What is Truth?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Your 1 and 2 are not definitions, so this example of yours shows nothing.

If we want an example to see the problem with taking definitions as true or false, then we could consider the following. Consider the definitions of 'prime' number and 'composite' number. I choose these here because any prime number is not a composite number, and vice versa. S ...[text shortened]... ey are better construed as generalized identities, subject to satisfaction of specific criteria.

You lost me at the first phrase.

My 'definitions' are every bit as definitions as twhitehead's were. According to him, their falsity doesn't enter into it.

Let's have some continuity here, eh?

(btw, the rest of your post was just gibberish to me. Sorry that I don't make a living with 'logic'. I just know what makes sense and what doesn't. And a false given doesn't.)

Originally posted by Suzianne
You lost me at the first phrase.

My 'definitions' are every bit as definitions as twhitehead's were. According to him, their falsity doesn't enter into it.

Let's have some continuity here, eh?

(btw, the rest of your post was just gibberish to me. Sorry that I don't make a living with 'logic'. I just know what makes sense and what doesn't. And a false given doesn't.)

How exactly is "All atheists are stupid" a definition? How is "[twhitehead is] an atheist" a definition? 🙄

Anyway, I agree with you in your rejection of twhitehead's claim that definitions are essentially true. But your argument was just bizarre and had nothing to do with supporting that rejection because your 1 and 2 are clearly not definitions. Your 1 is a proposition that takes the form of a universal quantification over the 'atheist' domain, and it is false because 'stupid' does not properly apply to every member in that domain; there are lots of counterexamples. And your 2 is a proposition that asserts that the term 'atheist' properly applies to twhitehead, which I believe is true. They are not definitions, just propositions that rely on already established definitions of 'atheist' and 'stupid' and whatnot.

Originally posted by LemonJello
How exactly is "All atheists are stupid" a definition? How is "[twhitehead is] an atheist" a definition? 🙄

Anyway, I agree with you in your rejection of twhitehead's claim that definitions are essentially true. But your argument was just bizarre and had nothing to do with supporting that rejection because your 1 and 2 are clearly not definitions. ...[text shortened]... propositions that rely on already established definitions of 'atheist' and 'stupid' and whatnot.

Here's one for you.

Do you think the regular posters in this forum could rightfully be considered for employment in the "Argument Clinic" (given their propensity for taking up contrary positions)?

Relax, I'm only trying to raise a smile.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby

The Offensive Nature of Truth

"When the concept of truth is maligned, it usually for one or more of the following reasons:

One common complaint against anyone claiming to have absolute truth in matters of faith and religion is that such a stance is “narrow-minded.” However, the critic fails to understand that, by nature, truth is narrow. Is a math teacher narrow-minded for holding to the belief that 2 + 2 only equals 4?

Another objection to truth is that it is arrogant to claim that someone is right and another person is wrong. However, returning to the above example with mathematics, is it arrogant for a math teacher to insist on only one right answer to an arithmetic problem? Or is it arrogant for a locksmith to state that only one key will open a locked door?

A third charge against those holding to absolute truth in matters of faith and religion is that such a position excludes people, rather than being inclusive. But such a complaint fails to understand that truth, by nature, excludes its opposite. All answers other than 4 are excluded from the reality of what 2 + 2 truly equals.

Yet another protest against truth is that it is offensive and divisive to claim one has the truth. Instead, the critic argues, all that matters is sincerity. The problem with this position is that truth is immune to sincerity, belief, and desire. It doesn’t matter how much one sincerely believes a wrong key will fit a door; the key still won’t go in and the lock won’t be opened. Truth is also unaffected by sincerity. [my bolding] Someone who picks up a bottle of poison and sincerely believes it is lemonade will still suffer the unfortunate effects of the poison. Finally, truth is impervious to desire. [my bolding] A person may strongly desire that their car has not run out of gas, but if the gauge says the tank is empty and the car will not run any farther, then no desire in the world will miraculously cause the car to keep going.

======

Question to Grampy Bobby: Can you demonstrate that your perception of what the truth is isn't influenced by your sincerity or your desire?