> "It is true that there is no such thing as truth."
>
...1
hence: it is true that their are only two true sentences. that is
"It is true that there is no such thing as truth" and the one which began
this number.
true?
...2 hence it is true that there is in fact three true sentences. That is
"it is true that the setence 'it is true that there is no such thing as
truth' ", the sentence which began this number, and "It is true that there
is no such thing as truth".
true?
I trust their is no need to go further. If you alot one sentence
the ability to BE true then you began an infinite sherade w/ truth
mulitplies.You logic does not alot for this so by its own rules everything
is false.
The basic problem of your arguement is that it relies on Euclidian
mathematics for its basis. May i remind you that while it may seem that
post-modern revoltions are stricitly concerned with meta-physics,
interpretation, perspective, and history their is indeed an entire
revoltion going on in mathematics to try to get past the limitations of
euclidian mathematics.
...3 Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pale of water if the
statement "It is true that their is no such thing as truth" is indeed true.
Hence they went up the hill. Hence the statement "Jack and Jill went up the
hill" is true also becuase the problem is solved and the satement "Jack and
jill went up the hill" logically expresses the solution to this true
problem.
By placing add on parts to your logic one can make anything true.
its more paradoxical then just saying their are two kinds of truth. it
seems to me that their is no "correct" linguistic expression of "It is true
that their no such thing as truth" as long as you use ANY logic to try to
rule out or justify that statement. logic does not accompany paradox.
FINALLY you begin w/ saying that their two kinds of truth. you
would have to concede then from the jack and jill problem that their are
three kinds of truth. That is truth #1 is the truth about truth. truth #2
is a false truth. Jack and Jill truth is a truth that's true becuase truth
#2 is false and truth #1 is true(which is similarly dependent on truth #2
being false). At that one could add on ANOTHER statement dependent on the
jack and jill clause and then one ends up with yet another type of truth.
As usual infinity is something that shouldn't be messed w/ logically.
in a slight counter-arguement both of these arguement are dependent
on the an absoulete. Basicly in the sentence "It is true that there is no
such thing as truth." nothing tells us that the truth at the begining of
the sentence has not changed by the end of the sentence. effectively we
assume that both truths being spoken of are always in the same condition.
for all we know the truth #1 has some kind of roting factor so that by the
time one gets to the end of sentence the truth has become un-true.
"Erasure is: deconstruction, writing, inversion and dis-
placement, paleonymy, the science of old names, the
double science"
-John P. Leavey
>
...1
hence: it is true that their are only two true sentences. that is
"It is true that there is no such thing as truth" and the one which began
this number.
true?
...2 hence it is true that there is in fact three true sentences. That is
"it is true that the setence 'it is true that there is no such thing as
truth' ", the sentence which began this number, and "It is true that there
is no such thing as truth".
true?
I trust their is no need to go further. If you alot one sentence
the ability to BE true then you began an infinite sherade w/ truth
mulitplies.You logic does not alot for this so by its own rules everything
is false.
The basic problem of your arguement is that it relies on Euclidian
mathematics for its basis. May i remind you that while it may seem that
post-modern revoltions are stricitly concerned with meta-physics,
interpretation, perspective, and history their is indeed an entire
revoltion going on in mathematics to try to get past the limitations of
euclidian mathematics.
...3 Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pale of water if the
statement "It is true that their is no such thing as truth" is indeed true.
Hence they went up the hill. Hence the statement "Jack and Jill went up the
hill" is true also becuase the problem is solved and the satement "Jack and
jill went up the hill" logically expresses the solution to this true
problem.
By placing add on parts to your logic one can make anything true.
its more paradoxical then just saying their are two kinds of truth. it
seems to me that their is no "correct" linguistic expression of "It is true
that their no such thing as truth" as long as you use ANY logic to try to
rule out or justify that statement. logic does not accompany paradox.
FINALLY you begin w/ saying that their two kinds of truth. you
would have to concede then from the jack and jill problem that their are
three kinds of truth. That is truth #1 is the truth about truth. truth #2
is a false truth. Jack and Jill truth is a truth that's true becuase truth
#2 is false and truth #1 is true(which is similarly dependent on truth #2
being false). At that one could add on ANOTHER statement dependent on the
jack and jill clause and then one ends up with yet another type of truth.
As usual infinity is something that shouldn't be messed w/ logically.
in a slight counter-arguement both of these arguement are dependent
on the an absoulete. Basicly in the sentence "It is true that there is no
such thing as truth." nothing tells us that the truth at the begining of
the sentence has not changed by the end of the sentence. effectively we
assume that both truths being spoken of are always in the same condition.
for all we know the truth #1 has some kind of roting factor so that by the
time one gets to the end of sentence the truth has become un-true.
"Erasure is: deconstruction, writing, inversion and dis-
placement, paleonymy, the science of old names, the
double science"
-John P. Leavey