Re: Truth and Circularity

Gentlemen,

I think the debate circles around the assumption that we need prooves in order to
communicate. On this list we can expect some basic familiarity with Nietzsche's view on
truth, well he discovered that truth is a product like chees or chess. To prove reason is
as interesting as proving the rules of chess or soccer. There's nothing to prove. 2+2=4 is
one of the possible valid statements within the normal decimal number system, it's not
true but valid. There are other calcules possible where it's invalid.
Lets face it: there isn't any reality 'out there' which has by itself the same structure
as the way we're used to talk about it. Truth is a social conventional construction,
that's why it's never the same. We need reason to talk to each other, but this doesn't
mean that somebody can say the last word, the word with absolute censorship on all other
possible words in the future. In fact reason is a kind of censorship. You can forbid
yourself and others to make certain lingual connections, but this nevers excludes all
possibilities. The rizome never stops.

erik




Partial thread listing: