What is 'truth'?

last post wasn't me but you're really bad at playing Socrates

That what is said is and is.

arbitrary mind game of philo-sophists

How am I bad at being Socrates?

Nirvana

This entire thread contains concetrated meme levels so high I vomited twice

The absolute/god.

eventually you have to say more than 'what is (last key term used by interlocutor)' or an equivalent phrase

this question, for example, doesn;t make any sense. You're just asking your conversational partner to lead you around in a circle. Asking about the forms would undermine your own position as Socrates, so you should have tried to come up with a compelling question about how the forms relate to God, potentially drawing upon some of the propositions in Timaeus.

Not the user who said you're bad at playing Socrates, but I agree with him: Socrates, when he asked his questions, had the answer in mind, and he tried to make person being asked come to that answer. The answer was objective, just like Plato's ideas, obtainable, in theory, by everyone practicing philosophy truly. That's why Plato's anamnesis is so close to Socratic method. You don't seem to have the answer to your question, that's why you're bad at playing Socrates. If you do, then your Socratic method lacks tightness. You're closer to Aristotle. His questions where a journey for the Truth.

why are you faggots have to relate memes to everything, let people enjoy their cancer.

ftr I would have responded with Biblical language that refers to God in similar terms to the forms, drawn heavily upon Phaedo, and concluded with a quotatione from the Gospels:
>I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So if you where Socrates, what would you ask?

I don't know what would I say as today's Socrates, because I don't know what 'truth' is. But I'm most convinced by coherence theory of truth (I'm that Wittgenstein/Quine poster from before). I'd suggest getting into that, if you're really interested in seeking what 'truth' is. Coherence as a measurement of truth works for me in today's non-metaphysical, relative times.

If you don't know how Socrates would act, then how would you know that I am not acting like Socrates?

a phenomenon created for a subject by its encounter with certain rhetorics

I know you don't act like Socrates, but I don't know how he would act today. It's not contradictory.
I thought you honestly would be interested in such fundamental concept as 'truth'. I guess not. Just another plain, Veeky Forums shitposter.

How can you know Socrates without knowing Socrates? How do you know that I am shitposting?

you are too stupid for this board
please evacuate yourself

t. not that guy

I know his method. And you fail at recreating it. And for today's Socrates: he would have to know what 'truth' is. If I knew what 'truth' is, I would know what he would say. It's that simple. You're shitposting because there's no substance in your posts and you lure naive, genuine discussion seeking posters into answering you. You're closer to Gorgias than to Socrates.

Why do you think that I am stupid?

baby don't hurt me

How do you know that I am not in possession of the truth?

bye

Such is the nature of men. Run, run and don't look back. Don't look for hidden substance. Don't look for the playfulness in investigation. And by God, do not have fun.

...

Accordance of thought or speech with the actuality of the situation it's pertaining to.
But actually it's a construct which only makes sense in a world with humans.
If it weren't for humans, there would be no truth, because there would be no untruth.

How can we know that truth is a human invention?

Because the term is used in two contexts, both specific to humans.
If we're talking logical truth, it's specific to humans because other organisms and matter cannot lie.
If we're talking metaphysical, absolute truth which exists and is somehow obscured from us as humans, without a human to be obscured from it would simply stop being something to be discovered and it would just exist, therefore it would stop being "the truth" since it would lose it's essential quality of needing to be aware of.

>If it weren't for humans, there would be no truth, because there would be no untruth.
this isn't correct.
like objectively it's not correct; I'm not just disagreeing with you.

Can you elaborate?
As I see it, truth, like any other word is just our way to label the world around us. Some of these words have stronger footing in reality, some don't. So without humans, either everything is truth or nothing is.
How would you define a truth which exists on it's own, without the prerequisite of human cognition?

major problem with what you said is:
>there would be no truth, because there would be no untruth
the conclusion doesn't follow.

broadly, your argument is perspectivist, and more or less boils down to "truth is a social construct."

Think of it this way: truth is enduring; untruth is a social construct. Doing away with humans would do away with untruth, but truth would remain.

Certain words are just labels, e.g. 'degrees celsius'. Truth is more than a classification, it is a property. For example, a rock has a true size: even if we describe that size by means of a social construct (centimeters), that does nothing to to take away from the truth of its size.

So, truth is simply a property of something? I'm not trolling btw, I haven't read much philosophy so I'm trying to understand this.
If truth is property, then there you have it OP right?

>Because the term is used in two contexts, both specific to humans.
everything is specific to humans, what the fuck are you on about

>everything is specific to humans
?
Procreation is specific to humans?
Chemical reactions are specific to humans?
Wtf are you on about? In my post I wrote that truth is a term humans have come up to describe something that doesn't really exist outside of the realms of human cognitive and logical functioning.

The clear reflection of being in the intellect.

you are wrong
truth without lie/untruth doesn't make any meaning/sense. every property/attribute only makes sense in a certain system as the negation not only of its opposite but of everything else.
e.g. a chair is not a car is not a tree etc
to claim that truth would exist without anything to distinguish it from is absolutely redundant.
of course you could argue that existence is true because existence exists. however as you can see this is no statement as it is completely self referential and adds no further layer of meaning.

you are going in the right direction

>Accordance of thought or speech with the actuality of the situation it's pertaining to.

t. Wittgenstein

>to claim that truth would exist without anything to distinguish it from is absolutely redundant.
wrong

Heat exists- Cold doesn't.
'Cold' is a social construct, and has no bearing on the existence of Heat. Heat exists independently of perception or measurement.

'Darkness' is likewise a social construct; the absence of something is neither noumenon nor phenomenon. The absence of electromagnetic radiation, for instance, is not a "thing."

Truth and untruth function similarly.

Yes. It is Noumena, a Form, an attribute of God, or whatever else you might want to call it.

>Heat exists
It does not exist in all cases, namely it does not exist in the case of observation in a single point in time, since for heat to exist there must be motion, which does not exist in a single point in time. You may say that's wrong since energy potential exists, but energy potential is
a) a post hoc property derived from what will happen at some point in the future and
b) not heat per se
So, depending on your approach to measuring it, heat may or may not exist.

>So, depending on your approach to measuring it, heat may or may not exist.
fair point, but I only offered it up as an example to facilitate the understanding of my main point. I didn't intend to hold it up as completely analogous

anyways, your post further illustrates the validity of my main point, generally:

Heat is not an attribute of God (unlike Truth). God is changeless and exists outside of time.
Truth exists outside of time, whereas Heat does not.

"I AM WHO I AM" - The Father (Exodus 3:14)

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - The Son (John 14:6)

>tfw some random user just introduced a brand new ontological nomenclature, being-in-stagnation vs temporal being
>tfw some random user just shit on Heidegger's grave

The Foundation

The idea of a statement that is non-contradictory. "It looks like there's a man in the moon" is a true statement, regardless of its facticity. Truth is, like all notions, a (I hate to say it) spook.

Saving an unexpectedly decent thread

"I am what I am, and that's all that I am." -Popeye

There is no truth.
There are facts.
There are thoughts in the brains of humans.
Sometimes they happen to be the similar, or even the same.

>"I AM WHO I AM" - The Son (Exodus 3:14)
FTFY

That which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away.

my bad i just meant to write I Am but got carried away

Good post.

Look up 'God exists by definition'

relationship