In a message dated 25/10/2004 05:53:08 GMT Standard Time,
mjohnson@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
On Oct 24, 2004, at 1:16 PM, GEVANS613@xxxxxxx wrote:
> If an observer describes an object existing in
> the way it exists as something existing in the way it exists, then it
> is a
> truthful description.
Johnson:
Can some descriptions be MORE truthful than others? Can they encompass
seemingly contradictory descriptions? When one description is
understood as truth, what of the manifold possibilities that remain
concealed?
Johnson:
Can some descriptions be MORE truthful than others?
Jud:
An object exists in the way that it exists, all descriptions of the way it
exists which
differ from the way it exists are untruthful. Descriptions of entities
cannot be MORE truthful or LESS truthful than the description
which truthfully describes the way an entity exists. Descriptions of
entities which correctly or incorrectly describe some features
of the way an entity exists, but not others, are NOT truthful in relation to
the way that the entity exists.
Johnson:
Can they encompass seemingly contradictory descriptions?
Jud:
Entitic truth is an absolute. An object either exists in the way it exists
- or it doesn't exist. There is no eisegesis or anagoges of truth.
An entity either exists in the way it exists - or it cannot be referred to
as an entity [see Parmenides] - but only as a human speculation signifying
nothing. [see TS Eliot - Burnt Norton]
Johnson:
When one description is understood as truth, what of the manifold
possibilities that remain concealed?
Jud:
There are no *manifold possibilities that remain concealed,* for inanimate
objects lack conscious design or purpose, to either *remain concealed* or to
*terminate their concealment and show themselves,* and they are incapable
intent, and are not in the business of concealment. If an object is not observed
by a human being - it is the human's being's *fault* for either:
(a) Not being in the spatial position which would enable him to observe the
object.
(b) Not realising that an object is located in a certain place.
(c) Not recognising an object as an object.
If an object is hidden, the hiding is done by a human hider and not by the
hidden object. If an object is revealed - the revealing is done by a human
revealer, and any *revelation* that takes place occurs in the brain of the human
to whom the object has been revealed. The moon does not *hide* the stars
which it obscures from human view, the human is simply in the wrong place to see
them.
If Weapons of Mass destruction WERE hidden in Iraq, it would not be the
*fault* of the WOMD that they were concealed from human view - it would be the
*fault* of Saddam's men who hid them, and/or Bushes men who couldn't find them.
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---