My definition of "truth" would be "ontological reality". Statements about ontological reality are classified as either "true" or "false". Some statements about ontological reality are objectively true (statements that accurately describe ontological reality that are independent of percetor- "the universe exists"), while others are relatively true (statements that accurately describe ontological reality that are dependent upon the percetor- "chocolate is my favorite flavor"). Keep in mind that in order for me to even make a meaningful statement that includes the word "accurate", that word must have meaning. "Accurate" is dependent on "true". If my definition of "truth" is not correct, my descriptions of objectively and relatively true statements implode.If my definition of "truth" is not "true" (by way of failing its own definition- but that requires the ontological truth of the law of non-contradiction- thus affirming what is trying to be destroyed), then everything in this comment must fall under the category of "opinion" (including this final sentence). But then again, "opinion" is dependent on "truth" having a definition of "ontological reality". If it does not, then every statement is opinion and there is no need for the distinction. But, let's go back to the previous paragraph to verify the "truth" or "opinion" of this one. Does that make sense? And how are you able to answer that question?
Post a Comment