I am)." The map is not the territory; the menu is not the meal. All change for the better begins and ends (alpha and omega) at the still point of silence - simply being aware of being aware (Gnosis). Gnosis = Self-Knowing = Delphic Oracle = Know Thyself
"Truth" has come to mean something very different over time. Modern people tend to use "truth" in place of "fact". Before the scientific revolution, it meant something much deeper and more transcendent.
@@Chronically_ChiII No, facts are facts. The words serve difference purposes. A fact doesn't tell you how to live or act. Truth does. Most people make facts more complete by drawing conclusions from them-- these conclusions may or may not be truthful-- but the facts themselves don't help you.
@@Chronically_ChiII Principles are completely based on perceived truth. And yes, sometimes they are false. I never said that people's perception of truth is always 100% accurate. Do you you know what they aren't based on? Facts.
I love the pursuit of truth. In all areas. There are several different categories of truth. Scientific. Spiritual. Relational. Etc. One of the biggest problems is separating observations from interpretations of the observations. We may both agree on what is in front of us but not the underlying causes or process. Another difficulty is inherent bias. We want something to be true therefore we discount any useful evidence that contradicts our desire for that truth. The best we can do is to acknowledge our bias in each area and try to set it aside during our research.
And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." Indeed, We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose walls will surround them. And if they call for relief, they will be relieved with water like murky oil, which scalds [their] faces. Qur'an
There exists a Truth that is as simple as it is complex. Infact, Its simplicity is its ultimate sophistication. His Name is Jesus Christ [Yeshua HaMashiach] {John 14:6}
TRUTH OR FACTS? The only way to understand TRUTH is to have the spirit of truth! Facts are not the truth! Because your facts may not be mine, it's all about the TWO spirits, one of TRUTH and one OF ERROR or EVIL!
Imo it's ridiculous how there are different theories of truth. like it's not so darn difficult to understand the distinction between correct or incorrect. Philosophy Thanks for making us look stupid
You existing in a dualist sense as Descartes described is not a clear truth.”I think therefore, I am” is just a story/fiction you are tell yourself about thinking.
I find it comical, these supposed intellectuals who are supposed to be in the know and able to answer the important questions agonize over such sophomoric propositions and theories. Consider……. The epistemological process is that of building fundamental truths into an architecture which extends upward and outward like a tree. It is not that complex a notion and not all that difficult to understand. We “can” know certain truths from which we can construct and understand new and existing truths, respectively. This is accomplished through our perceptual apparatus which is NOT subjective as most of the purported, historical and modern philosophical geniuses allude to or propose, but rather “quantitatively objective” and only “qualitatively subjective”. For example, when we see a square, we know unequivocally that it is not a circle. Conversely and independently, we know the circle is not the square (also quantitative). It is not possible that we might mistake the one for the other, “ever”. That is knowledge. The two are truths. There is nothing subjective about them. Similarly, we cannot mistake the mouse for the tree (again, quantitative), though one might find the tree beautiful or interesting and another, not (qualitative). Of course there are those who might suggest that were the tree artificial, our understanding would be in error. But this is not the case. That which we perceived as a tree was still in fact a tree (a truth that requires only some qualification, i.e., that it is artificial). That someone had made it so realistic as to fool those in witness does not indict my point. Our perceptual process has a capacity which if exceeded would cause it to err under certain conditions. But this would be no different than were we to reject the technology of photography, one that is proven, only because it cannot take photos of atoms or without a certain lens, objects miles away. Or, what if the lenses or shutter (old style) were broken? What then of the more complex phenomena such as motion? We know by the very nature of the process of perception that we cannot have motion without the object moving. This would be an absolute truth with regard to materiality. In the mere process of observation of such action of an object we would know that the motion is not a physical aspect of that object yet effects it in the total of its physicality. Here we have a material construct paired with an intangible phenomenon in a manner which defines its truths to our perceptual process in a manner which requires no study. It is wholly self-evident and unequivocal. Mankind has produced enough in its history to know that the various systems of our perceptual apparatus such as that of our vision, are capable of delivering to us a very accurate understanding of the reality in which we move. We can see an iron rod 1 inch in diameter and 2 feet long and by our other senses, validate that which our eyes have seen without “any” error. Each such example is joined with all others in our experience demonstrating that under most circumstances (and we know them in their kind) in the application of the perceptual process, we cannot be deceived. The old high school argument that we are somehow limited by the fact that we can only see/perceive an existent from one side and not at once, the side opposite has no place in the discussion for its deception. For most objects we perceive, we can and do extrapolate the necessary configuration of the side opposite our view. Symmetry as an example is that which readily supplies us with the information which would otherwise be missing, such as with a trailer being pulled by a truck. From all the other objective knowledge we possess at the time of viewing the two vehicles together, we know that the side hidden from view must be configured as that which we can see or the trailer could not fulfill its function, that the motive behind its initial manufacture and purpose for its existence. Even with asymmetrical objects we can often determine the side we cannot see by means of the features we can, some structured in a manner requiring that those hidden must be of this or that configuration. That we see a car in front of a tree and see the tree extending above it leaves no doubts as to that it is a tree and as to what that part hidden looks like. Another important aspect to perception as it relates to truth is knowing what something is not as much as what it is. Were one to go out of his house at night and see an irregular shaped shadow at the corner of his yard, he might not, through the perceptual process know what it is but he would know that it is not, for example, a car having crashed into his fence, or a man staking out his house, or a bear, or a truck, etc. So, notwithstanding the declarations of the traditional, supposed experts, we can and do know without question, many truths which are those upon which we build to expand our knowledge. And we don’t need science to know all of them and this process as it actually operates does not preclude truths of religion. Finally, there are truths of materiality but also those of abstraction which are equally unequivocal and by which we construct that architecture of truths. For example, one cannot appeal to truths to define a position which denies the existence of truth. This would be like saying, “I think I am not thinking” and expecting that it could ever be true. It is the process of formulating a denial by the denial of the very means of that formulation. We don’t need to science to know such truths which aid us not only in dealing with the truths of materiality but social truths as well, which are a product of the other two. I am ever more disappointed in the state of science when I watch these videos. These folks are not nearly as smart as they fancy themselves.
this is what gives philosophy a bad name. beit McLuhan or Marx, the way we talk to people about things matters and if it is immediately alienating, any 'truth' you might possess or know, is lost on most people.
this is genuinely so dumb. i have to watch this for our religious education. anyways can any of yall philosophy nerds give me a single sentence for all of the 5 theoris of truths discussed in the video. need it tom or asap. thx. will compensate with foot pics
Lmfao there is no clear truth. I exist cannot be proven. I think therefore I am? Is circular logic. All you can know is that something is thinking not necessarily you are
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Introduction to Critical Thinking [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cum3k-Wglfw/mqdefault.jpg)
I wish these videos were more in depth! There are some really interesting ideas in here but I feel like we've barely scratch the surface. Even having links to further reading under the video description would be much appreciated!
I really think certain part of philosophy is way more effective to solve psychological problem than psychology itself, especially those who are confused about life, society, relationship, self worth etc. Because it teaches you to ask the *right* question, which is overly underappreciated in today's society.
Maybe thats why Clinical Philosophy exist.
The more I learn about truth the more I don't understand it
T: I'm head is spinning
Ain’t that the truth
@@ethanryan6805 😂
The more ways you have to falsify your ideas the more close you are to true knowledge.
After a while you'll have to learn how to appreciate the sight of the vast Unknown...
True
I don't speak English but I'm watching this video because i don't found this kind of video in Spanish, thank you, also when I watch this, I can improve my English
U gotta watch more english movies with subtitles, i learn a lot with this way
It's also important to note that there are as many versions as these theories of Truth as there are philosophers. The main guidelines may 'cohere' but there is a lot of fuzziness around the edges, like most things.
For whatever it is worth I like pragmatism for most things. so when I say most things I think different theories of Truth work in different areas like maths, logic, love, personal relationships, passion Etc.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas whatever makes you happy.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas that actually would be a good job for me one of the weird things of my past is that I used to read the dictionary every single night for about 5 years. But I don't think Webster's could pay me enough. I sold out and am now a robot reading code 10 hours a day. But my last comment was neopragmatism in a nutshell. That was Richard rorty's response and I think it really does make sense in a lot of ways but of course not every way.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas it depends how we define good and bad. I believe the Stoics have the most useful definition of good and bad as far as morality goes. I am not a vegan.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas lol I just realized my last comment totally agrees with your last comment. Fist bumps*
"All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed and third it is accepted as being self-evident."
Great video! Epistemology is a deep subject and you did a great job explaining it.
I spent 15 years in the Arabian peninsula. I can tell you that only a Prophet could have led these people as they still are Umiy.
Thank you so much for new ideas and for the effort to make this vids, but it would be more academic and objective if you added the sources and other links for further readings...
Holy freak I just started the video but I'm so hyped Josh Rasmussen is on here I did not expect that!
'The cat is on the mat' is indeed a proposition that needs not being clearer or ostensible as to it conveying a truth, so that adding to it the expression 'it is true' is just redundant. And it is true because it corresponds to or, better still, it refers to the idea acquired through the senses, of there being a cat on the mat. So, the written or spoken proposition - which is also an idea - is true as it expresses the idea it refers to. Truth can only be a relation, and one between ideas or propositions (which are basically the same thing), while 'being real' is a label - and an idea as well - loosely attached or added to other ideas to indicate, for instance, that their source wasn't a dream, a hallucination or still a remembrance. By the way, we only have ideas or propositions at our grasp, like, for instance, of perceiving no matter what, of doing things like driving, eating, building, playing, etc. And though to most of them we attach the 'this-is-real' label, there's no way for us to know for sure that we are actually having those experiences. It seems that there's no other thing we can be sure we are doing than to think, and that there's no better or saner thing to do in such a circumstance than trying to be coherent.
Yes, that's why being a child is so much fun! No attachments, no perspectives, just complete empty, open objectivity.
What about phenomenology and hermeneutics? Breaking with the Subject-Object relation seems to be a tendency on more contemporaneous philosophy, from what I can tell, moving toward an Subject-Subject relation.
But truth is objective and is object oriented
@@Convexhull210 ... what does it mean that truth is object oriented? and if epistemic truth is both subjective and objective, what are you getting out of saying truth is objective?
@@stevenhoyt I don't think truth is subjective because by it's nature, it excludes.
If something is true then it can't be false, and if something is false it can't be true.
We can't violate the laws of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle and the law of identity.
@@Convexhull210 ... first, we can violate logical laws. logical laws have nothing to do with truth, as in "the way things really are".
you're presuming a substantive view of truth.
we don't need such presumptions.
we only need justification, grounds, for asserting, believing, uttering, and so on.
that is, we can't know anything beyond what justification implies.
if so, then since we cannot escape our perceptions, our use of the term 'true' is subjective.
if so, then if there is intersubjective agreement on truth conditions, then 'true' is objective.
it is so ... so ...
we've never actually had any inkling of what some supposed nature of truth is or is even supposed to be.
@@stevenhoyt no we can't violate the laws of logic. The laws of logic are absolute.
Your comments use the laws of logic to argue against the laws of logic. So you are now arguing in a circle
You say we can't know anything beyond justification. How do you know that? That's a knowledge claim that requires justification. If true, then we can know that. So you have just proven that we can know.
Justification only makes sense of you assume truth behind it.
Post modernism is easily the most self-defeating philosphy because it denies what it affirms.
The challenge proposed at the video's end (To find "the simplest theory of truth that accounts for all the cases has the best chance of being true") is essentially Occam's razor, no?
Truth is valueable because if something is true then you can rely on it and do actions that will pay off. Very simple strategy. Therefore the correspondence theory is the best theory of truth, because if you have truth there, you are on the safe side while in all the other theories you can have truth but still get disappointed, i.e. you can't rely on it.
Your intro gave me goosebumps.
Why?
How about Popper fallibilism?
4:23 For nihilism's "There is no truth", it's a self-contradicting statement, so what's the point to even come up with this theory?
how did you do it can you share with me , thank you
I can't believe it can be this good
Someone let the philosophers have way too much coffee again, haha. JK I know this is a whole area of study that stretches back to the Greeks. Nice short introduction to the topic. You've got my like :-)
Truth is one of the few things immune to decay
It is permanent
It can wait until next time and not break down
I believe that something that is
1) temporary
2) relative
3) subjective
Cant be true..... Hence nothing other that me is true😂😇
Truth is simply information that aligns with objective reality. It's not that complicated.
Objective reality but what about perspective reality? What if what i see is different from what you see? Its actually not simple if you dig in. We only know reality from our own perception.
@@whoisharo4689Yes, objective reality is perceived subjectively, but there still exists an objective reality.
Truth is what aligns with that.
@@Doubledex123 only very simple phenomena is "objective". Think about trying to define time, gravity, humor, good etc.
@@Doubledex123 alternatively try to define "hate speech" or intent.
@@andyd568 Good points. However, I'm not saying subjective experience doesn't exist. It does, in the form of abstractions like humour and speech.
However, interpretive phenomena like humour or speech cannot be said to be 'true'. It is a subjective experience that is not shared as a material commonality.
Therefore truth doesn't apply to humour and speech. They are immaterial and open to interpretation. As previously stated, truth is applicable only to what aligns with shared objective reality.
A cat cannot be said to be a dog but a phrase can be said to mean two things. This is the difference.
Great. More people ought to practice the truth sometimes.
So you favor coherentism then? I say that because both the examples you give at the end (and the person portrayed) fit that theory with the greatest ease.
He wrote a book defending the correspondence theory.
Your explanation at the end is circular. But over all not a bad video.
Please do more videos! Love these
Goddag Hr. Rasmussen, går det godt?
Deflationism isnt the "removal of truth". It simply the recognition that the truth = what is. Therefore if you are making a claim about what is, it is redundant and unnessecary to repeat yourself.
Where is Tarsk's definition of truth?
I believe the most coherent and pragmatic and realistic philosophy of Truth can be found by studying the philosophy of the Catholic Church.
We are created so we are valuable.
Our Creator defines The Truth.
When we follow His Truth we follow the plan for our lives and this leads to a life of meaning.
Wow
But there is nothing in reality that i have seen from my perpe tive to give ne any reasln for the catholic church been true.
@@maria6451 But how deeply have you studied it?
My definition of TRUTH is...a belief that survives all challenges to it. It is not limited to individuals. It accounts for many truths being subjective. It can also account for absolute truths(if there are any). It account for the passage of time and evidence changing. If a truth does not survive a challenge, it is no longer considered to be a truth. Within any statement of a truth, it will either survive in whole or part of it may survive or all of it could perish.
With scientific background and after experiences with people having "alternative opinions" about COVID topics: I would say that most of the partial "truth" are WORSE then any other kind of machinations distorting our VIEW OF REALITY.
First you need to make your discussion partner UNSURE about their "truth" and this can be very tricky if they had deeply ENGRAVEd into their minds some purposefully dis-interpreted outline of the PHENOMENON. Many times these people are otherwise capable thinkers willing to defend their views at almost any price.
You can have a great technical (intellectual also pragmatic) understanding of the topic, but when it comes to explaining to laypersons who were "indoctrinated" with MISCONCEPTIONs based almost solely on true elements of the whole picture, the it will not be enough to simply show them the MISSING piece(s): they can acknowledge that there's much MORE to it then they know, and still be convinced that they own a working, true description of reality and you just showed them some interesting EXTENSION(s) to the basics. So you'll have to show them WHY their idea(s) is/are wrong if they lack those elements.
Mostly, they will not have the PATIENCE to learn the topic from scratch: especially because very likely the whole picture (even after great simplification) is more COMPLICATEd than they are willing to accept. So you'll have to build upon deformed basics, correcting the most substantial portions on the go....
Dunning-Kruger effect can have a huge toll on those wishing to know more about the world around them but lacking some essential "prerequisites": for example enough time to lear all the necessary details of all the involved concepts.
Their opponent has to find a "shortcut" (some good analogy) as impressive and convincing as the misleading explanation. Requires as much creativity as some of the best ART out there.
More often than not, the misled people write comments on social media to spread some true or new "Truth": by the act of prophetising and gaining followers (or likes at least) they become even more SURE. Some of them (fortunately, only the minority) are hard to effectively challenge, because they are very skilled at using logic and analogies to SMEAR those line of thoughts where their concepts are most biased. This kind of "RATIONALISING" is one of the lead causes why they are easily manipulated to believe new thoughts aligning with their stance. Most of the intellectual effort (even unconsciously) is aimed at integrating the new pieces of puzzle.
They are also led astray by intellectually apt persons into a whole MESS of misinterpretations and so the biggest problem is: whenever they start to see one of the FAULTs, their intuition warns them to halt, as some part of their mind is still aware that half of their knowledge is COMPOSED from purposefully distorted pieces of facts and so most of the conclusions derived from them have MAJOR FLAWS.
They trust their sources, mostly because they have great paranoia against establishments "serving" the governments or some "big" companies...etc.etc. They have to find consoling answers, why they aren't able to align with the "mainstream".
All the cognition based mostly on TRUST is close to BELIEF-systems which are just one step away from FAITH. Most of us can't prove that 1+1=2, many people even think that this equation has to be accepted as an axiom. How many of us - relying on scientific thinking - have studied the axioms of math, anyway? So, I'm arguing that the majority of us has "only" trust in the foundations of truthful REASONING. Even if our position is based on countless experiences of descriptive and/or predictive research, verified with scientific rigour, eventually we have to trust previous science if we don't want to spend our life with "reinventing" and "redescovering"...
However, laypersons will naturally perceive even hundred year OLD theories as something very new. The "conspirators" tend to PROJECT their FEELINGS then treat the projections with such trust as if they were somehow magically connected with factual truths, which is the second very distinctive feature - closely related to the first one, rationalising - of the "victims" of des-informations.
Whenever the RELIGIOUS parts of the brain/mind - in order to support the individual's worldview MISALIGNED with established truths - make so strong connections with regions of logic and factual reasoning, there is sadly a fat chance that (s)he is already sucked into some VORTEX of conspiracy "theories". The longer such CONNECTIONs last, the more organically they grow into all the healthy areas of thinking, especially because memories are so tightly linked to emotions.
The "mythology" is like an ever growing cancer with lots of metastasis, so it can't be simply REMOVED or somehow repaired.....
You must have a very great INTUITIVE understanding (a wisdom-like knowledge of all the fundamentals involved in the actual topic), such that you can easily find analogies from other areas, possibly such examples, which are not too specific but also not much abstract). And in the end you still end up with eliminating some symptoms of one of the metastatic growth or if very successful: the clump even shrinks, but the cancer continues in its way.
Can you give some sources for this information please?
Good video about the Nature of Truth.
I like how this video only has below 600 likes...
I don't really see the usefulness of anything but coherentism. Sure, we have a unique perspective and we make errors based on that. But with the assumption that at least something of reality shines through and we might cascade phenomenons of reality (e.g., light that is not visible to our eye but to electronics can be converted to visible light) it will work. Because otherwise, if nothing of our perspective reflects reality, how could we know anything at all about reality?
A classic question. Maybe one's perspective could *include* direct awareness of some aspects of reality (like logic) that also transcends one's perspective...
+Josh Rasmussen Can you explain what you mean by that? How does logic transcend one's perspective?
Logic transcends one's perspective if one believes it does. If one sees convincing evidence to support this belief.
+googsey101 I'm still waiting for an actual definition that I can actually understand.
If one sees evidence for logic in reality then I don't see how it transcends one's perspective. Is it not an extension of one's perspective? A perspective that has been shaped by reality through evolution in a process that has been running for billions of years.
The way I would put it is that logic might appear to be a concept that is not limited or changed by who is employing it. So in that sense it could be understood as a concept that is not dependent on the perspective from which it is observed. YOU only see it from your perspective, but it SEEMS to be unchanged if it were hypothetically observed from other perspectives. As such it might seem to be useful in some way for communicating with others.
“The SIMPLEST theory of truth that accounts for all the cases has the best CHANCE of being TRUE”
BUT WHY?
From where do you get this:
Simplicity=More likelihood of being true
from, there is like an undeclared unanimous agreement on this view being the correct view for attaining truth among a large number of Philosophers but I never see them Rationally justifying this process or process or way of attaining truth or a Theory for Truth?
I'm ignorant as fuck and I get dumber by the day, so epistemology n' other nerd shit aint my problem! Hell yeah!
what you are seeing is indeed the truth
Errrrrm
Truth is the act of sorting through the contradiction!
Well... It certainly isn't passive process!
Yes! A biological process, as well as an evolutionary one!
It's an antagonistic process between organisms! Falsity is part of that process!
Even if you have truth you can save the world
PoV: You're flirting with a guy who's interested in theories surrounding Truth, so you look up stuff so you can understand what he means
That was very interesting video, thanks!
I recently watched a Vox video discussing Trump's politics and comparing it to Putin's way of ruling. And the main idea, which is pretty frightening, is that truth is an opinion. And once we look at the truth from this point of view, well, pretty much everything and nothing is true. Which can do "wonders" for democracy...
That's strange, because vox is very famous for bending the truth to fit their very obviously left wing political narrative. If they can do it, why can't Trump?🤔
But is that true?
Truth is what is. Simple as that. How we can distinguish between truth and falsehood is a separate question. Truth is by definition universal amd the same for everyone. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to lie to you
That we exsist is subjective.
What is your stance on global warming?
@@Doc-Holliday1851 It's probably another psyop.
@@ralphricart3177 did you get the covid vaccine?
@@Doc-Holliday1851 No way. And guess what? Nothing happened.
@@ralphricart3177 tell you what. I’ll believe you if you teleport to my living room right now. If our very existence is subjective surely you can just exist somewhere else whenever you want. I’ll wait.
Isn’t coherent theory the same as correspondence theory ?
Deflationism sounds a lot like naive truth theory to me, and we know from the liar's paradox, Curry's paradox, and all the variants thereof that naive truth theory is not true.
I would recommend reading buddhism.
Truth is a correspondence of meaning, not necessarily of reality.
I will always be a humble student.
Trying replacing Cat with god lol, hence this is the every lasting discussion.
You can use logic, science and intuition to conclude the existence and qualities of God
Is the nobility of suffering worth the logical
fallacy of its truth?
The truth often hurts because philosophers do not realize
that truth, by definition, isn't true . . .
The linguistic morpheme, "th" infers that
an analysis is in progress.
Truth infers an analysis of the probability that
it is true (100% factual just as 1 + 1 = 2),
an inference that a truth is never 100% true.
Ergo to seek truth insures that one suffers to the
exact degree that that truth was not true.
Are we reaching synthesis as what is true
from testing our truths OR are we killing
what is true, one truth at a time?
Why would a college professor produce a video on the nature of truth without defining the key word, truth? This is an embarrassing blunder. Without a clear definition any discussion of these theories begs the question.
Only a grad student would overcomplicate things… truth is a statement’s adherence to the world. Only statements can be true/false; only objects exist… thanks for coming to my TedTalk
I see so many problems with almost all the claims you made. I have a lot of questions!
Pilate asked Jesus "what is truth?" and got no response.
This is not true. The Scripture doesn’t record Jesús’ response but it also doesn’t say he didn’t have an answer.
He answered this question with His life. His entire existence was to teach us The Truth.
In short. That our lives have meaning, value and purpose because our existence was caused by our Creator. And he loves us so much that he reveals the Truths about who we are and how we are to live. When we obey Him we are blessed to experience the deepest joys and sorrows so that we are truly alive. And along the way we will each make the world a better place. Much more to say on this. Study Catholic philosophy to learn more.
@@PatrickSteil you really want me to study heresy?
@@HonestlyTho-ThePodcastShow Wait a minute... it sounds like you might be subscribe to protestant ideas of that the Scripture is the final authority - which leads to everyone being able to interpret the Bible however they want - so what gives anyone the authority to say anything is a heresy? What is the standard you are using? The Catholic Church bases everything it teaches on Scripture.
It is this protestant idea that has led the world to thinking that "anything goes" even in the Christian world which reinforces the same idea the post-modernists have been saying - there is no objective truth.
The Catholic Philosophy starts with - what is the Truth of God? How do we know it? Preserve it? Defend it?
The major principles of protestanism do not make logical sense and they all fight to divide the Body of Christ which is His Church.
@@PatrickSteil if u suppose something then it's best if you ask first...protestants are just tantrum Catholics majority of them atleast...I'm a bible believing apostle following jesus believer. I dont believe in the heresy of the trinity
@@HonestlyTho-ThePodcastShow That’s why I said you might… :)
So how do YOU decide what is proper Biblical interpretation and what is heresy?
What is a cat?
Nice video, tks :)
the truth is nature that's the only thing that true otherwise is just human hypothesis
Fun fact, MOST people, don't kknow how to seek truth, they live a lie thinking they know, it's sad. I have only meet 1 person that knows more about truth than anyone else Ive ever meet, atleast from my perspective.
That explanation of Coherentism is over-simplified and ignores a main point in the name. For a Coherentist, Truth is that which *coheres with reality* _and_ is self-referentially consistent.
Except the "reality" is a privileged set of items (e.g., axioms or experiences), typically taken to be mind-dependent. But yes, there is more complexity.
Be that as it may, you did omit that part of the meaning.
As for the scare quotes, Rationalists distinguish between Reality and Actuality just as between Essence and Existence, even as Platonists distinguish between the Forms and the particulars in which they inhere.
The trouble with dismissing this is the challenge typical of pure Empiricism: Scientism. In fact, both "Reason" and "Experience" work as justifications for belief in the JTB definition of Knowledge; they simply work in different contexts. Would anyone deny the efficacy of Mathematics? But it is pure ratiocination, not based on "Experience."
Giovanna Liviana: i guess you could argue that it is incoherent to deny or ignore your access to reality and therefore you could reduce it to having coherent beliefs..?
same for pragmatists, you should not simply assume that self-deception is useful, otherwhise you'll peterson yourself. :P
Giovanna, where are you getting your definition from? I see nothing about cohering with reality at the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on coherentism (see Versions of Coherentism).
Well, I received my BA in Philosophy in the 1980s and have read considerably more in the field since then. The guy who did the presentation responded to me above and didn't take any exception to what I said. I can't recommend Stanford, though. Maybe check out Antony Flew's _Dictionary of Philosophy._
Axiom = Self-evident Truth.
John 1:1 - (paraphrase) - "The Word of Truth (Logos) is ever faithful (loyal, true, isomorphic) to Reality/Life (That which is/That I am)."
The map is not the territory; the menu is not the meal.
All change for the better begins and ends (alpha and omega) at the still point of silence - simply being aware of being aware (Gnosis).
Gnosis = Self-Knowing = Delphic Oracle = Know Thyself
"Truth" has come to mean something very different over time. Modern people tend to use "truth" in place of "fact". Before the scientific revolution, it meant something much deeper and more transcendent.
Are facts true
@@Chronically_ChiII No, facts are facts. The words serve difference purposes. A fact doesn't tell you how to live or act. Truth does. Most people make facts more complete by drawing conclusions from them-- these conclusions may or may not be truthful-- but the facts themselves don't help you.
@@dillan3253 Truth does not tell one how to live and act, principles do that, and they can be false
@@Chronically_ChiII Principles are completely based on perceived truth. And yes, sometimes they are false. I never said that people's perception of truth is always 100% accurate. Do you you know what they aren't based on? Facts.
@@dillan3253 How aren't perceived truth just perceived facts?
who's here from ToK?
1:16 Then almost all mathematics is false.
I love the pursuit of truth. In all areas.
There are several different categories of truth. Scientific. Spiritual. Relational. Etc.
One of the biggest problems is separating observations from interpretations of the observations.
We may both agree on what is in front of us but not the underlying causes or process.
Another difficulty is inherent bias. We want something to be true therefore we discount any useful evidence that contradicts our desire for that truth. The best we can do is to acknowledge our bias in each area and try to set it aside during our research.
I think correspondence theory is true
devoid of thought or emptiness in buddhism is the answer
And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." Indeed, We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose walls will surround them. And if they call for relief, they will be relieved with water like murky oil, which scalds [their] faces. Qur'an
5:27 Π
*cant
There exists a Truth that is as simple as it is complex. Infact, Its simplicity is its ultimate sophistication. His Name is Jesus Christ [Yeshua HaMashiach] {John 14:6}
Why wont google recommend these kind of videos, instead of political crap I am constantly getting bombarded with?
You can do better than words.
Yeah...when someone dont like the truth...will try to create another reality for you.(no chance)
TRUTH OR FACTS? The only way to understand TRUTH is to have the spirit of truth! Facts are not the truth! Because your facts may not be mine, it's all about the TWO spirits, one of TRUTH and one OF ERROR or EVIL!
This is a classic fallacy when people confuse true statements with what is Truth.
Imo it's ridiculous how there are different theories of truth. like it's not so darn difficult to understand the distinction between correct or incorrect. Philosophy Thanks for making us look stupid
Too hard
Did not answer the question posed at all…
You existing in a dualist sense as Descartes described is not a clear truth.”I think therefore, I am” is just a story/fiction you are tell yourself about thinking.
I find it comical, these supposed intellectuals who are supposed to be in the know and able to answer the important questions agonize over such sophomoric propositions and theories. Consider…….
The epistemological process is that of building fundamental truths into an architecture which extends upward and outward like a tree. It is not that complex a notion and not all that difficult to understand. We “can” know certain truths from which we can construct and understand new and existing truths, respectively. This is accomplished through our perceptual apparatus which is NOT subjective as most of the purported, historical and modern philosophical geniuses allude to or propose, but rather “quantitatively objective” and only “qualitatively subjective”. For example, when we see a square, we know unequivocally that it is not a circle. Conversely and independently, we know the circle is not the square (also quantitative). It is not possible that we might mistake the one for the other, “ever”. That is knowledge. The two are truths. There is nothing subjective about them. Similarly, we cannot mistake the mouse for the tree (again, quantitative), though one might find the tree beautiful or interesting and another, not (qualitative). Of course there are those who might suggest that were the tree artificial, our understanding would be in error. But this is not the case. That which we perceived as a tree was still in fact a tree (a truth that requires only some qualification, i.e., that it is artificial). That someone had made it so realistic as to fool those in witness does not indict my point. Our perceptual process has a capacity which if exceeded would cause it to err under certain conditions. But this would be no different than were we to reject the technology of photography, one that is proven, only because it cannot take photos of atoms or without a certain lens, objects miles away. Or, what if the lenses or shutter (old style) were broken?
What then of the more complex phenomena such as motion? We know by the very nature of the process of perception that we cannot have motion without the object moving. This would be an absolute truth with regard to materiality. In the mere process of observation of such action of an object we would know that the motion is not a physical aspect of that object yet effects it in the total of its physicality. Here we have a material construct paired with an intangible phenomenon in a manner which defines its truths to our perceptual process in a manner which requires no study. It is wholly self-evident and unequivocal.
Mankind has produced enough in its history to know that the various systems of our perceptual apparatus such as that of our vision, are capable of delivering to us a very accurate understanding of the reality in which we move. We can see an iron rod 1 inch in diameter and 2 feet long and by our other senses, validate that which our eyes have seen without “any” error. Each such example is joined with all others in our experience demonstrating that under most circumstances (and we know them in their kind) in the application of the perceptual process, we cannot be deceived.
The old high school argument that we are somehow limited by the fact that we can only see/perceive an existent from one side and not at once, the side opposite has no place in the discussion for its deception. For most objects we perceive, we can and do extrapolate the necessary configuration of the side opposite our view. Symmetry as an example is that which readily supplies us with the information which would otherwise be missing, such as with a trailer being pulled by a truck. From all the other objective knowledge we possess at the time of viewing the two vehicles together, we know that the side hidden from view must be configured as that which we can see or the trailer could not fulfill its function, that the motive behind its initial manufacture and purpose for its existence. Even with asymmetrical objects we can often determine the side we cannot see by means of the features we can, some structured in a manner requiring that those hidden must be of this or that configuration. That we see a car in front of a tree and see the tree extending above it leaves no doubts as to that it is a tree and as to what that part hidden looks like.
Another important aspect to perception as it relates to truth is knowing what something is not as much as what it is. Were one to go out of his house at night and see an irregular shaped shadow at the corner of his yard, he might not, through the perceptual process know what it is but he would know that it is not, for example, a car having crashed into his fence, or a man staking out his house, or a bear, or a truck, etc. So, notwithstanding the declarations of the traditional, supposed experts, we can and do know without question, many truths which are those upon which we build to expand our knowledge. And we don’t need science to know all of them and this process as it actually operates does not preclude truths of religion.
Finally, there are truths of materiality but also those of abstraction which are equally unequivocal and by which we construct that architecture of truths. For example, one cannot appeal to truths to define a position which denies the existence of truth. This would be like saying, “I think I am not thinking” and expecting that it could ever be true. It is the process of formulating a denial by the denial of the very means of that formulation. We don’t need to science to know such truths which aid us not only in dealing with the truths of materiality but social truths as well, which are a product of the other two.
I am ever more disappointed in the state of science when I watch these videos. These folks are not nearly as smart as they fancy themselves.
this is what gives philosophy a bad name. beit McLuhan or Marx, the way we talk to people about things matters and if it is immediately alienating, any 'truth' you might possess or know, is lost on most people.
True.
this is genuinely so dumb. i have to watch this for our religious education. anyways can any of yall philosophy nerds give me a single sentence for all of the 5 theoris of truths discussed in the video. need it tom or asap. thx. will compensate with foot pics
Is this video true? Does it correspond to reality? If not then why talk about it. Truth coheres but so does a lie.
Lmfao there is no clear truth. I exist cannot be proven. I think therefore I am? Is circular logic. All you can know is that something is thinking not necessarily you are
Is the statement "there is no clear truth" a clear truth statement? 😁😁
@@waitingandwatching9328 The statement stands for itself.
"there is no clear truth" if there is no clear truth, then how do you that this is true???
You wrote this, You exist.
@@ExistenceUniversity Where is the location of the self?
Allah is the only truth
1st
Maria Alcantar 😖 Really? What a profound statement of stupidity and vacuousness. . . !
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat, that's the truth of the matter. 🙊 sorry I got you upset with this comment, not my intention.