There Is No Such Thing As Truth

[@KaneB]

This video originally had the more accurate title "The Indeterminacy of Truth". Unfortunately, nobody was clicking on it. So now you've got clickbait. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[@whaffey313]

most honest philosopher of all time

[@thomaslodger7675]

I actually didn't click on the video until you changed the title. Smooth moves Dr. B

[@MattAlan01]

I saved it to watch later with that title but then was confused that it didn't appear in my watch later!

[@KaneB]

@@thomaslodger7675 I promise that although the new title is misleading, the video is just as interesting as the title suggests.

[@yyzzyysszznn]

some commenters gonna be real mad i bet 😂😂

[@kalergakis9003]

Such a small channel, but still the best philosophy one in youtube!

[@KaneB]

Thanks!

[@Moircuus]

Truly

[@jasongilder22]

Philosophize This is good too

[@tilelate9718]

@@jasongilder22 🤣

[@akulagepard9510]

I’ve found your channel a week ago and mate I have to say: you’re incredibly didactical and I’m really enjoying your work. I’ve been using your content to introduce my niece to a few philosophical contents and it’s been really satisfactory. keep it up!

[@MsJavaWolf]

I had a similar realisation a while ago. My intuitive definition of knowledge always included a relative high certainty (not 100% certainty) and someone said to me that knowledge just is "justified, true belief" so I already had knowledge about the topic we were discussing. I thought about this a bit and I also realised that nothing really has changed for me, except that maybe I realised that I was using language in a slightly unconventional way. So now instead of thinking "I wish I had knowledge about X", I started thinking "I wish I had knowledge and high certainty about X", my concept of knowledge just split into 2 concepts and I was no more satisfied than before.

[@Ansatz66]

Semantics are always inevitably indeterminate because words are just things that people make up, and the meanings of words tend to change over time as society changes. This hits truth harder than most things because truth is a quality of statements that tends to depend on the semantics of words. So when we ask, "Is it true that grass is green?" the answer to that question depends on the semantics of "true," the semantics of "green," and the semantics of "grass," all of which are indeterminate and subject to arbitrary change over time.

[@grivza]

Exactly, but there is also a psychoanalytical solution to this, that tries to understand how language starts to form itself from the beginning. You can draw a *correspondence* between the most primitive formation of language and processes. Processes evoke sentiments, thus building a strong relation between the two. The byproduct of this is language, or more accurately, the denotation (it is what's behind the notation/symbols/words). This allows you to say that a process, is the semantic meaning of a notion.

[@realSAPERE_AUDE]

⁠​⁠@@grivzamaybe I’m missing your point but I think that correspondence comes cheap and relying on it for truth leads to tautology.

[@AlexandruAlexe07]

Your vids, from what I saw, do not get much views and, compared to other channels, yours is quite small. And I said this so that you can understand my pov when I tell you that these essays of yours (or how you want to call them) are just what I am looking for. They seem to be a spontaneous flow of thought when presented with a theme (in this case, truth) and so, they seem more humane. They are not hidden behind a very crisp and clear audio, image quality, representative imagery etc. Also, this adds to the impression of authenticity as there is no "big team with well informed associates", as you are (or, at least, seem to be) just a guy that is pretty well read. Keep going with this natural way of making vids!!

[@KaneB]

Thank you! Great to hear you enjoy the videos!

[@agreeing_flag]

I like the "clickbait" title. To me it's a warranted belief that indeed the concept of truth is basically empty. The redundancy theory of truth is under-appreciated. For better worse, critiques of the "mystified" concept of truth are often incorrectly conflated with indeed self-subverting attacks on the notion of some beliefs being more warranted than others.

[@cryptocoin5318]

The essence of the challenge lies within the word itself: Truth presents a dilemma akin to certainty. In a world in perpetual flux, certainty becomes an elusive notion. Similarly, truth, often perceived as immutable, can instead be grasped as fact. Facts possess the flexibility to evolve with new insights, unlike truth which asserts unwavering certainty despite contradictions. For example, Mathematics remains constant and is thereby regarded as true, as are universal concepts like Red, Green, triangle, square, and rabbit. These abstract truths attain credibility as facts in a dynamic reality. When gaps in our understanding emerge, we adjust our knowledge to refine it. However, designating something as "truth" remains elusive, existing primarily in the realm of abstraction only. Thus, truth inhabits the world of abstraction rather than the material world. In practical terms, we rely on facts rather than truth in the material realm.

[@AGirlyReader]

damn bro is looking like a particular Russian student in a novel who needs money who must commit a great crime and experience a punishment of retribution...

[@justus4684]

You are a gift that keeps giving🎁

[@slalissg3813]

putting quotation marks around 'slavery is wrong' is a bold move

[@Nexus-jg7ev]

- There is no such thing as truth. - Is this true? Sums it up.

[@lanceindependent]

This is one of your best videos.

[@j.samuelwaters81]

This channel continues its dedication to advancing the idea that every single one of the cognitive tools that we use to organize the world have limits, beyond which they breakdown, and therefore can't truly be trusted to help us navigate the existence in which we function consistently 😂

[@gk10101]

well said but "can't truly be trusted" is kind of strong. its more like the intellect is not all its cracked up to be. this in itself would be an earth shattering idea for most intellectuals

[@brandonsaffell4100]

This definitely hits at the two truth doctrine.

[@HerrEinzige]

Don't worry guys. I'm the arbiter of truth. Just ask me about anything and I will give you *THE* answer. No indeterminacy or anything.

[@jasongilder22]

What’s the meaning of life

[@rogerwitte]

I like Terry Pratchett's formulation 'true for at least some meanings of the word true'' :) More importantly, I reject universal excluded middle; I don't think every proposition must be decidable..

[@jetzenijeboer4854]

Maybe i'm a bit naieve here, but i would think that a possible solution in many cases would be, whenever making claims as a philosopher, to first state under wich conditions you personally would accept something as "true". People then are free to agree or disagree on those terms. Once they agree, it is only a matter of meeting those terms, but if they disagree or if they will say that they will never accept something as true under any condition then at least it is clear that there is no point in arguing with them over "truth".

[@ericb9804]

I agree that, in practice, this is literally the only way to have such a discussion. But the problem comes when someone wants to insist, as they inevitably do, that THEIR definition of "Truth" applies to all of us, regardless of if we agree or not. And then, of course, they proceed to use this "Truth" to justify whatever they deem appropriate. Traditionally speaking, invoking a "Truth" is way of saying, "I don't have to bother asking you what you think it means."

[@Caligulahahah]

Great video as always. Can you recommend some literature on this position besides the one mentioned? (In generell, it would be very cool if you could provide some further readings in your videos)

[@evildouchebag7707]

There are some truths. But there are much fewer of them than we - people who believe in the existence of truths - would like.

[@vblake530530]

Your presentation was BRILLIANT, and your video quality is is down right KZbin-RETRO, Dude.

[@Opposite271]

Maybe ordinary truth is itself a fuzzy set of possible concepts of truth. And if most members of that set tend to agree with a proposition then it is ordinarily true. (But this might lead us to reject bivalence)

[@notdrew3780]

Your explanations are super digestible without being too shallow, I hope you get the subs you deserve soon

[@ivaniliev929]

Can you make a video on utility cascades

[@veganphilosopher1975]

Great analysis. I am quite interested in language and the problem of a private language. Do you ever plan to cover such topics?

[@emanuelzbeda1420]

Same

[@Ffkslawlnkn]

For the private language argument in wittgenstein, read pms hacker.

[@duckpotat9818]

From a scientific PoV Green isn't one thing. It's a bunch of things. The wavelength(s) of light, the surface/bulk properties of objects to reflect/produce/disperse the relevant wavelengths, the activation of relevant cells in our eyes, activation of relevant parts of our brain. Are all required to ordinarily perceive colour. So which of these is the minimum criteria for something to be green? We ordinarily say we saw green in our dreams so the last should be enough. But if we see something that reflects red and others see it as such but I see it as green then with sufficient evidence I might be convinced to call it green and accept that I might be hallucinating. This also applies to colour blind people who accept there are some green things. We have never seen many distant astronomical bodies with our eyes but based on the wavelength we detect we might call then green. But then again some molecules react to 'green wavelengths' (chlorophyll being the best known one) much like our instruments so do they see green? We wouldn't ordinarily say so. So it turns out the ordinary conditions for perceiving colours is a bit contradictory. It may or may not mean colours don't exist but colour isn't a single property it seems. Much like what is ordinarily considered truth isn't one thing.

[@Ffkslawlnkn]

Green is not a wavelength, it is not a length of anything. It's not a surface. It's not an activation of cells. Green isn't an activation of anything. We don't judge whether something is green via a criterion except in the case of very specific colours we are not familiar with. Here, the criterion is a sample. Under no circumstances is the criterion anything like neurological happenings. We don't judge whether something is green from the results of an eeg scan.

[@he1ar1]

Our perception of colour is contingent on facts. Light bounces off objects and has a particular wavelength. I have an eye. The eye has a retina. The retina is connected to my brain. And so on. Colour is not necessarily true. It is a probable truth and I am lucky that I can live my life quite happily and peacefully by believing that it is true.

[@ThunderZephyr_]

There is a Veritasium video about "There is a hole in the centre of math". This reminds me of that. Its about the inability of math to prove everything we can possibly know. If I am not mistaken that's "Gödel's incompleteness theorems".

[@MattAlan01]

So I lean towards a "useful fictions" type of truth belief. But also that these concepts of truth are socially constructed. The point in something like the correspondence theory of truth is to, as accurately as possible, provide a basis for calling truth those experiences many of us share, like grass being green. Anyway, I was discussing this with a phil professor of mine this week and now I'm thinking I'll send this video as it outlines exactly what I wanted to get at, even though I wasn't as articulate as this.

[@ceterisparibus42]

Is there a possibility that some things are true but a lot of things which we normally say is true are not true? For example, there might be some fundamental laws of physics which are true but a lot of other stuff like colour are not true. To me, many debates in philosophy doesn't seem to have an objective correct answer but I'm less convinced about there not being a correct answer when it comes to the laws of physics.

[@KaneB]

There's a great deal of idealisation in the sciences too, so I think this tension between useful falsehood vs easy truth arises in that context as well. I discuss this in this video for instance: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ap2YipKMqZyJmZo

[@ekki1993]

Science is, by design, provisional. We will never be able to prove anything as "definetly true" with science (even if it's probably our best shot at getting close to it). The idea that science provides "facts" is a misinterpretation of what science really is.

[@ericb9804]

How do we know the law of physics are "objectively true?" Isn't because we deem those laws to conform to our experience? And yet our experience could change or we could experience something new, that motivated us to change our minds, right? And if it did, what are we to say about our "objectively true" laws? - We would change them, or change how we understand them, right? Given that to be the case, its unclear in what sense they were ever "objective." In other words, see @ekki1993.

[@Justjoey17]

Color is an interpretation, but it does tell us something objective about the object.

[@Justjoey17]

We may just need to know about any trick the light might play

[@ekki1993]

Light goes through a lot of pre-processing in our brains. Just look at any blue/gold dress comment chain for a surface level example. It's subjective all the way down.

[@MrAdamo]

⁠@@ekki1993i think that the pre-processing is an indication that there is some objective fact being processed. The signals in an internet cable undergo heavy preprocessing before the information is interpreted, but the underlying signals are still there

[@ekki1993]

@@MrAdamo Why would it be an indication of that? You assume that there is an objective fact, and it follows from that, but there's nothing to base that assumption on. The only way to perceive those signals on an internet cable is to interpret them. You're skipping a step there by just assuming that we can perceive those signals "objectively" in some way. All we have is interpretation. Even science had to assume that its knowledge is provisional. Calling something a "fact" is a shorthand, but all we get by doing science are observations, interpretations and predictions.

[@kenfalloon3186]

Sure you can doubt the brownness of the bear but probably best not to doubt the bearness of the bear.

[@thoughtyfalcon3991]

I stand by the wise words of an eastern philosopher-poet : "The ideal of imagination is beauty, not truth".

[@Loveandyoutube]

A brief Flashing of Green, is this another puzzle with no end?🔴

[@yyzzyysszznn]

'is there such a thing as greenness?' -- not sure how this question makes sense? If 'green' is baptised by reference to public samples, surely a green colour on a colour chart is sort of quasi-analytically true insofar as the public sample is built in to 'green', no? Or is this not part of the set of propositions which has indeterminate truth conditions?

[@KaneB]

It's just another way of asking, "are there green things?" or "is the property of greenness instantiated?" Some philosophers say no, usually on the grounds that there is nothing that answers to our everyday concept "green", or that the concept does not play any role in our best empirical theories. See for example C. L. Hardin.

[@yyzzyysszznn]

@@KaneB What im asking is,if a concept is defined through ostensive samples, then surely those samples must necessarily be a part of the extension of the concept (as its part of its intension!)?

[@KaneB]

@@yyzzyysszznn The philosophers in question disagree that this is all there is to the concept "green". Obviously there are public criteria for the application of "green", but that's the case for almost all concepts, including plenty where we have concluded that nothing satisfies the concept (there were also public criteria for the application of "witch", say).

[@yyzzyysszznn]

@@KaneB Well sure, but those concepts are sort of speculatively defined ('x is an object which has y properties', posited without seeing anything with y properties). Green is clearly different -- a reductive analysis of what it means for something to be green is necessarily one which includes some demonstrative reference to public samples. Its not about that being 'all there is' (theres certainly interesting scientific explanations) but rather about green requiring some reference to green things in its intension, which necessitates those green things as part of its extension, no?

[@СергейМакеев-ж2н]

@@yyzzyysszznn Compare it to borders between countries. A country is defined literally by fiat: it is analytically true, in the intension of the concept, that *these* territories are part of this country. Does that automatically make a country "real"?

[@pygmalionsrobot1896]

There is such a thing as truth, but it has no definitive topology. It can be discrete (binary), or continuous valued (vague). It is profoundly ambiguous whether it is binary, or continuous. This is very similar to the situation ... the universe simply has no geometric center, there is none. Well, truth has no canonical topology, there simply is none.

[@martinbennett2228]

I do not think that acknowledgement that there are relative truths can be used as a basis for a claim that there can be no absolute truths, though it could help explain the difficulty in identifying absolute truths. Of historical events we may be certain that a particular event happened and that there must be or have been facts about the event, while still acknowledging that we have uncertainties as to how closely our interpretation matches the absolute truths of the event. On colour, it would be hard to argue that colour is not actually a property of the perceiver and particular wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation rather than intrinsic to the object of perception, so this understanding colour would be an example that must be close to an absolute truth, whilst still accepting that there is more to know about the neurology involved. Undoubtedly there are 'useful falsehoods': if I say that I am listening to Maria Callas singing as I write this, that in absolute terms this is a falsehood (she has been dead for over 40 years) does not prevent people for understanding what I likely mean (the radio is on - it is a century since the singers birth). I guess the peculiarity is that some people will take the falsehoods to be true and that in some cases (colour perhaps) possibly everyone took the falsehood to be true which suggests that everyone may still take to be true some facts or concepts that are in absolute terms false. Yet to assert this implies that there are absolute truths against which falsehood can be established.

[@ericb9804]

Respectfully, you are missing the point entirely. We believe as we do about historical events because we deem those beliefs justified given the evidence at our disposal. The point is we can leave it at that. We simply don't need to insist that our belief in said historical event constitutes an "absolute truth." Doing so is to invoke metaphysics and yet doesn't get us anything we didn't already have without it, so why bother? In all examples of "truth," we believe as we do for the reasons we find compelling. And yet, we are free to change our mind about any of them should we deem ourselves justified in doing so. This being the case, its unclear how we would identify an "absolute truth" in the first place. We are wholly capable of using the same epistemology we use now but speaking and understanding it in term of justification while completely ignoring the notion of "truth." The reason we would want to do this is because it would free us from metaphysics, thus shifting our focus from some unobtainable "absolute" to each other.

[@martinbennett2228]

@@ericb9804 An important benefit of the metaphysics is that it insulates against the politicisation of facts. Identification of 'absolute truth' can certainly be, but is not always, problematic, but the concept of absolute truth can serve to assist identification of absolute falsehoods. In any case the argument that you put forward has no bearing on the concept of absolute truth. It might be possible to claim that there are no absolute truths in one domain or another or even at all, but this argument does not really do this. If it does it is only in a pragmatic sense, but I would contend that the counter-argument appeals to pragmatism more strongly.

[@ericb9804]

@@martinbennett2228 I agree that the metaphysics of "absolute truth" can be useful in terms of how they can be used to influence human affairs, but that is simply to complain that human affairs are messy and occasionally unsubstantiated claims can be used to clean them up. I'm not sure what you mean by "pragmatic," but the message of pragmatists is that the statements we call "true" are the ones we find justified by way of our experience. And yet, our experience is constantly changing, as are the statements that we call "true." So it seems there is little meaning in declaring any one of our statements not only "true" for our purposes, but "absolute" as well. Sure, I suppose any of our "truths" may be "absolute," but the best we can say about such an example is that we wouldn't recognize it if we saw it, so who cares? So it seems the only reason to insist on a notion of "absolute," is exactly for the purpose mentioned above - for the sake of manipulating people because you deem that your experiences should be applicable to everyone.

[@kw8274]

@@ericb9804You nailed how I feel on the subject as I currently learn more about it.

[@Ffkslawlnkn]

If I look at green grass, it is surely not me who possesses the property of being green but the grass. It's also not the property of the wavelength of the light reflected by the grass. A wavelength isn't green.

[@FactitionalistNetwork]

The problem is that regardless of our individual perceptions of color, there are still ways to objectively observe wavelengths with instruments.

[@duckpotat9818]

So you're saying the title is not true but if that fact itself is true then truth is determinate and then the previous title is also not true. Ummmmmm Great and truthful video as always

[@InventiveHarvest]

One of these days I'm going to have to buy you a color spectrometer. Matching levels are dependent on the context of the domain of discourse. Is the picture being of Bob Dylan the only thing important in the context, or is color also important for that conversation? The ordinary sense of truth is an interesting concept as in basic reality, there are no things, only different phenomena - gunk. Once we have labeled different gunk with names, we can make truth claims about those things.

[@duder6387]

I have a question that’s unrelated to the video. Do you think that language, natural or formal, can convey truth? When we use words we often use them as stand ins for things in the real world. Since the words we use have no literal connection to objects in the real world can a proposition ever be true?

[@Ffkslawlnkn]

If there's a cat on your desk and you say so, it's certainly true. That is just how we use the word true. It' correct that words don't have any metaphysical connection to the objects they signify (if they signify objects at all, many words don't) - and that includes the word true. The word cat gets its meaning not from a metaphysical connection with the idea of cathood etc, but from how it's used. This applies to the word true or truth also.

[@duder6387]

That’s precisely my point though, if words get meaning not from a metaphysical connection to the world but from our relative uses, then how can language possibly ever convey objective, mind-independent truth? The idea of using an arbitrary fiction to try to capture truth just seems like a fool’s errand. For example, if there is a cat on my desk and I say, “There is a cat on my desk,” how does that statement correspond to the mind-independent state of affairs? I seem to be using a fiction to label various aspects of my subjective experience, both of which have no literal connection to the mind-independent world of objective truth. How can formal logic, something which is designed to have no connection to the real world, ever express truth about the world? Sorry if that doesn’t make my thoughts clear, this is something I haven’t considered in depth yet.

[@Ffkslawlnkn]

@@duder6387 when you say 'there is a cat on my desk', you don't label things in an inner world. When you say 'the cat is red', you don't describe the color of the picture of the cat in your inner world, you describe the color of the cat. What does 'the sentence 'there is a cat on the desk' is true' mean? It means that there is a cat on the desk. There are certain rules governing the use of the sentence 'there is a cat on the desk' - under some circumstances, the rules say to utter it, under others, they say not to utter it. When the rules say that saying this sentence is correct, it conveys truth.

[@duder6387]

“when you say 'there is a cat on my desk', you don't label things in an inner world. When you say 'the cat is red', you don't describe the color of the picture of the cat in your inner world, you describe the color of the cat.“ I don’t think this is correct. If I say, “The cat is red” I am using words to describe my sense perceptions. Sense perceptions are subjective and are not necessarily connected to reality. I think this goes for any statement about the world: We use words to describe our sense perceptions.

[@farzad1021]

I found a weakness in the crosspondance theory of truth. That by its own standard it will be false. We can take this statement: "Statements are true if they crosspond with reality" Now the above statement itself doesn't crosspond with reality. Now you might ask what I mean by Reality. So, for me: "Things that exist independently of mind is reality" Statements or truth value are not reality. Because they exist dependently of our mind. Now, you might say this statement: "Statements are true if they crosspond with reality" Is true because statements that crosspond with reality are true. But that statement is claim that: "Statements that crosspond with reality are true" That statement itself doesn't crosspond with reality. It's just crosspond with truth values of crossponding Reality statements. But the statement itself doesn't crosspond with reality making it false. And also making crosspondance theory of truth very much self refuting.

[@KaneB]

Meta-Skepticism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYevgY2Mmc6ebqs

[@paretodeficiente9586]

Easter egg at 4.51?

[@realSAPERE_AUDE]

“Truth does not exist; but the lies do!” -Mudvayne

[@SedgeHermit]

So is that true or not

[@realSAPERE_AUDE]

@@SedgeHermit I’ll find out, hold on. asking ur mom brb

[@91722854]

interesting though, if someone somehow claims they can use naturalist view of how things are the way they are to derive why they should do certain things accordingly, such as deriving morality out of natural laws, though it would probably still end up with a more metaphysical view on morality where why doing certain thing is good is just because it's good, and for ones who derive morality out of just natural laws, they could still very well coincide with that derived from values etc

[@Anabsurdsuggestion]

I am a huge fan. Just thought I’d mention it.

[@RefinedQualia]

How do you know that

[@raythink]

I think you just need to work on your thumbnails. your content is good enough.

[@EdgarQer]

only legends have seen the original cover

[@jorgethevanguard]

No such thing as truth? Is that true?

[@lukon100]

That's the gotcha. Any attempt to deny or seriously entertain any alternative to the realist / correspondence theory of truth implicitly relies on the realist / correspondence theory of truth. Denial just sends ya down a liar's paradox rabbit hole into cognitive nihilism.

[@ericvulgate7091]

Grass appears green. I prefer to be as accurate as possible.

[@PeebeesPet]

Grass appears green to you...... is more accurate. Grass appears green by itself comes off as universal. That is, grass appears green to all perceivers. But that ain't the case. Maybe you might also consider using a more accurate color.

[@raythink]

'You are the best philosophy youtube content provider.' sadly this statement can't be determined as true though.

[@mrosskne]

I would argue that the brownness of the bear doesn't consist in the bear. The quality of color is the result of photons causing a cascade of a particular set of reactions in a mind, and a bear can appear to be different colors depending on what sort of light it's viewed in. I don't think any object has any color in particular.

[@AndresAstua]

Not exactly. From your description we can derive that a bear possesses a quality of appearing to be brown under the condition of regular lighting. And we can say that this quality exactly is what should be called bear’s “brownness”. If we change the lighting the bear may appear to have different colour, but the quality that was stated before remains the same.

[@mrosskne]

@@AndresAstua there's no such thing as regular lighting.

[@AndresAstua]

@@mrosskne there is if you define it. For me regular lighting means set of lighting conditions in which most of current human population is accustomed to comfortably carry out their activities (that was preferable for life activities for most humans for generations).

[@mrosskne]

@@AndresAstua there are multiple sets of lighting conditions that people experience regularly. this isn't a useful or precise definition.

[@AndresAstua]

@@mrosskne of course they are multiple, “regular” just sums them up into a generalised category. And that’s the reason people started calling bears “brown” - under a number of lighting factors bears appear to look brown, thus we can determine this specific quality of bears: “appearing to be of brown colour to humans, under the number of different lighting conditions that are commonly generalised by people as “regular”. That is what “brownness” really is.

[@jjjccc728]

What is the status of propositions such as humans can't walk on water unaided. Humans can't walk through solid walls. Humans can't fly to the moon unaided. Would you say that those are truths.

[@mintjam5170]

so true!

[@seanmuniz4651]

Speaking of color... Green: 4:50

[@tomholroyd7519]

Yeah, we need to replace Truth with Validity. Everywhere you look, centuries of writing, people talk about TRUTH but that's a broken concept. Validity is a far more important concept. I can't even read the ordinary literature anymore because nobody gets it. Binary logic has been proven to fail over and over again ("I am lying"), and there is a solution to that problem, which almost nobody knows. Gödel literally solved this problem a century ago. You can have a complete logic. COMPLETE

[@unknownhollow4141]

This sounds like some sort of Zeno's paradox. It's exercising the brain with highly sophisticated fallacious reasoning not meant to be taken seriously..

[@italogiardina8183]

Hyper palatable foods seem to have a phenomenological property that as a consumer discretional product the general consumer will prefer the experience of eating highly processed food as in a carrot cake over a plain carrot. The colour orange of the carrot cake is not so true as a correlation to health outcomes as the hyper palatable cake that feels true instantiation of carrotness by token of enjoyment but later facts reveal chronic health conditions emerge and then a truth condition emergent entails signs of bowel issues. So truth in this version is correlational to survival outcomes of a multi cellular organism that interacts in a food environment. Truth is out there and waiting to indoctrinate consumers qua the consumer discretionary sector of the economy pertains to marketing which is a hyper truth conditional by token of choice theory of truth where being told by a truth authority (physician) of bowel illness entails interpretations so construct a self that evaluates its position and aims at whatever cost to maintain that in relations political (peers) economy (consumption needs). However truth not situated as a political economy appears through research and development as science but truth not economic and not science by individual seems in any functional account spiritual (open) or individualistic (closed) which suggests consciousness as a primordial property of the universe as in truth-consciousness-bliss.

[@knowthenewz903]

This is all well and good on the surface, but I have to disagree on a central and important point. The carrot cake is in the consumer staples category, not consumer discretionary!

[@MrJamesdryable]

This title is true.

[@pretor92]

Grass is green.

[@ericb9804]

"epistemology is a subset of ethics, is a subset of politics." - R. Rorty. Saying something is "True" is a political tool. It is a claim we make to justify our actions, especially when those actions are questioned by others, specifically by others we don't want to engage with in actual conversation. We just say "I am right and you are wrong" and go about doing whatever we want, assuming of course that the other person can't stop us. And all this is made possible by nothing more than our collective agreement that "yes, the sky is blue."

[@TotalitarianDemocrat]

Is any of that true?

[@KaneB]

@@TotalitarianDemocrat It seems like there is collective agreement that there is more to truth than collective agreement...

[@TotalitarianDemocrat]

​@@KaneB I would imagine there is a lot less to truth than there is to collective agreement

[@ericb9804]

@@TotalitarianDemocrat Yes, its "true" in the sense that I describe - this statement, like all others, is a political tool that you either understand or you don't. In this example, because the statement is "about truth," there is a certain irony in that understanding the "truth" of the statement is also to understand the way the statement contradicts a traditional notion of "Truth." To acknowledge this irony, while also understanding what the statement means in practical terms, is the whole point of what the statement is saying about "truth."

[@Opposite271]

And Politics is a subset of metaphysics. -Random. Internetguy. But why does someone need truth as a justifier if they can just do it? I mean do other people believe me more if after I made my claim, that in addition I loudly shout that it is the truth? Might it not be the case that truth is a internal justifier rather then a external one to others? Maybe in the mind of such a person, they think to themselves that because it is true that A happens if they do B and they just so happen to desire A, that this belief acts as a internal motivator for B? Edit: The Idea of truth and not truth itself is the motivator.

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

The title of this video is self-contradictory. If the statement of the title is correct, then there is no such thing as "Truth" . Then the statement of the title cannot be true. So, there Is Truth after all. It's a self inconsistent clickbait!

[@tomholroyd7519]

Some people say that octopuses cannot see color because their retinas apparently have only 1 pigment receptor while humans have 3. This is a stupid, obviously dumb argument. They can camouflage themselves perfectly against colored backgrounds. THEY CAN SEE COLOR. You just don't understand how. (It's chromatic aberration and weird pupils) But they see color in a different way than humans do

[@DigitalGnosis]

But is that true? *Cue applause*

[@lanceindependent]

Applause.

[@ingeteloo3065]

thoughts on marxist epistemology ? specifically thinking of mao's philosophical works

[@zeebpc]

epistemological nihilism

[@DeadEndFrog]

clicked because of clickbait

[@danyel80be40]

It is true that there is no truth. It is almost obvious it is a religion discussion, just like the endless chatting about if is god one or he is a corporeal being, are the angels separated essences or not and so on.

[@spherinder5793]

Is the statement "Truth is indeterminate" determinably true? The video refutes its own position. There is only one truth and he is the Logos.

[@grivza]

If I read this correctly, I think this is the exact answer. It's also surprising to me that you got the pronoun correct. I am just a bit skeptical about the capitalization, gives off mysticism vibes.

[@spherinder5793]

@@grivza Orthodox christianity holds that the Logos is a person (not necessarily incarnate). It is unapologetically mystical, but any non-personal conception of "Logos" can not properly account for how epistemology, ontology and ethics are grounded in him.

[@grivza]

@@spherinder5793 What? I am Greek and this is the first time I hear about this. You talk about non-personal, but I don't think that's true, any formulation of the symbolic is strictly non-personal by the process of its creation, which is societal. But with the general sentiment I agree with, that is there is no conceptualization outside of the symbolic and thus anything we understand as "truth" is necessarily part of it.

[@spherinder5793]

@@grivza Everything is symbolic - every formulation is symbolic. When you utter a sentence you already presuppose yourself to have access to (or you might say 'be made in the image of') ultimate truth, ontos and telos - knowledge, existence and purpose. The Logos is the union of these and is the source of personhood itself.

[@grivza]

@@spherinder5793 I think I agree although I fear this might be too abstract of a formula to be of any particular use to me.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Can you say it is true that truth is indeterminate? Can you say it is truth that there can be no truth?

[@DManCAWMaster]

"There's no such thing as truth" Is that true?

[@namidawhamida5958]

He had to change the title

[@MrAdamo]

It’s indeterminate

[@ericb9804]

If you understand what that statement means, then yes, it is. And if you don't then I'm not sure what you are asking.

[@grivza]

@@JDO36 Don't bother, it's a self-referential paradox. That's always the problem with the subjectivist claims, they always try to analyze the world as if they are looking in from outside.

[@bijibadness]

"There Is No Such Thing As Truth". ah, yeah, man. that hit hard. you're speaking -truth.- * EDIT: *good philosophical stuff I agree with.

[@dionysianapollomarx]

Love the clickbait!

[@tomholroyd7519]

sorites

[@DivinityOperation]

First

[@s.a.m.9837]

A lot of blabber to rationalise realism

[@ostihpem]

By the way, the title is either self-contradictory or gobbledygook. We need the concept of truth to fix ideas as such and such. Without it we'd have basically the same situation as with ex falso: trivialism, anything goes.

[@ostihpem]

For me truth = reliability, i.e. a propostion p is true iff ~p can never actually happen, i.e. I can never be disappointed or err when I believe p. It's pretty much Tarski's idea: "p" is true iff p. It avoids all the gobbledygook about the relation between truth and truth-maker. Of course a lot hinges on p and its specific interpretation. Almost all everyday claims are under-determined, i.e. they are not false but neither false nor true due to several conflicting possibilities of understanding.

[@Izerion]

I think the problem with this is that it is simply kicking the can down the road. Rather than setting an ultimately arbitrary standard for when something qualifies as truth, you set a hard rule for when something qualifies as truth but remain open to ultimately arbitrary standards of interpretation. For example, the statement that "grass is green". Using 'common sense logic' we can argue about whether or not it is a true statement based on the properties of the grass etc., and admittedly this can become 'wishy-washy'. If, however, you say "no, the grass is definitely green, because it is impossible for me to be disappointed or err when I believe that 'the grass is green' is a true statement", then this already hinges on the existence of the outside world being a real thing. The world may not exist at all. A malicious demon may be deceiving your senses. You could be a Boltzmann brain or a brain in a vat. In these situations, you may well be wrong if you believe that there exists grass which is green. A pragmatic approach would be to suggest that "for all intents and purposes, we can assume that the real world exists and there is no malicious demon deceiving our senses and we are biological beings with physical bodies and our memories are reasonable representations of what actually happened". But by doing this, you now add a 'common sense logic' argument for standards about how we should see the outside world, which then directly impacts whether we think individual statements about the world are true. It is the same problem as before, just played out on a different level.

[@ostihpem]

@@Izerion Do not confuse truth with epistemology. Here we just talk about the definition of truth, not how to make sure it is. When I define truth thru reliability it says: "p" is true iff ~p cannot actually happen. This does not want to help us to find truths, it just wants to make sure we know precisely what we are looking for. So "grass is green" is true when "grass is not green" can never occur. Look at other definitions. They define truth, so that you can never be sure to even have found it. When/How is "p" _corresponding_ to a real p? My definition on the other hand is sharp: whenever you can find an arbitrary instance of ~p happen in the actual world then "p" is false and vice versa.

[@nullvoid12]

The truth is 'nothing'

[@billyfudd818]

truth is nothing but the product of an exegetic standard.

[@slalissg3813]

putting quotation marks around 'slavery is wrong' is a bold move