3 ms·
I believe what he meant is that all your “truths” are the same as the believe in the example. You have reasons to believe that those things are true, and certai
by aurbano 8y ago
I believe what he meant is that all your “truths” are the same as the believe in the example. You have reasons to believe that those things are true, and certain observations made by you corroborated your hypothesis, leading you to conclude they were true.
For instance, I have 5 fingers in each of my hands: you see them, you use them, so they must exist and be real. I’m no philosopher, but I suspect their arguments would go towards how can you trust your senses and perception to prove ideas about reality...
- losteric 8y agoWhat is your definition of truth? It seems to me like this is an issue of abstraction layers. The truth can be simply described within one layer, but adding layers requires more precise language. It's a bit like arguing "I" don't move my arm because neural signals trigger muscles to move the arm. Both are true, the language is just more involved if we don't share a common definition of "I".