There is no objective truth

it is no longer about objective-ness but of the positivity of the statement to reflect on the statement itself

because the statement says there is no truth it must mean either the statement is false or there is some semi-truth so that the statement can be positive, it is a simple dualism

What semi-truth? There is no semi-truth on this case

>There are no quotes

>This phrase tries to be an objective truth
No it doesn't. This is where everyone fucks up and misunderstands Nietzsche when he said

>there are no facts, only interpretations.

Nowhere here is he stating this as a fact.

something has to be factual to be interpreted

Cart before the horse there.

he has no solid ground to stand on then.
>there are no facts, only interpretations
oh, is that a fact?

wtf why is he so popular

then the word interpretation is meanless from the word fact

meaningless*

>meanless

lmfao

objectively true=/=true for all subjects

It's philosophy with a sledgehammer not a scalpel bro! We're deconstructing the precious categories analytical philosophy has caged your mind with! Breaking down the conditioning of slave morality requires the breaking of a few eggs man! Man is both the marble and the sculptor! No pain no gain!

>What is a tautology?

Better to say that the distinctions between objective and subjective truths are unnecessary. As such with all dualisms we cast them aside with antirepresentationalism, that there is no reality/appearance. We can then take truth as what gets us (community) to our goal.

There is that which exists and that which we create to describe it. The statement "there is no objective truth" falls into the second category so it being objectively true doesn't mean that there is objective truth

Nothing will fuck you up more than Rorty.

He never said that you dropkick

His point was that as humans it is impossible to know whether what we consider "the objective truth" is in fact the objective truth, and any group or institution claiming to have/know it should be met with suspicion

This is some serious semantic flap doodle.

The statement is a fucking tautology moron. It's self-refuting, because the thing it's trying to negate is contained within the meaning of the sentence.

Rorty will do nothing but unfuck what current and past philosophers have done. From him there is a clear path to action instead of squabble.

I can't take Nietzsche seriously anymore. Since the first time I had the thought that he was actually the proto-Fedora.

You will have to forgive him. He wasn't formally trained in philosophy.

No Nietzsche actually meant truth is a fabricated category invented by a group of organisms on a lousy planet in an infinitely vast universe and that arguing over 'the objectivity' of something is always an argument of competing interpretations. Nietzsche went so far as to say that language itself is too arbitrary to arrive at anything true and that it only estranged us further from the illusory category that we made up in the first place. What's 'true' is always therefore a result of the will.

Nietzsche always straddled the line between Continental Emersonian and actual philosophical terrorist.

Personally, global anti-representationalism is terrifying and fucks my mind up.

Perhaps if you in a weaker culture but otherwise there is no fear.

I mean it fucks my mind up in that I am disturbed by the idea that when I say something I am "not really saying anything" in the traditional sense.

Also the fact Rorty himself can't justify his philosophy in any traditional sense, as his vocabulary is just one among many. It's impossible to comprehend his doctrines in any rational line of thought and it just gives me the heebeegeebees.

>self-refuting
>Tautology
>Not contradiction

I think Rorty's position is something along the lines of "there is objective truth out there, somewhere, but we can't really say anything useful about it".

He's pretty based.

That is not what he's saying in the slightest. He'd say there's nothing useful to arguing over an objective.

Na he accepts Kant's noumena/phenomena distinction from the get go. He's sceptical about philosophers arguing about the nature of noumenal realm, but he's not qualified to say (and I don't think he really did) that it's illusory/unreal, because doing so is pulling the carpet from under his feet. He can offer it as his own (inflammatory) interpretation, but anything more than that is metaphysics

He didn't ever accept any of Kant's theory. In fact, Nietzsche very much disliked Kant's decent into advocacy for political violence. (Kant flirted with the Communist party for much of his career but later turned to Anarchism and often even attended student protests in part of the French revolutions. When the state responded with a lot of force and violence, Kant than thought that, therefore, violence against the state is needed in order to topple oppressive regimes. Nietzsche hated this about Kant, and this wasn't helped by, when coming to this conclusion, one of his favorite composers, Bucephalus, started to advocate nationalism. This disgusted Nietzsche and made him storm out of one of his operas. If anything, I would say Nietzsche's philosophy was closest with that of Pygmallion due to obvious reasons.

I'm not familiar with Kant's politics but
>there is no objective truth
presupposes a perspective that is above/beyond all phenomenal experience. It's a metaphysical claim and Nietzsche would've known better. God might be 'dead', but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist!

Read some Wittgenstein.

>presupposes a perspective that is above/beyond all phenomenal experience
There is representation but also there is will

t. Schoppy Howser

That's all good for Schopenhauer but for dynamite boy it's a problem. You can't use metaphysics to destroy metaphysics

Truth is always in a contextual framework. 2+2=4 in mathematics, but you can create a (fictional) framework in which it isn't, or in which they're just words or signs signifying something completely different. Why use the term "objective" in the first place? That term hasn't been relevant since fucking Kant.

Truth exists as a conceptual scheme of human understanding, same as other abstract objects of metaphysics we assume on a regular basis.

Will isn't fighting will, but a more general sense of the will is overcoming a more specific.

Tbh this bit is not somethijg I know well enough to explain off the cuff I just know that it's formulated as metaphysics not fighting metaphysics.

To demonstrate just how absurd "There is no objective truth" is one only needs to prove its negation, since one will not be able to derive a contradiction from "There is no objective truth".

Theorem: There is objective truth

Proof: Assume for reductio that there there is NO objective truth. It implies that the number of eyes that I have is not even. But I do have an even number of eyes. Contradiction. There must be objective truth after all.

Of course we're not even arguing in a well-defined language with a set of rules of inferences and formal semantics, so the "theorem" and "proof" above are strictly speaking meaningless but used only for the flourish. But: if you commit to the thesis that there are no objective truths you're obliged to deny, as a consequence, that you have an even number of eyes, that the Earth spins on its axis, and so on. This is the daily reminder.

Likewise, all talk of "objective" and "truth" etc. is of course, too, informal as hell but it it is interesting to know that it can be made formal and that it has been made formal. Truth, as a notion was first informally defined by Aristotle, and for the first time axiomatized by Tarski, in the early 30s of the last century.

>2016
>people still fall for the law of non contradiction meme

>Truth is always in a contextual framework
That's relativism and it need not be necessarily so. That's why truth-talk is a metaphysical matter and that's why there are philosophical logicians (there's a huuuuuuge literature and subbranch of philosophy devoted to this alone) that argue for one 'true' logic, being able to quantify over not just mathematical entities used by mathematicians but over every day objects, however small or large, too (making the notion of true general, global, objective, or whatever you want to call it). This is not something that will be settled in the mathematics departments. The issue intrinsically philosophical and will probably reign forever.

>I believe that both, Paris is in France and that Paris is not in France at the same time.

This is how stupid you sound.

fite me

I'm pretty sure that Heidegger made the same point about Nietzsche, that his will to power was bringing in metaphysics through the back door or something

Terrible posture mate, you wouldn't be standing for long

Have you even read anything by him or are you just propagandising memes of the paraconsistent variety? :^)

What if I ... slipped into something more comfortable?

I read, and later forgot most of, his introduction to non classical logic a year or two ago. But it's not like I was replying to a non meme post to begin with.

Yeah I think you're on the money there.

Lol ok mouthbreather. Maybe spend more time on breathing in taichi class next time

So fucking underrated. This post makes me genuinely happy.

daily reminder: nietzsche is the paris hilton of philosophers, only famous for being famous

Eh?

I think the Paris Hilton of literature was probably Proust tho.

That the statement is paradoxical in nature doesn't mean it's impossihle and unimaginable. The problem with the idea however is that there needs to be an objective truth.

More like Franzen.

Yeah that could work.

>I don't know what objectivity is so I'll retort with nonsense.

>I don't have any counter-arguments so I'll just greentext

truth is subjective. objective truth is an oxymoron.

Delete this thread, OP.

This is either top-tier sarcastic humor, or proof that Western cultures are in dramatic decline.

"There is no objective truth," would be an objective truth.

the only objective thruth are the planck constants, all else is subjective bullshit desu

If it would be true then it would follow that it is false, which is embarrassing

But it isn't true, and so it is all good.

Eternal recurrence at work lads.

That's not relativism. That's coherentism.

>Empirical constants
>Thinking numerical values having decimal digits deserve the label 'constant'
>Implying the present planck constants won't render themselves inaccurate after we measure them with more refined and advanced technology
>Implying this won't go on forever and ever

Nietzsche never said there was no objective truth. He said it was a silly and pointless fantasy and to pretend otherwise was a mark of sophistry and confusion.

Pls note that's the Nietzsche AMA guy you're replying to.

its opposite day so does that means its not opposite day?

>so does that means its not opposite day
Yes. On opposite day it isn't opposite day.