1. Only if you use a binary comparison of “true or false” … you can tell parts of a true story based on actual events, and the story is true based on the parts you tell (I’m not lying when I tell you I’m typing a comment right now). The whole story might be the whole truth, but that doesn’t make parts of the story false in any way.

    1. Is there a big T truth? I may read a story in a book and say that it’s true or that I understand that talking about true events, but is there something it is referring to?

      1. You can question that to death, which is why I think there are many levels of truth. This escapes the “postmodern” idea that there isn’t truth.

        Your example is too general, and needs further explication to determine the level of truth, but the tree falling in the forest is simple. It either happened, or it didn’t. The single witness can claim it fell and they heard a sound … and that is probably true (not “maybe” – probably, which implies a probabilistic claim).

        For it to be True would require the ultimate level of of examination, falsification, etc… of the claim. It could also be impossible to claim True in this case.

      2. Schrodingers cat.

        I play with the notion that the tree indeed fell and made a noise like all other trees, according to the conditions of the event.

      3. I would take the example My witnessing the said tree. Indeed there was a true event. And when I try to communicate it some will say “true”. Yes. And others would ask all sorts of questions into the incident. I think we already know where that kind of questioning leads in the end: nihilistic capitalism of relative identities.
        So I tend to look more at the simple fact where people are able to agree.

        The statement: I do not exist as a relativity depending on various ways I analyze things. I am not the “reflection” of others. In total. Partially maybe. So I look into what is being marginalized by the ideological position that would say I am an asserted identity of fragments.

      4. Also…

        ‘An axiomatized theory of truth may be compared with, say,
        Kolmogorov’s axiomatization of probability.’ D. Davidson, Truth
        and Predication (London and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
        Press, 2005), 32.

      5. Mm. I don’t know those guys.

        I would say there is a true event of the person witnessing the tree fall and all the stuff. That the problem then becomes more about whether it can be communicated in its truth.

        The consideration then is not based from an impetus of the human community, but on the fact of the situation. I think this kind of understanding could challenge common intensional interaction.

      6. Ah! What about the truth of the manner by which you see that there are various facets that prevent the nailing down of truth? Is not this a big T truth?

      7. The first guy seems way to mathematical for me 😆. Davidson at least the summary in Google. Seems to have it right idea; but I don’t think it will be found through taking thought as an unproblematized given function of the brain. The observance of language use I think is at best gives us an analogy to what is going on. I do t see it as indicating an ontological limit. I see it was a theological limit. But I haven’t read his book. So….

  2. How did the tree fall? What will the person say about the tree fell. Can this be confirmed? How can any second or third party know about the witness to the event? We’d just have to presume his telling of his witnessing of the event is as it was. Was he standing around when the tree fell? Hiking? Fleeing from something? How does this factor into the account.

    Too many variables that cannot be tied together. What we can accept is that Person A witnessed a tree falling in the forest. And he can confirm that a tree fell. All other contingent questions that relate to this simply have to be taken on an axiom of faith, which is trust, in the person’s account. If we do not trust him, it is not the event that we have concern with, but the person detailing the event to us.

    1. I like when people converse with me because it allows me to think in new ways.

      I suppose I am more interested in how truth manifests, how it behaves , rather than the “content” of supposed truth. Besides; doesn’t everyone know that every discussion about the criterion of truth is a red herring, as it’s all context and relativity?

      For example: the tree fell in the wood and it made a sound”. As the guys would tell us. It is true: the fact is thus. No other context is required for it to be true. It behaves as truth.

      1. Do they have to “know” what “dishonesty” is? To me, that’s (honesty – dishonesty) embedded in the human condition itself.

        So when I asked the question “is the person honest?” I was referring to track record. If that track record indicates a high probability of an honest account … I would answer your question in the post with “Yes.”

      2. To a certain level of “truth” … yes. I imagine levels of “truth” instead of a single instance of “truth.”

        Something can be “as true as it can be” without being the capital T “Truth.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s