Is there any serious doubt truth doesn’t exist ?
My teacher (who is not a philosophy teacher ) said truth didn’t exist. However I know cogito ergo sum ( even if it’s all a simulation or sth , I know I’m what is called a human organism in the fabric of this world, real or fake ) , I also know the earth has to do 584 million miles relative to the sun to do a whole orbital rotation around it . So unless I’m missing something, what my teacher said isn’t correct . So truth exists. What is more likely is that we can’t appreciate reality entirely because our perception is tainted. In my philosophy class we always talked about everyone seeing the world with tainted glasses so it’s impossible to see reality. But that doesn’t imply reality doesn’t exist , we just don’t have the ability to reach it , and we may never will. But we can still reach to some truths . I know in 24 hours the earth would have moved 40k km and it will be night again .
"No statements are true" has the form "No A are B"
The negation of "No A are B" is "Some A is B"
So, if "No statements statements are true" is false, then "Some statement is true" is true.
This might sound dumb, but what if they said all statements, except this one, are not true
That's not dumb at all. It mostly preserves the original idea that no statements are true (1 exception means the theory was really close), without being self-undermining in the way the original was.
But, what about "No statements are true except this one, or F", where F is any statement? Now, we can suppose F to be false, but that whole statement would presumably be true.
Or, take "It is not the case that it is not the case that no statements are true except this one", or "All statements are not true except this one". Presumably these would be true as well.
We could further modify the view to find some way of saying these statements aren't true, or adding them as exceptions.
But at some point maybe it would be better to ask whether we should just reject the view entirely. So we would want to look at the reasons for the view and see if they're really compelling
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks
Sure, I accept this, but I'm not sure why the truth-denier needs to. They might just reject all logic.
I can certainly concieve of someone who flagrantly rejects basic logical principles, like noncontradiction. Such a person it would be irrefutable, in the rhetorical sense that nothing I, or anyone else could say, would move them.
I don't see how that should give me any reason to draw any conclusion other than that such a person would be completely irrational.
I agree, pretty much. It's not like they can convince me to agree with them, but they are irrefutable, it seems. It bothers me.
