4 ms·
That's not what it said. It said we don't see truth, nothing about whether there is one or not.
by guerrilla 5y ago
That's not what it said. It said we don't see truth, nothing about whether there is one or not.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoThat’s the point, somehow the truth is that our brains are incapable of seeing truth (except for this statement… :))
- guerrilla 5y agoTouché
- nyokodo 5y ago> our brains are incapable of seeing truth Perhaps we’re unable to see absolute truth, but we are able to see bits of the truth as it were. Nor is sensory experience our only or even primary way to see truth. Professor Linden has wandered into Epistemic Philosophy but he’s not qualified to give the lecture.
- nefitty 5y agoWe can keep inventing and looking for new lenses to apply to our mind's eye, but for some reason, we find that every lens we try is slightly warped in different ways. There are people who tire of the search, settle on one lens, and then think the world is fisheye-shaped.
- skissane 5y agoPut so bluntly, it is self-refuting: if we cannot know the truth, we cannot know that statement to itself be true-if a statement is self-refuting, how can it be rational to believe it? The “except for” may save the statement from being self-refuting, but only at the cost of becoming an instance of special pleading, which is equally irrational.
- samhw 5y agoI can easily comprehend truth. 2 + 2 = 4, there ya go. "We don't have direct access to external reality, but instead it's mediated through our senses and cognition" is closer to what people are getting at. It's much the same way a Unix process can 'perceive reality' via serial ports and processors managed in kernelspace.
- postalrat 5y ago2 + 2 = 4 is no more true than saying water is wet.
- vixen99 5y agoDefining a 'favorite quote' doesn't necessarily mean one agrees with its sentiment.