Mach

As a general thread about reason, what it is, and why it's useful, I have linked a site that has the basic axioms, which are almost every thing you need.

Do you see any flaws in this?
If not, do you accept it?


Axioms: The Eight-fold Way

In summary for those not interest in links:
(I formatted)
=============================

So the axiomatic method of reasoning is more than a technique of argument useful for refuting philosophical skeptics. It provides us with a method of grounding fundamental truths about reality. This makes the use of axiomatic reasoning a crucial resource in dealing with issues of causality and the problem of primaries, which lie at the root of the epistemology of science.

Three Laws of Logic:
1. The Law of the Excluded Middle
2. The Law of Contradiction
3. The denial of a true statement is false, and the denial of a false statement is true.
The three logical axioms are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of truth. Taken together, they may be formulated as the axiomatic statement: There is such a thing as truth. That this is undeniable and inescapable is clear; for if there is no such thing as truth, there is no such thing as falsehood, and one cannot assert that this (or any other statement) is false.

Three metaphysical axioms.
1. existence
2. identity
3. causality
These three metaphysical axioms are equivalent to an assertion of the correspondence meaning of truth. Taken together, they say that there are true statements about reality.

Two epistemological axioms.
1. consciousness
2. volition.
The two epistemological axioms are equivalent to the statement (also of course axiomatic) that it is possible to know the truth.

Summing up, we may say that the three groups of axioms differ ultimately only in their scope:
The logical axioms apply to everything that can be true.
The metaphysical axioms apply to everything that is true.
The epistemological axioms apply to everything that is known to be true.
================================================== =====

This is the general set of axioms one can use to define truth, find it, and know it.

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan

niftydrifty

those might be true for determining exopotent truths, but what about endopotent truths?

Lachean

You know I checked Webster, the OED and google, and have found no such mention of "endopotent" truths? In fact, it turns up so few google results, this thread being in the top 3, that I believe you (or some other nuanced mystic) may have made it up.

Please explain the distinction between exopotent and endopotent truths?

__________________
"Truth, in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." - Oscar Wilde

Mach

No, they are inescapably axiomatic for reasoned discussion of "truth".
There is no other truth value, it's simply TRUE/FALSE. You attempt to introduce a third, and violate the law of excluded middle, it's a logical fallacy.

Look, you have a right to the truth, and you have the tools here to have it, no matter who may try to deceive you, including me, or anyone else, ever. Including yourself. It is yours.

When someone claims there are "other truths", be wary. Once you admit to yourself that truth has no meaning, it means you believe truth is subjective. They would have you believe the existence of the sun, is "subjective". Or that your own existence is "subjective". I'm pretty sure I'm communicating with you, and I sure as hell don't think it's subjective.

What you will find comforting is that when one does stick to logic/reason as detailed, only then can one differentiate true from false reliably, and THEREFORE, can differentiate good from bad ethically. What do we say of someone who CANNOT reliably differentiate good from bad? Not good..

Just try it. Give us a concise definition of this endo/expotent truth, and how they are derived. I can guess that "endpotent truth" is simply "religious dogma". That is, someone claiming X is true, without reason.

That would contradict our understanding of reality. If you claim the sun doesn't exist, I cannot but implore you to re-join the sane and admit that it does indeed exist, and that denying it "despite the evidence", is unethical.

-Mach

niftydrifty

well, Mach would have you believe that he's got the monopoly on what can be meant by truth, what truth is, and what is true. it becomes a semantic discussion.

imo, there are kinds of truths. I have heard those terms used. perhaps some quack did make them up. my apologies for any confusion caused. exo is external, and endo is internal. truths about the external world, or "reality" as mach would say, are exopotent truths. truths about ourselves, as people, or religious truths, might be called endopotent truths. an example would be "meditation can help you." another is "forgiveness can help fix the problems of your past." these things are true, are they not?

i think it's important to make a distinction between facts and truths. Mach hasn't said anything about "fact" here. truths are interpretations of facts. the truth can be subjective.

Lachean

Perhaps you've forgotten that I've already addressed arguments from utility (pertaining to human nature, neurological/psychological) in our debate. I am a patient man, but how long has it been, a month?

Utility /= truth, religion being useful say from spiritual meditation, could very well function as a placebo. Your examples above I wouldn't call religious, but simply good advice, all of which have secular equivalents.

Whether or not something is true about the universe is not subjective.

Mach

These already seem to be covered by the definitions I offered.
If you define "help", and then we test medidation vs a contrl, and forgiveness vs a control, we can probably get some data to make it reasonable to beleive these are true. I think we all already believe there is some truth to both of these. I know we have some meditation people around here (Tecoya?h for one)

If you believe meditation helps is a true claim, without appealing to evidence, then yes indeed it's a faith-based notion.

So these aren't actualy new forms of truth are they? Also note that if meditation helps is considered true, it doesn't mean that the beliefs the person was thinking about while meditating are somehow magically true...just in case that implication arises.

If you believe religion helps you, and I have no doubt it helps your marriage (based on your earlier comment), why do you care if it's a rational system or not? It is entirely normal to use fictional concepts to help ourselves, we all do this, naturally and intentionally. But we don't have to argue that these fictional concepts are actually REAL, in order to derive real benefit from the process. The placebo effect is REAL, as are other psychological tricks like improving self-image, confience, lowering stress, we can do all sorts of things to improve our existence using mind over matter so to speak. But we don't argue these concepts are "true" in and of themselves. That's the difference.

Think of hypnosis. You keep telling yourself that the needle is not pasing through your skin, but in reality it is. But you don't later insist that the needle did not pass through your skin. You believed it intentionally as a device to control your bodies response, but you knew rationally it was not true. In fact, you probably stopped "accesing the rational part of your mind", during that time, you in a sense, "avoided the reality of it". That's real stuff, and it works for many. But afterwards they do access their rational brain and they DO know it really happened. Does this help clarify it any? Sorry for the rambling... I better get back to work besides, Lacheon already wrote it in 1/8th the words, I'm so inefficient

-Mach