Self-evident truth
dam...@my-deja.com
nobody else. :)
Donald
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Shealy
news:387A9A53...@shaman.co.uk...
>
>
> dam...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > All Truth disclosed here seems self-evident. Evident to one's self
and
> > nobody else. :)
> >
>
> I hold it as self evident that there is no such thng as self-evident
> Truth.
>
>
What's more, there is no Truth disclosed here. <g>
Leo Smith
Leo Smith
Michael Shealy wrote:
> Leo Smith <Who....@shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:387A9A53...@shaman.co.uk...
> >
> >
> What's more, there is no Truth disclosed here. <g>
Quite right. You should disregard everything I say, because I always tell
lies.
Tad Perry
This is similar to a trick I have learned to use: Using hyperbole to
make my points.
It results in a very funny thing: On the face of it the hyperbole is
not the truth and is easily dismissed (and outright attacked) by the
naturally arising equal and opposite reaction to what I want to say.
(The lie that ever attempts in vain to obscure the truth.)
But, the actual point I am making is always in itself intended as a
valid truth easily comprehended by those with the open willingness to
look at what I say.
So, it's like using lies in the name of the truth and this concept
tickles my particular brand of sense of humor to no end.
Meanwhile, I try to be very careful that actual data I may give such
as dates, times, names, events, book titles, etc. are absolutely 100%
correct. Even then I goof badly and have to laugh at that, too. On
that score, I invoke the "no one is perfect" clause. (Not yet anyway,
but I'm still working on it. Heh.)
I hardly ever provide cites or sources on facts (just pointers)
because I figure only those interested will investigate and those
pre-convinced I'm wrong won't bother to look out of their certainty
that I am a nut-case. (I can even provide ample evidence that I truly
am a nut-case if someone takes me too seriously.)
To those people, my attitude is: I know what I know; you just think
you know that I don't.
tvp
dam...@my-deja.com
Leo Smith <Who....@shaman.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> dam...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > All Truth disclosed here seems self-evident. Evident to one's self
and
> > nobody else. :)
> >
>
> Well - that is the essence of a personal path really isn't it?
> I hold it as self evident that there is no such thng as self-evident
> Truth.
>
obviously ignorant of the subject matter. Please go and read something!
Don
Michael Shealy
Then there's the TRUTH, and the truth. Then there's the God's honest
truth, Truth, TRUTH. So, which one's are ya talkin'? And, any one of
them is just someone's written words, so can't be the truth, in any
regard.
I'd really like to see which truths you see disclosed here.
Thanks,
Mikey
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
<dam...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:85aj2d$jt6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> All Truth disclosed here seems self-evident. Evident to one's self
and
> nobody else. :)
>
> Donald
dam...@my-deja.com
"Michael Shealy" <Toucht...@bwn.net> wrote:
> What Truth is disclosed here? Note the capital "T" in all usages.
> Then there's the TRUTH, and the truth. Then there's the God's honest
> truth, Truth, TRUTH. So, which one's are ya talkin'? And, any one of
> them is just someone's written words, so can't be the truth, in any
> regard.
>
> I'd really like to see which truths you see disclosed here.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mikey
> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
You missed the point entirely. Now it's too late to go further or try
again. Sorry.
Doon
Leo Smith
dam...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <387A9A53...@shaman.co.uk>,
> Leo Smith <Who....@shaman.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > dam...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > All Truth disclosed here seems self-evident. Evident to one's self
> and
> > > nobody else. :)
> > >
> >
> > Well - that is the essence of a personal path really isn't it?
> > I hold it as self evident that there is no such thng as self-evident
> > Truth.
> >
> Your response is Self-referential, (refers to itself) therefore you are
> obviously ignorant of the subject matter. Please go and read something!
> Don
> >
Your response is arrogant, and missed the point, which was that I entirely
knew what I was saying.
All Truth is self referential.
Go and read about it
Try Godel first
dam...@my-deja.com
that *all* truth is SR.
Leo Smith
dam...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Godel never proved or stated
> that *all* truth is SR.
>
No, but he said that no theory about anything worth a damn was free from
it.
dam...@my-deja.com
provides a way of constructing theorems, but it is not a theorem
itself. Godel used a self referential statement to show that formal
systems of this kind have inherent limits, in that they are either
incomplete or inconsistant. But anyone can see that this is true by
just using his common sense. The liar's paradox shows this same limit
within our own common sense logical system. As do all other genuine
paradoxes. These paradoxes must remain in any "equivalent"
formalization of such logic, as the propositional calculus which Godel
used. This is my understanding of the subject. But, I may be in error.
I too have limited knowledge - as Godel showed.
Donald
"If I am wrong, I apologize in advance. If you disagree with me, Please
don't get angry, don't get even, just get on with your life!"
Nelson Thompson
> All Truth is self referential.
> Go and read about it
> Try Godel first
I have read Godel.
I understand Godel.
You obviously have no understanding of Godel.
[name dropper!]
Nelson