Re: The non-ontology of Truth (was Re: MD criticisms of DQ)

From: Jonathan B. Marder (jonathan.marder@newmail.net)
Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 08:21:57 GMT


Hi Elephant and all,

> 1. no idea what you mean by "truth as an ontology"
> 2. noo idea what I am "making clear" to you in this passage, since I wasn't
> making any point what so ever . . .

I am well aware of this, but your off-the-cuff comment hit me like a ton of
bricks (or pachyderm flesh) because of the words you chose. Look again

> >> ELEPHANT (to Rick):
> >> Interesting that you say that "Nobody is arguing that self-contradictions
> >> can be true (a strawman if I've ever read one).". . .
> >
> > Of course! self-contradictions and other logical fallacies are not TRUE,
but
> > they *are* REAL (otherwise we wouldn't be able to discuss them).

> 3. nooo idea what you mean by saying that logical fallacies are "REAL".
I am using the word "REAL" to mean that something exists. What is the measure
of existence - Truth or Reality?
The example makes it clear why we cannot use TRUTH as a measure of existence.
Do self-contradictions exist or not (I YES, they exist)? Now perhaps you see
why I say that Truth is a non-ontology.

ELEPHANT
> Actually whether in general things have to exist in order to be discussed is
> an interesting question, to which the answer is:
>
> 'no'.
>
I say 'yes', you say 'no', but I think our disagreement is semantic. Do you
deny the existance of falsehood?

> Hope that clears things up. BTW there are of course some classes of being
> that have to exist in order for any discussion to be possible, that is in
> order for 'square' and 'circle' to mean anything.

By admitting the need for "some classes of being" to be added for things that
don't fit your definition of extant (the 'no's), you are already expanding the
definition of existance.

> But it just so happens
> that the square-circle isn't one of them. Mainly because it ain't square,
> and it ain't circular. . . .

But the concept exists and can be addressed. In fact one might hypothesize
that an infinitely small square is in fact circular. On the other hand, it is
much more difficult to address the question about whether or not SAJSASJK is
the same as KLKLKKKLKPP.

Jonathan

MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:05 BST