Is there an Answer to Every Question?

[cacian]

Do you need to a find an answer to everything or should you just accept that life is more then just an answer to everything you ask.
Where is the fun in having everything answered?
what happens to mystery mystic and wonders?

[cafolini]

I think like you do that many things have no answers. I do want an answer to as much as I can. But mystery must remain. It is really stupid to question mystery or even to pay much attention to those who think to own it and know the answers. I think that to question mystery is the actual cardinal sin.

[Alexander III]

yes, yes there is.

[iamnobody]

It's 42!

[Alexander III]

It's 42!

No, it's apples. You silly dogmatic fool.


But on a more serious note, you used the word "an" in the tittle instead of "a", an gives a more subjective vibe to things, while "a" would have been about absolute and objective and non-internaly-contradicting. So yes for every question there is always a subjective answer. Even "I don't know" is as good an answer as any but still an answer.

[Charles Darnay]

The world of silly answers to deep issues concerning life and meaning has been plagued by Adams for too long!

[JuniperWoolf]

The world of silly answers to deep issues concerning life and meaning has been plagued by Adams for too long!

Plagued? More like awesomeafied.

[cacian]

It's 42!

could be a catch 22 if you are not careful:wink5::biggrinjester:

[cacian]

yes, yes there is.

is there such a thing when
to be or not to be? Is.

[MarkBastable]

But on a more serious note, you used the word "an" in the tittle instead of "a", an gives a more subjective vibe to things, while "a" would have been about absolute and objective and non-internaly-contradicting.

What?

[Emil Miller]

is there such a thing when
to be or not to be? Is.

To be, or not to be--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep ...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Alexander III]

is there such a thing when
to be or not to be? Is.

To be or not to be?

Every night you answer that question, you choose life because you hold some value to it, or due to fear of death, but everyday you choose. The second a man wishes to end it he can, so by not ending it you are answering that question everyday for yourself.


What?

There is an answer to this question. But is there a answer to this question?

[MarkBastable]

There is an answer to this question. But is there a answer to this question?

Do you understand the usage of the indefinite article in English?

[Alexander III]

Do you understand the usage of the indefinite article in English?

But it makes sense. So the rest doesn't really matter.

[MarkBastable]

But it makes sense.

No, it doesn't.

[Jack of Hearts]

The indefinite article "an" precedes word that begins with a vowel. The indefinite article "a" precedes a word that begins with a consonant. When using perfectly healthy, nonprogressive grammar, this isn't an optional rule. Anything that says otherwise has a socialist agenda.





J

[MarkBastable]

The indefinite article "an" proceeds a word that begins with a vowel. The indefinite article "a" proceeds a word that begins with a consonant. When using perfectly healthy, nonprogressive grammar, this isn't an optional rule. Anything that says otherwise had a socialist agenda.

J

That's 'precedes' rather than 'proceeds'. I point this out as a socialist with an agenda.

[Jack of Hearts]

It's only because of the transatlantic vowel shift.

... comrade.




J

[Alexander III]

Does my grammar betray the capitalist facade I have long maintained, to reveal my self-ashamed inner soul of a egalitarian, populist and anarcho-comunist.


No, it doesn't.

I am quite sure everyone else understood.

[Paulclem]

To refer to the OP

Some people have an answer for everything.

:lol:

[MarkBastable]

I am quite sure everyone else understood.

I wouldn't ask for a show of hands, if I were you.

[Alexander III]

I wouldn't ask for a show of hands, if I were you.

Are you honestly going to be this petty about it?

[jajdude]

Oh my, no. I counted all the questions. They much outnumbered the answers, I think by about a bazillion to one.

Yet even more surprising than the fact that I counted all the questions and answers is why bazillion was not underlined in red as a misspelled word. Why is that? See, another question.

Merry Christmas.

[Jack of Hearts]

Are you honestly going to be this petty about it?

That's kind of his shtick. It's tough being Litnet's wacky uncle.








J

[cacian]

To be or not to be?

Every night you answer that question, you choose life because you hold some value to it, or due to fear of death, but everyday you choose. The second a man wishes to end it he can, so by not ending it you are answering that question everyday for yourself.

Haha...I don't answer nor care for it because I already know I am here ..to question myself on any subject let alone on wether I am here or not is not something I do I am afraid.
I might talk outloud if I am thinking but I never solliloquy me ..no point in that when I can have a proper conversation/dialoque with a person/a friend/..
that is my hobbie to converse with others and NEVER to myself.:santasmil

QUOTE=Paulclem;1101004]To refer to the OP

Some people have an answer for everything.

:lol:[/QUOTE]

Hold on a minute..I have a new question for them...so no they are not done just yet:biggrin5:[


Does my grammar betray the capitalist facade I have long maintained, to reveal my self-ashamed inner soul of a egalitarian, populist and anarcho-comunist.

How about dropping the article all together..that way it won't look out of place.:santasmil


Oh my, no. I counted all the questions. They much outnumbered the answers, I think by about a bazillion to one.

Agreed.
There is one born every second...haha

[qimissung]

Is there an (yes, AN...you heard me) answer to every question?

No,no I don't think so-there may be a reply, but not every question can be answered.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think that every question has an answer, but that we haven't even come close to discovering the vast majority of them.

[Pendragon]

I feel that yes, there is an answer for everything. There are, however, problems with that fact. Some answers are not yet known, but there is an answer to those kind of questions. We simply haven't discovered those answers as of yet.

Then too, some answers to pithy questions are there, but not everyone can accept the answer given. Also, human beings cannot always agree on the answer to a given question. And there the rule seems to be, to paraphrase Yoda: "Believe. Or believe not. There is no compromise."

For my part, I accept that there are thing as of yet unexplained, but it doesn't mean there aren't answers. And I do feel that those answers will not always conform to the world as we know it, i.e., that there are things beyond what we can experience with our senses, and beyond our own disbelief.

Science certainly does not have all of the answers, and just because I believe in God doesn't mean that I simply take everything I don't understand into the realm of the divine. Sometimes the true answers are right in front of us, but we allow our pre-prejudiced ideas to block the pathway to understanding.

God bless

Pen

[cacian]

I think that every question has an answer, but that we haven't even come close to discovering the vast majority of them.

could that be one definition of INFINITY?

[PoeticPassions]

If a question has multiple answers, then that becomes somewhat problematic. There are no absolute answers, I suppose. There are factual answers, emotional ones, and purely subjective ones... but whether an answer is 'right' or 'wrong' or adequate or inadequate is something to ponder...

The question this thread poses-- is there really an answer to it?

[jajdude]

I think that every question has an answer, but that we haven't even come close to discovering the vast majority of them.

I think this is naive thinking. Many questions simply do not have answers. And some have many answers, of which some or even all may be incorrect (like God questions), but the point of some questions is to inspire thought, not to arrive at a solid answer. I guess the great thinkers always had more questions than answers, poor fools. Wait, that's all of us who ask questions about stuff.

May I also submit a thing that is perhaps true. It is better to question than to think you know without a question. Damn, now I'm confused.

[Bluehound]

May I also submit a thing that is perhaps true. It is better to question than to think you know without a question. Damn, now I'm confused.


This is a good point, it is far better to question than to believe you have all of the answers already. Arrogance is a horrible thing.

However ,I believe that all questions have an answer, even the most existential ones , though some may be unanswerable (for example if you would have to be dead to really know the truth).

[jajdude]

And as we can now see from the replies to the original topic, there is not a definite answer to every question.

[MarkBastable]

And as we can now see from the replies to the original topic, there is not a definite answer to every question.


The OP didn't specify a definite answer to every question - just an answer. And every question has an answer. I'm happy to prove that. Ask me a question.

[BienvenuJDC]

It's 42!

While I could agree that 42 is the answer, what exactly is the question?

[cacian]

I think this is naive thinking. Many questions simply do not have answers. And some have many answers, of which some or even all may be incorrect (like God questions), but the point of some questions is to inspire thought, not to arrive at a solid answer. I guess the great thinkers always had more questions than answers, poor fools. Wait, that's all of us who ask questions about stuff.


I guess the great thinkers always had more questions than answers,
This is music to my ears:smile5:


May I also submit a thing that is perhaps true. It is better to question than to think you know without a question. Damn, now I'm confused.

Is there such a thing as true/truth?


The OP didn't specify a definite answer to every question - just an answer. And every question has an answer. I'm happy to prove that. Ask me a question.

how old is time?

[Alexander III]

how old is time?

By estimate I would say that it is roughly 50 thousand years old. Roughly the time that homo sapiens came into full mental development and became aware of death and developed self-conciousness. Before that, on planet earth the conception of time never did exist.

Of course this is me responding to "time" as our human concept of it exists. Which is by all probability extremely limited due to that fact that we are not omnipotent and omniscient and thus are limited to a definition of "time" that speak far more about Man than it does Time


It is not the answer, but it is an answer.

[Climacus]

Every answerable question has an answer. But some questions are just unanswerable.

There is a barber who claims to shave all and only those villagers who do not shave themselves. Does the barber shave himself? :wink5:


Is there such a thing as true/truth?

Of course. “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true" - Aristotle. The proposition "There's no such thing as truth" is self-referentially incoherent, for it is itself a truth-claim.

[MarkBastable]

how old is time?

a) Very.
b) Old is time
c) About an hour older than it was an hour ago.


There you go. Three answers.


Next.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think this is naive thinking. Many questions simply do not have answers.

Like what? What could have no answer?

[Buh4Bee]

How about there is an answer, we/you (whoever) just don't know what it is.

[jajdude]

Ok you wiseacres, you can answer anything, but an honest answer will often be "I don't know." Not much of answer, but an answer nonetheless I suppose.

[MarkBastable]

It's nothing to do with being a wiseacre, whatever that is. It has to do with the careful use of language. If the OP had said, "Is there a single definitive, universally-agreed and potentially - if not currently or practically - knowable and expressible answer to every question?" then that's what we'd all be discussing. If the OP had said, "Is there some kind of appropriate answer, or perhaps more than one, to every question?" then we'd be discussing that. You seem to have interpreted it the first way. I've interpreted it the second way.

In fact, all of us are talking around a handful of incompatible assumptions concerning what the OP meant - which means that the discussion can't move forward in any helpful or even agreed way.

Is this semantics? Yes. Semantics matter in conversations like this. I'd say semantics matter in any conversation, tacitly or explicitly - but in this kind of conversation they are so fundamental that any lack of semantic clarity will lead to someone calling someone else a wiseacre, presumably because they feel that any interpretation other than their own is somehow fatuous.

[Climacus]

If the OP had said, "Is there a single definitive, universally-agreed and potentially - if not currently or practically - knowable and expressible answer to every question?" then that's what we'd all be discussing. If the OP had said, "Is there some kind of appropriate answer, or perhaps more than one, to every question?" then we'd be discussing that. You seem to have interpreted it the first way. I've interpreted it the second way.
The first question is complex. For you're mixing ontology and epistemology. And so it would first have to be broken down into its constituent parts. "Does such and such exist?" and "Can we know such and such?" should be taken in isolation. There seems to be some confusion about this here generally. Some people are saying "Yes" to the ontological question, and in return others are criticising them as if they said "Yes" to the epistemological question.

But the second question ("Is there some kind of appropriate answer . . .") is somewhat vapid. And by "answer" here you seem to mean something more like mere "response." Every question can be responded to, of course - if only by saying, "That question is meaningless." The OP means, I think, something more like "Can every puzzle be solved?" (And he seems worried that every puzzle will be solved, leaving us with nought to wonder at.) But here I would say the same thing that I said about questions. There are solvable and unsolvable puzzles, answerable and unanswerable questions.

[cacian]

a) Very.
b) Old is time
c) About an hour older than it was an hour ago.


There you go. Three answers.


Next.

as old as what?
I am need a number and it has to be exact.
for example
How old are you?
the answer= 35
how old is time?
I want an exact answer

[cacian]

Ok you wiseacres, you can answer anything, but an honest answer will often be "I don't know." Not much of answer, but an answer nonetheless I suppose.

it is an anwer with questions within it
like
why don't you know?
because the answer is
I don't know...
then it is left exposed to another question...

[MarkBastable]

as old as what?
I am need a number and it has to be exact.
for example
How old are you?
the answer= 35
how old is time?
I want an exact answer



Ah. Perhaps you should start a new thread entitled 'Does every question have an answer I want?'

That shouldn't take long for us all to sort out.

[Alexander III]

as old as what?
I am need a number and it has to be exact.
for example
How old are you?
the answer= 35
how old is time?
I want an exact answer

I think you are not understanding what "answer" means.

If you ask what color is the sky and I say Green. Green is just as much of an answer as Blue, even though one may be correct and the other incorrect.

If what you means was does every question have a single objective answer

Well one again, what is truth, and objective.If everyone sees a blue sky, but I do to some brain malfunction or state of stupefaction, see are green sky, is the answer green wrong?


I think mark is right. Just because it is not the answer you want doesn't mean it is not an answer, or very well THE answer.

[cacian]

Ah. Perhaps you should start a new thread entitled 'Does every question have an answer I want?'

That shouldn't take long for us all to sort out.

well that is just silly because running away from the firs one.
An answer is an answer yes but wether I am happy with it is another matter.
Then so long as I am in control of the question I you can give the answer you wish but if I am not happy with it there will be another question is what I mean.


I think you are not understanding what "answer" means.

If you ask what color is the sky and I say Green. Green is just as much of an answer as Blue, even though one may be correct and the other incorrect.

If what you means was does every question have a single objective answer

Well one again, what is truth, and objective.If everyone sees a blue sky, but I do to some brain malfunction or state of stupefaction, see are green sky, is the answer green wrong?


I think mark is right. Just because it is not the answer you want doesn't mean it is not an answer, or very well THE answer.

you are right.
It is an answer for those who gave it.
the question is
Am I happywith the answer?
And in this , I am to go asking until may be I can or not find an answer just yet...it is all dependable on the mood/my belief/the moment/the weather....

[Climacus]

Well one again, what is truth, and objective.If everyone sees a blue sky, but I do to some brain malfunction or state of stupefaction, see are green sky, is the answer green wrong?

If the sky really is blue rather than green, then the answer "I see a green sky" would be true, whereas the answer "The sky is green" would be false. Something is true objectively just if it is true independent of what you or I or anyone else thinks about it. If we were all sickened with some ocular disease so that we all saw the sky as green, then that wouldn't make the sky objectively green. Like Mark, you're confusing ontology with epistemology.

And "What is truth?" is an easy question to answer. “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true" - Aristotle.

[JuniperWoolf]

we were all sickened with some ocular disease so that we all saw the sky as green, then that wouldn't make the sky objectively green.

I don't know if the sky is objectively blue. The measurement tool is our human eyes, but we can't see the entire color spectrum, infrared or ultraviolet. If we can't see all of the colors, then we can't see the true color can we? In order to find the emperical truth we'd have to measure light using a device that can see the entire color spectrum.

[Jack of Hearts]

And "What is truth?" is an easy question to answer. “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true" - Aristotle.

Sorry... but seriously? At best you're talking about the truth value of a proposition and selectively not honoring the idea that a proposition can have the second order property of being indeterminate.

This reader doesn't know you and doesn't want to offend you or disparage you, and will give you the benefit of the doubt that you're an alright guy (after all, in the other thread you said you liked Peter Sellers and John Cleese), but don't you think saying:


And "What is truth?" is an easy question to answer.

... is either horribly misinformed or inherently full of hubris. There are books about this. You've read some of 'em. This reader has read some of 'em. Why can't we just, like, have our books together man, and say they're still important because this is not easy stuff and they're addressing it.

And using Aristotle as a source is silly unless it's for historical/artistic/personal enlightenment purposes.






"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths."


- Bertrand Russell






J

[MarkBastable]

Like Mark, you're confusing ontology with epistemology.


I might be conflating them, but I'm not confusing them because I'm not suggesting that either is necessarily a part of the frame of reference. I'm saying that until we agree on the intention of "is there an answer to every question?", we won't know whether the response should be ontological, epistemological, pistachio or velveteen.

So, yes, the first question of course implied a whole bunch of thinking that would be teased apart by the process, and the second was deliberately phrased to be immediately answerable - because the contrast between the two possible interpretations of the original question was illustrative of my point.

[cacian]

If the sky really is blue rather than green, then the answer "I see a green sky" would be true, whereas the answer "The sky is green" would be false. Something is true objectively just if it is true independent of what you or I or anyone else thinks about it. If we were all sickened with some ocular disease so that we all saw the sky as green, then that wouldn't make the sky objectively green. Like Mark, you're confusing ontology with epistemology.]

And "What is truth?" is an easy question to answer.


''To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true" - Aristotle.

This is way too twisted for me.

and to try/attempt answer the question for there a hundred and one possiblity that I might be wrong,

''what is the truth?''
I would say:
It is relative and it is what you make of it there and then of course there is no guarantee that is absolute for you may still come back and
change your mind.
is one possible answer.

''What does answer mean?''
is another possible question.:D
AND
Is there sucha thing as a definition??
I am not sure there is, is my answer for now.:D

[jajdude]

It's nothing to do with being a wiseacre, whatever that is. It has to do with the careful use of language. If the OP had said, "Is there a single definitive, universally-agreed and potentially - if not currently or practically - knowable and expressible answer to every question?" then that's what we'd all be discussing. If the OP had said, "Is there some kind of appropriate answer, or perhaps more than one, to every question?" then we'd be discussing that. You seem to have interpreted it the first way. I've interpreted it the second way.

In fact, all of us are talking around a handful of incompatible assumptions concerning what the OP meant - which means that the discussion can't move forward in any helpful or even agreed way.

Is this semantics? Yes. Semantics matter in conversations like this. I'd say semantics matter in any conversation, tacitly or explicitly - but in this kind of conversation they are so fundamental that any lack of semantic clarity will lead to someone calling someone else a wiseacre, presumably because they feel that any interpretation other than their own is somehow fatuous.


This may be true Mark, and no one here doubts your intelligence, but I reckon the question was simple. Is there a real answer to any question? That's how I read it, and that is how it should be read by anyone, as you know. That's just simple.

And the simple answer is No. Many questions have no answers other than the I dunno one.

We can all do that.

Please do not respond with the "real" part. It's just silly.

[JuniperWoolf]

This may be true Mark, and no one here doubts your intelligence, but I reckon the question was simple. Is there a real answer to any question? That's how I read it, and that is how it should be read by anyone, as you know.

That's not how I read it. What's a "real" answer? I can tell that we're thinking of the OP differently because you said that there are some questions for which we can never have an answer. Like what? What will humans never possibly understand, even if we live and progress for billions of years?

[MarkBastable]

This may be true Mark, and no one here doubts your intelligence, but I reckon the question was simple. Is there a real answer to any question? That's how I read it, and that is how it should be read by anyone, as you know. That's just simple.

And the simple answer is No. Many questions have no answers other than the I dunno one.



I don't think everyone does read it the way you so confidently suggest it should be read. Look at the responses so far.

And, actually, look at the OP's latest few pronouncements. In clarifying what she meant, she said:

The question is
Am I happywith the answer?
And in this , I am to go asking until may be I can or not find an answer just yet...it is all dependable on the mood/my belief/the moment/the weather....

So even the person who started the discussion is developing the meaning of it as she gets responses.

Which is why I don't think it's in the least silly to try to get us to agree which question we're answering - which may be the one you think we're answering, of course. But we don't all seem to agree on that yet.

[Varenne Rodin]

Pistachio or velveteen. Hahahaha.

[Climacus]

This reader doesn't know you and doesn't want to offend you or disparage you, and will give you the benefit of the doubt that you're an alright guy (after all, in the other thread you said you liked Peter Sellers and John Cleese) . . .
Very generous of you. :)

What I mean is this. It seems obvious what something must be like in order to be true: viz, it must correspond to the way things really are. (Not surprisingly, this is called the correspondence theory of truth :wink5: .) Thus, "to say of what is that it is . . . is true." (I'll ignore your shameless ad hominem against Aristotle :p).

If someone responds, "Ah, but you don't know what corresponds to the way things really are!" then I'd say "Right, and I'm not claiming to." Some of you guys are still confusing the ontological question of truth (what is it?) with the epistemological (can we know it?), and bouncing back and forth willy-nilly between them.


I don't know if the sky is objectively blue. The measurement tool is our human eyes, but we can't see the entire color spectrum, infrared or ultraviolet. If we can't see all of the colors, then we can't see the true color can we? In order to find the emperical truth we'd have to measure light using a device that can see the entire color spectrum.
Right. That's why I said "If the sky really is blue rather than green, then . . ." Again, you're talking about epistemology. And I'm talking about ontology. Don't lets get mixed up.

[Climacus]

''what is the truth?''
I would say:
It is relative . . .

So, you were a closet relativist the whole time?!? :p

[Climacus]

. . . I don't think it's in the least silly to try to get us to agree which question we're answering . . .
:iagree:

Ideally the OP would do all the boring, preliminary work - defining terms and so on.

[Alexander III]

To expand on what Juniper said, there is no such thing as objective color or shape or anything objective that has to do with the sense of sight.

Take for example a basic principle of Darkness, it is the absence of light yes? Yes. But a cat and a human due to their different bodies have two completely different understandings of darkness, what for us is the complete absences of darkness, for a cat may be no darkness.

Colors, shapes, and everything you see, has no objective truth. Only trough God's eyes would there be a case of things having a visibly objective color, but since we begin with the prepossession of human, we begin with the...dam I am not cleard headed and can't express this right now, but I hope you kind of understood what I am saying.

[Climacus]

But how do you know colours have no objective truth? Something looks blue to us and red to some and green to others. And maybe we're all wrong. But it doesn't follow, therefore, that the thing is colourless. And maybe it is colourless. But how would you know? There's a lot of metaphysical question begging in your post. And that's the thing with these sorts of questions, eventually they lead to metaphysics - that is, to the nature of ultimate reality.

What I'm saying is that there must be a way things really are. And that which is true is that which corresponds thereto.

[jajdude]

OK Mark and all, I confess I am baffled. And what the hell are we are even talking about? The topic is "Is there an answer to every question?" Correct?
I don't confidently suggest anything, other than good things with girls, haha.

And the answer must be no, except for "I don't know."

[Alexander III]

But how do you know colours have no objective truth? Something looks blue to us and red to some and green to others. And maybe we're all wrong. But it doesn't follow, therefore, that the thing is colourless. And maybe it is colourless. But how would you know? There's a lot of metaphysical question begging in your post. And that's the thing with these sorts of questions, eventually they lead to metaphysics - that is, to the nature of ultimate reality.

What I'm saying is that there must be a way things really are. And that which is true is that which corresponds thereto.

Just because there must be an objective truth does not mean it is naturally that of mankind. Following said logic 1000 years ago, the objective truth was that we are the center of the Galaxy. Man kind is flawed, therefore are views shall be flawed as well. Therefore claiming that we know absolute truth, is ironically enough the perfect example fro my argument, hubris is one of our greatest flaws after all.

Objectively tough, things have no color, they are colorless. That is what we get if we follow science. But I wont guarantee it, and neither will science, any scientist which guarantees a truth is missing the entire point of science.


OK Mark and all, I confess I am baffled. And what the hell are we are even talking about? The topic is "Is there an answer to every question?" Correct?
I don't confidently suggest anything, other than good things with girls, haha.

And the answer must be no, except for "I don't know."

I don't know is itself an answer, and may often be the objective truth as well.

[cacian]

That's not how I read it. What's a "real" answer? I can tell that we're thinking of the OP differently because you said that there are some questions for which we can never have an answer. Like what? What will humans never possibly understand, even if we live and progress for billions of years?

no one knows but I am sure there will be things that will still keep creeping up You or I or someone else won't get time to answer fully is one of my opinions.


So, you were a closet relativist the whole time?!? :p

Humm...maybe a distant one..:D

[Climacus]

Just because there must be an objective truth does not mean it is naturally that of mankind. Following said logic 1000 years ago, the objective truth was that we are the center of the Galaxy.
This doesn't make any sense. To say that something is objectively true is just to say that it is true independent of what anyone says. So there can't be different sorts of objective truth, that of mankind, and that of martiankind, and that of angelkind, and that of demonkind, and so on.

Man kind is flawed, therefore are views shall be flawed as well. Therefore claiming that we know absolute truth, is ironically enough the perfect example fro my argument, hubris is one of our greatest flaws after all.
Not all truth-claims are examples of hubris. You're making several truth-claims here, you're claiming to know absolute truths: in example, "Mankind is flawed" and "Therefore mankind's views are flawed as well" (a non sequitur by the way). Does this mean that you're guilty of hubris?

Anyway, I'm not sure if you're suggesting that I'm similarly guilty. But you've already agreed with my point: namely, that there must be a way things really are, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. And for something to be true, it must correspond to the way things really are. So, in that (ontological) sense, the question "What is truth?" is, again, easy to answer. Aristotle to the rescue: To say of what is, that it is, is to speak the truth.

Now, the question "Which things are true?" is, well, not so easy.

[jajdude]

I don't know is itself an answer, and may often be the objective truth as well.

That is true. I read the topic as - Is there a real answer? - And people went on about stuff.

There simply is not an answer. I don't know. Sure. That is an answer. But not really.

Since it answers nothing.

[Cunninglinguist]

So, in that (ontological) sense, the question "What is truth?" is, again, easy to answer. Aristotle to the rescue: To say of what is, that it is, is to speak the truth.

You have misunderstood Aristotle, my friend. By this definition Aristotle makes truth a property of knowledge (as things spoken can only convey ideas), which makes truth a wholly epistemological question, not an ontological one. Let us call things "as they really are" not true things but certain things. Things that can be true, then, can only be articles of knowledge. Things that can be certain can only be things taken per se (that is, only by their inherent properties). What is the quality of being (certain)? or, in other words, how can/do we measure that which is certain? is the central ontological question. How do we measure certainty in different respects? (e.g. what is immediately vs. generally certain) becomes the second question. These questions will not be answered here.

Moreover, I don't think you're right in saying that the debate here is hinges on an ontological vs. epistemological way of understanding or measuring the validity (I'll call it) of answers. I say this, in the first place, because it doesn't really make sense. Ontology deals with the properties of being, epistemology with the properties of knowledge. We do not care about the properties of being which are inherent to our answers, though we often care about how well the matter of our answers accords with ontological properties of our experiences. But this matter belongs to epistemology. At any rate, you're also misnominating the "epistemological" camp, i.e. those who say all questions have answers. As most systems of epistemology state that knowledge is not nor can be arbitrary, that is, determined by the will, they must also state that not every question is answerable. To illustrate, if I ask, for example, what is the color of the number two? or what does purple taste like? while some epistemological systems (if they can be so called, a contentious point) will say that you can "know" that the color of two is this or that or purple tastes like this or that--as, they say, knowledge may be created arbitrarily--most current systems deny this idea, especially systems which emphasize empirical knowledge and ascribe to JTB.

It seems to me that the essential disagreement consists in an epistemological vs. linguistic measure of validity. Mark, it seems, asserts that so long as it doesn't violate any linguistic prescriptions any statement is/can be a valid answer, which doesn't get us very far and I'm sure is not the measure the OP wants to use. On the other hand, jaj was saying that only true answers are valid, and as we established before truth belongs to epistemology. Which should we assume then? The second. Reason: in day to day life we generally don't care about the nonsense answers.

[Climacus]

You have misunderstood Aristotle, my friend. By this definition Aristotle makes truth a property of knowledge (as things spoken can only convey ideas), which makes truth a wholly epistemological question, not an ontological one.
Aristotle espoused a correspondence theory of truth. The question "What is truth?" becomes, for Aristotle, "What is it for a proposition to be true?" And that's not an epistemological question. The epistemological question would be "Can we know truth?" (The ontological question would be "Does truth exist?") Aristotle writes: "If a man is, the proposition wherein we allege he is, is true . . . The fact of the man's being does seem somehow to be the cause of the truth of the proposition." These are mostly ontological musings.


. . . you're also misnominating the "epistemological" camp, i.e. those who say all questions have answers
No. I was referring to the people interpreting the question "What is truth" in a strictly epistemological sense, i.e. as "Can we know truth?" or something along those lines.


. . . as we established before truth belongs to epistemology
Not necessarily. It all depends. For instance, again, "Does truth exist?" is an ontological question, not an epistemological question.

What I've been getting at is that we have to qualify the question "What is truth?" We have to decide whether we are answering the ontological side of the question, or the epistemological, or whatever; and then we have to recast the question accordingly. Otherwise we shan't make progress. It's not like asking "What is a cat?" We're talking about a logically complex concept, which doesn't admit of a logically simple answer.

[Cunninglinguist]

Aristotle espoused a correspondence theory of truth. The question "What is truth?" becomes, for Aristotle, "What is it for a proposition to be true?" And that's not an epistemological question. The epistemological question would be "Can we know truth?" (The ontological question would be "Does truth exist?") Aristotle writes: "If a man is, the proposition wherein we allege he is, is true . . . The fact of the man's being does seem somehow to be the cause of the truth of the proposition." These are mostly ontological musings.

Again, truth is a property of knowledge (or propositions, as you call them) which makes the question of "what is true," as Aristotle answers it, belong to epistemology. The definition is, again, asserting that truth belongs to knowledge (or things said, as he initially calls them), which makes it belong to epistemology. To put it in other words, if epistemology deals with the properties of knowledge, the properties of said properties--truth being one of them--must also belong to epistemology. But you clearly state that this is a definition of truth in terms of ontology, which is not the case. This can be made clear in another thing, even with this definition, we may still deny the existence of truth. If the definition leaves the matter of affirming or denying the existence of truth unconditionally open, it cannot be an ontological one.

The quote pretty much backs what I've been arguing, as I will now and later demonstrate: Aristotle states, truth is a function of ontological status and the matter of a proposition. Yet such a function is a property of truth, again, making it part of epistemology. As I alluded to in my last post, If the ontological status of something accords with the matter of our knowledge our knowledge will be true, and "this...belongs to epistemology." Aristotle has effectively said the exact same thing.


Not necessarily. It all depends. For instance, again, "Does truth exist?" is an ontological question, not an epistemological question.

You're misappropriating my statement here. If I say (the study of) life belongs to biology, you can't really refute this, even though the question "does life exist?" doesn't properly belong to biology, as biology assumes the answer to this question is the affirmative. In the same way have I said (the study of) "truth belongs to epistemology."

And here again, we can see that Aristotle is understanding truth and epistemology in the way which I have argued. In the quote you give Aristotle has not provided us with any information as to what might indicate the ontological status of something. He merely states "if a man is, then..." but, again, what betokens (a man's) being? And the question "does truth exist?" as Aristotle has prescribed us with the "if...then truth" formula, hinges on the if; that is, principally whether or not there is anything which betokens being. In everything you've quoted Aristotle suggests nothing on this point. In fact, having scrutinized Aristotle in the past, it seems like he's making an extra effort to not say anything about ontology.


What I've been getting at is that we have to qualify the question "What is truth?" We have to decide whether we are answering the ontological side of the question, or the epistemological, or whatever; and then we have to recast the question accordingly. Otherwise we shan't make progress. It's not like asking "What is a cat?"

It is a bit ironic that a man who quotes Aristotle deigns to lecture on progress...


We're talking about a logically complex concept, which doesn't admit of a logically simple answer.

And here you were telling us how simple it was. It seems to me that Aristotle has not made it a terribly complex idea but merely a half completed one. He gives the formula, truth is a function of ontological status and the matter of a proposition. The matter of the proposition is provided by the proposition itself, yet ascertaining the ontological status of what the matter refers to none of what you've quoted comments on. At any rate, it certainly gets more complex when we depart from Aristotle, which is the condition most of us responders are in.

[Climacus]

Much falls under the heading of epistemology. (Epistemologists are concerned with concepts of knowledge, warrant, beliefs, justification, and so on.) But you're thinking of epistemology in too broad a sense, and that's where you're going wrong. Consider morality. "Do right and wrong objectively exist?" is an ontological question, a question about moral ontology. Epistemology's not interested in that question as such. Neither is it interested in the question of what makes something right or wrong. But, "Can we know rights and wrongs?" is an epistemological question, a question about moral epistemology. And epistemology is interested in that of course. It's also interested in how we know the other questions too. But that doesn't make them epistemological. You seem to be implying that anything to do with truth is epistemological. That isn't necessarily so. And Aristotle's definition of truth ("To say of what is, that it is, is true") is definitely not epistemological.

It is a bit ironic that a man who quotes Aristotle deigns to lecture on progress...
:rolleyes5: Another ad hominem.

And here you were telling us how simple it was . . .
Again, it all depends. As I've said, it's simple in some senses - e.g. "What must a proposition be like in order to be true?" (the question Aristotle answered) - and not in others - e.g. "Is this particular proposition true?" or "What is Truth?" (uppercase "T"). It's complex in that it has multiple senses, and needs to be broken down accordingly.

It seems to me that Aristotle has not made it a terribly complex idea . . .
Is seems that way to me too. The correspondence theory is not obsolete by the way. It's still held by philosophers the world over.

[Cunninglinguist]

Much falls under the heading of epistemology. (Epistemologists are concerned with concepts of knowledge, warrant, beliefs, justification, and so on.) But you're thinking of epistemology in too broad a sense, and that's where you're going wrong. Consider morality. "Do right and wrong objectively exist?" is an ontological question, a question about moral ontology. Epistemology's not interested in that question as such. Neither is it interested in the question of what makes something right or wrong. But, "Can we know rights and wrongs?" is an epistemological question, a question about moral epistemology. And epistemology is interested in that of course. It's also interested in how we know the other questions too. But that doesn't make them epistemological. You seem to be implying that anything to do with truth is epistemological. That isn't necessarily so. And Aristotle's definition of truth ("To say of what is, that it is, is true") is definitely not epistemological.

I never suggested that the question "do right and wrong objectively exist" would belong to epistemology, that would be idiotic. At any rate, I think saying that Epistemology deals with the properties of knowledge is a fair, simple, easily understood and comprehensive definition; and, for that matter, so is the definition of ontology I gave. If you want to refute these definitions, good luck. It's pretty much impossible, since more or less all studies follow the same simple pattern: to take a commonly recognized thing and to then describe its properties. When asking any question about goodness, badness, knowledge, truth, shapes, society, life, being etc. etc. we must admit that the question about said thing belongs to that thing's respective study. Thus, questions about goodness and badness will belong to morality, questions of knowledge and truth to epistemology, shapes to geometry, society to sociology, being to ontology and so on. So even if we say, for example, that goodness has this or that ontological property, the question will yet not belong properly to ontology but to morality (in the same way that a cherry is red but certainly cannot be studied under chromatics). We can, yes, further qualify the subject to indicate which part of it the question pertains to, but this does not change what the question properly belongs to. So, yes, I am saying that anything and everything to do with truth is necessarily epistemological, as truth can only be predicated of knowledge/propositions. If Aristotle didn't espouse this view he would have rather said: "of what is, that it is, is true" and would have left out "to say," making truth a property of things in themselves. That he didn't leave out "to say" is the part which you seem to fail to realize. So, again, we can infer from these considerations that truth can only be predicated of things said, which means that the study of truth can only belong to the study of the kinds of things which can be said. "Being as such" is not a thing which can be said, thus the study of truth cannot belong to ontology.

Again, I've pointed out too many times why the quote talks about epistemology. As I have argued this ad nauseam the following will be my last demonstration. Truth is a function of being and the matter of the proposition; this much has been established. That truth is a property of knowledge (or "things said") is also made sufficiently clear by the quote. I think the chief problem here is understanding that just because some property/thing, the study of which belongs to this or that, is a function of some other property/thing, the study of which does not belong to this or that, does not make the study of the former property/thing belong to the study of the latter property/thing. To give the quasi-Socratic illustration, to say knife wounds are a function of knives does not make the study of knife wounds belong to the study of knives, but to the study of the diagnosis and treatment of injuries, or medicine. Likewise is truth a function of being; likewise does the study of truth not belong to ontology but to epistemology.

To get back to my original point though, my initial assertion was that you were misunderstanding Aristotle and were using the terms incorrectly. I still stand by this pretty much completely, and I'm yet to be convinced that you're not just throwing around big words to sound smart. {Edit: I make a big deal of it because, in a word, I find it a bit besmirching to the dignity of philosophy.}


:rolleyes5: Another ad hominem.

And though it be more indirect, is not your condescending comment "ad hominem," too?


Again, it all depends. As I've said, it's simple in some senses - e.g. "What must a proposition be like in order to be true?" (the question Aristotle answered) - and not in others - e.g. "Is this particular proposition true?" or "What is Truth?" (uppercase "T"). It's complex in that it has multiple senses, and needs to be broken down accordingly.

Is seems that way to me too. The correspondence theory is not obsolete by the way. It's still held by philosophers the world over.

My opinions of said philosophers aside, the theory by itself meets a lot of problems when it comes face to face with transcendental idealism and other Kantian-derivative philosophies. Kant shows us that knowing the object per se (noumenon) is impossible, while what is presumably the representation of it to the sensibility enjoys a certain self-evidence. The possibility remains, however, that the world may be entirely illusory. Aristotle never seems to consider the "brain in a vat" possibility in his theory, though. That said, the correspondence theory of truth isn't a very eligible one in purely theoretical contexts, though it certainly seems to find its use in practice (arguably the end Aristotle was aiming for, anyway).