is any thing false?

Author: keithprosser ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 16
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    I deliberately wrote 'any thing' not 'anything' because it's obvious statements expressing falsehoods exist - 2=2=5 for example.  But there is no actual case or instance of 2 plus 2 making 5 in the universe - ie 2+2=5 does not describe any actual 'thing'.

    The true exists, the false does not exist.  Discuss!

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,546
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    What?
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    I wish ordinary language was easer to use... unfortunately it was invented to deal with hunting zebras and gathering nuts not for doing ontological epistemology!

    It seems to me we have true/real/exists on one side and false/unreal/'un-exists' on the other.   We use those words but I don't tremember ever learning what they mean how they relate to each other.   I've never looked them up in a dictionary.   So what is the difference between something that is true and something that is false?   More to the point, perhaps we don't need seperate words for true, real and exists if we can define term in terms of each other, along the lines that 'the true=the real=the existing' and 'the false=the unreal=the non-existent'.

    It's just an idea to kick around - I'm a bit bored with the current threads!



  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    does anyone really know what time it is.....does anyone really care......(classic oldies)

    can a "thing" be false is what I understand  you are asking, which would be no.  what I'm thinking about is a thing that seems like what it is but in fact is a fake or something different.  it's not the things fault but rather our perception of what and how it should be.  That glass of water, because we assume it's water, we are told it's water is actually a glass of vodka.

    "it is what it is" seems most appropriate.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,546
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    I wish ordinary language was easer to use... unfortunately it was invented to deal with hunting zebras and gathering nuts not for doing ontological epistemology!
    People have been using ordinary language to constructively discuss ontology and epistemology for millennia.

    It seems to me we have true/real/exists on one side and false/unreal/'un-exists' on the other.
    Ok...

    We use those words but I don't tremember ever learning what they mean how they relate to each other. I've never looked them up in a dictionary.
    You want me to google it for you?

    So what is the difference between something that is true and something that is false?
    Depends on the context. What is your context?

    More to the point, perhaps we don't need seperate words for true, real and exists if we can define term in terms of each other, along the lines that 'the true=the real=the existing' and 'the false=the unreal=the non-existent'.
    I don't see the point in this.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    People have been using ordinary language to constructively discuss ontology and epistemology for millennia.
    But how successfully?  I seems to me that many threads on DA degenerate into trading dictionary definitions.



  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,546
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @keithprosser
    What is your measurement of success?
  • TwoMan
    TwoMan avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 309
    1
    1
    3
    TwoMan avatar
    TwoMan
    DPRoberts has it right.
    If a thing exists, nothing inherent in that thing is true or false. A statement about a thing can be true or false. Perceptions, thoughts, assumptions, etc. can be true or false.
    I would say truth is a human concept that defines or clarifies reality.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,658
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @TwoMan
    A purely linguistic or intellectual convention. Subjective.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,311
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @TwoMan
    DPRoberts has it right.
    If a thing exists, nothing inherent in that thing is true or false. A statement about a thing can be true or false. Perceptions, thoughts, assumptions, etc. can be true or false.
    I would say truth is a human concept that defines or clarifies reality.
    Well stated.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @TwoMan
    I would say truth is a human concept that defines or clarifies reality.
    I might say "Truth is a property of the real; falsehood(/untruth?) is a property of the unreal".  That applies independently of humans.  

  • TwoMan
    TwoMan avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 309
    1
    1
    3
    TwoMan avatar
    TwoMan
    --> @keithprosser
    I might say "Truth is a property of the real; falsehood(/untruth?) is a property of the unreal".  That applies independently of humans.  
    I would have to disagree that truth and/or falsehood is a "property". I think it is a human conceived "verification of properties" of reality.

    This is probably just a semantics disagreement.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @TwoMan
    I wouldn't be at all surprised! 
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    A false existence is a nonexistence.

    A nonexistence doesn't exist 

    Right?


    Now if you were to take a false existence as an existence that is not another existence, it would still be an existence. The "false thing" would be like, "Oh, I thought that was a dog, but it was actually a sheep. It is a false dog.". That is a different animal altogether.

    Perception tricks and illusion go together.

  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Mopac
    I'm thinking that 'real' and 'exists' (+their opposites)mean essentially the same thing and apply to objects while 'true/false' applies to propostions.

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @keithprosser
    Pretty much.

    How about "being"


    "the quality or state of having existence"


    Very related. Exist, real, being... you'll often find these words or variations in the definitions concerning these concepts.