This post is made of lies

[kigs]

You are looking at black marks on an electronic screen. Some people call these words.

Are there levels of truth? If something is slightly false, is it impossible for it to also be true?

You are looking at black marks on an electronic screen. Then, you are telling yourself that they form words. Then, you extract meaning from the organization of these words.

Since words are not symonomous with their meanings in the same way that a picture of an apple is not an apple then, in presenting you with words, I am presenting you with an image which you draw meaning from. As the meaning is not the same as the word, and two seperate messages cannot be the same truth, then I am telling you lies. Further more, you are willingly believing my lies.

All words are made of a little bit of lies, since they are not equal to the truth.

This represents a viewpoint that I have heard.
I think this is a bad viewpoint, but I want more opinions.
What do you think?

Truely,
~Kigs

Comments

[borderpilot.livejournal.com]

Your theory is broken by the fact that upon my black screen there are white words.

IT'S TIME TO FORM AN ADDENDUM. HAH CHA CHA CHA

Ditto!

[evilrat.livejournal.com]

So that's lie number one, Kigs. Maybe there is something to that line of thought. ;)

Re: Ditto!

[kigeni.livejournal.com]

:-p

I don't like the opinion, but I'm trying to establish a better argument against it than my current one.

Re: Ditto!

[evilrat.livejournal.com]

*grins* I'm not too fond of it, either, but I was a bit rushed when I first replied.

The argument seems to regard words and images as the end rather than the means, but why? The words don't presume to be truth--only to describe it. The image of the apple may not be edible, but whoever drew it certainly didn't want people eating his work of art.
I'm not even going to try to counter the argument logically; I'm just questioning its relevance to... well... anything.
Perhaps a more positive way to present that argument is that we all expect a little bit of falsehood when dealing with interpretations. That doesn't mean we can't see the truth within. Typically, the more we experience, the more adept we become at filtering out the false to get to the truth.

... If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that we're all unwittingly helping you to write a philosophy paper. ;)

[sorry about the duplicate; I despise html errors!]

Re: Ditto!

[kigeni.livejournal.com]

Oh no.
I don't let anyone touch my philosophy papers until I am confident that they are solid.

I just had a difficult time argueing against this viewpoint recently.

[majic13.livejournal.com]

Uh.

Words are tools used to convey information, whether spoken or written. They are not "true" or "false" in and of themselves. They are merely ways to convey meaning, though they can often be an imperfect means of doing so, or even deliberately misused to convey meaning which is untrue. But until someone comes up with a direct mind-to-mind link that allows flawless transference of intent and meaning between people, words are the best we've got.

[tresch.livejournal.com]

That depends on what your definition of "is" is

[kitsunetorn.livejournal.com]

WHAT IS A MAN? A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF SECRETS!
BUT ENOUGH TALK... HAVE AT YOU!

[cyaneus.livejournal.com]

"two seperate messages cannot be the same truth"

I'd have to disagree. Or I'm leaving too much in the interpretation of separate messages.

[kigeni.livejournal.com]

There is one truth. How can two seperate things both represent the same truth?

[cyaneus.livejournal.com]

There are multiple truths in the world that exist without contradiction. Even so, why couldn't multiple things represent the same truth, so long as they didn't contradict one another?

[kigeni.livejournal.com]

Oh, I like that one. That's a good one.

How about...
Both make statements about the truth of the objects. Which one is more correct?

truthiness

[thenickman.livejournal.com]

this argument is logically flawed. words cannot contain trueness nor falsity. if you get around this by saying that the statements, formed by individual words, are true or false, then i would further argue that the part about separate messages is a severly misled statement. "truth" is to indifinitive of a word to use here - "interpretation" is more appropriate, i think, and that whole part depends on the discretion with which you interpret the meaning of interpretation. so the analogy here would be, "when you see an image of an apple you are not seeing an apple but an interpretation of an apple, and that interpretation is false." that doesn't really make any sense, because you know that you're looking at the apple, and the whole idea of interpretation includes the part where you can internalize and explain to yourself the meaning of the information perceived. i'll probably posit this question to a friend tonight, but for now, i have to rescue my clothing from the town laundromat.

Re: truthiness

[kigeni.livejournal.com]

Allow me to play the devil's advocate.

The argument relies on its definition of truth. It's a bit unclear the way I put it forward, but truth, in this instance, is defined as the absense of any level (no matter how slight) of falsity.

The analogy that a physical object such as an apple is different from the interpretation of an apple is meant to draw attention to the deviation between the two caused by subjective perspective. How can both the apple, and the concept of the apple, be the truth?

Re: truthiness

[thenickman.livejournal.com]

help me understand this. this argument would say that the picture of the apple is false? what does that mean (aside from what you've given me, that it is less than true)?

Re: truthiness

[kigeni.livejournal.com]

Nothing beyond the statement that it is less than true.

Less than true, in this argument, is equivelent to false.

[razzek.livejournal.com]

You are looking at black marks on an electronic screen.

LIES! I'm looking at green words on a black screen. >D

I think this is a bad viewpoint, but I want more opinions.
What do you think?

This viewpoint is indeed bad. It's total crap, honestly. But alas, I couldn't explain to you why. It's one of those things I know in my head, but I know it in such a way that it's not something I can describe in words with any sort of ease or clarity.

I love philosophy but, like most things with me, it's not something I can explain logically. I still need to grow into my writer's skin. :P

[mythos-amante.livejournal.com]

I think that it's actually an illogical way to think. Arguement for the sake of arguement is what it sounds like to me. Philosophy and different realities are only so worthwhile as they pertain to the world around us. So, I think it's all fine and well for someone to think of words that way if they are living alone in a cage with only a word processor for company, but the moment they start interacting with other beings in a physical context, their philosophy is useless. Like saying "The pen is mightier than the sword!" when a sword is at your throat, context is everything.

Just as I think it is strange and foolish to think that reality is ONLY in your mind, and that other people and their emotions and thoughts aren't real because you can't feel them. That is a rather stupid way to think in my opinion, because it assumes that other people only matter as much as you think they do, which, while true in one way, runs into obstacles when those people take it upon themselves to be more important in their own eyes than you are.

These ways of thinking look very pretty in writing (which is ironic) and sound very profound and deep, but they're just copouts for people who have a difficult time interacting with others and who either are lashing out at their inferiority complex or truly have difficulty making human connections that matter to them.

That is my opinion! :)

[synchra.livejournal.com]

mine are kinna dark orange marks. :P

[skadjer.livejournal.com]

I'm one of the few weirdos who is, in fact, looking at black words on a mostly white screen........ or AM I !???
You want an additional mindfudge, the letters are not black at all- they are neutral screen-colored... it's all the pixels around them which are lit, thus creating discernable contrast and the illusion of subtractive value.
In actuality, my screen is displaying everything BUT your words.

And yet, through a sneaky process of elimination, I am inadvertantly given sufficient evidence to discern what your words might very easily have been.

As for the contradiction of multiple truths, remember, remember, the feline of Shrodinger... and that the newest of theories within the bowels of quantum mechanics suppose that, until proven otherwise, not only are all possible outcomes possible.... they are, in fact, simultaneously real.
Contradictory realities are allowed to exist in the - decidedly different-functioning - unobserved spacetime.

So not only does the turth that caused you to document it in a specific pattern of nonexistent letters exist, but until I hop in my car and pay you a visit, and perhaps turn back time to the point at which your writing was inspired, so does the version of reality I visualize upon its reading.

Truth is little more than the first angle at which you choose to slice the twisted, convoluted cake of possibility.

Take THAT, irksome viewpoint!

(mmmm... cake.)

[kigeni.livejournal.com]

Your ability to combine metaphysics and cake astounds me.

Unfortunately, your analogy to Shrodinger's existentially confused feline is not a legitimate one.

In the case of the cat, the possibility of all realities simotanously exists. In the case of the apple, there is an objective apple. There is no uncertainty about it. Yet, the concept of the cat still deviates from the cat itself.

[skadjer.livejournal.com]

There is nothing astounding about faulty understanding.
Perhaps it was fallacy to cite Schrodinger. However, what I posed was merely a modernized understanding of the phenomenon- challenging not the realm of possibilities, but instead the manner in which they are organized prior to observation... and certainly not the original theories under which the feline's best interests fell and perished.

But alas, my formal training in metaphysics extends no further than recipiency of the Lungpower Award from UKRR. (University of Kenny Rogers' Roasters)
So in Ad Hominem's glorious spirit, I shall withdraw my crackpot claims and take up gardening to fill the void it has left in my soul.

But btw, the cat more accurately describes your current dillema than does the apple... as you are fretting the untruth of words chosen to represent events when the very recipient of those words has no other window into said events, and until so doing, has grounds to neither propose falsity, nor to substantiate any claims from the source party.

[stokerbramwell.livejournal.com]

Words are man-made tools, just like hammers, and can't be lies anymore than hammers can.

[kigeni.livejournal.com]

The hammer itself isn't a lie.

The viewpoint states that there is a difference between the hammer, and the word hammer. Then, it claims that the word hammer is a less true representation than the hammer itself.

[skadjer.livejournal.com]

Perhaps more appropriate, the word hammer relates to the hammer itself more to the degree that the hammer itself relates to the nail it was created to drive in, rather than simply being an end-all means to actualize itself.

[dour.livejournal.com]

This is just a rehash of Platonic forms. It's more useful as an insight into how the human mind processes data than as any sort of guide to the nature of reality.

[stokerbramwell.livejournal.com]

The problem, though, is that the word "hammer" never claims to be a hammer. It's just a tool to convey the concept. In that sense, I suppose it would be less "real." But as it never claims to be more than it is, I fail to see how that makes it a lie.

[reizar.livejournal.com]

Simple.

Words are words, no matter what medium is being used to deliver them. Be they read through paper or electronically from pixels on a screen, spoken calmly or shouted at the top of one's lungs, words form the base of human communication. Truth and lies are subjective. A picture of an apple is very much an apple; the apple may not be there for eating, but an apple is still the idea being conveyed.

I believe that people overcomplicate things far too much for their own good. I also believe that the pixels I've just keyed into this document represent what I'd say if I were standing face-to-face with...well, whoever asks such a question.

Actually, I don't believe that. It's already fact, regardless of establishment. So, you could say that I know it instead.

I also know that my throat is try, and so I must embark upon a quest to the kitchen, for I have developed a craving for tea the likes of which I have never craved before.

[spazfox.livejournal.com]

Wow. I remember being able to enjoy half-baked philosophy. Then I was beat down and broken by the man. Every time I tried to explain that reality was, in fact, made up of collective perception, they kept insisting that what I perceived at that moment was a boot up my ass.

[dour.livejournal.com]

Bingo.

[spazfox.livejournal.com]

That was his name-o, yes.

[dour.livejournal.com]

Truth (or falsehood) is a property of facts. Words are not facts, they are symbols. Discussing whether or not they are true is like discussing whether the moon is spelled right: it's nonsensical, because the quality doesn't apply.

[sci.livejournal.com]

Lies are intentionalal, and only the intended missuse of words can be concidered a lie. The rest are simply inaccuracys inherent to the system itself, or mistakes made by those using it.

[dirtylittlelie.livejournal.com]

Lie.



My words are white.

[joeypoey.livejournal.com]

I swear I´ve heard this somewhere before.

Bleh, too many film classes >.

[mtnsqrlcat.livejournal.com]

I agree with both.

It doesn't mean you are lying to those who read your words or hear you speak. It's more a representation of how limited this form of communication truly is. Words will never fully represent the original Thought.

The viewpoint is one that must not be heard or looked at emotionally to understand it. It is a Factual viewpoint. Your 'emotional' ego is having issue with the viewpoint because it sees something telling it that it is a liar.

So remove thyself! You don't lie to people. Now how does that viewpoint look?

-Sqrl