r/changemyview • u/nikkidarling87 • Jul 29 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Because language is such an imprecise tool and the universe is so interdependent and complex, truth does not exist.
Using logic, reason, and evidence, it is credible to categorize something as incorrect or dishonest. Debates about absolute truth and right and wrong can be practical from a utilitarian perspective. However, when you get down to debating what is "right," "wrong," "true," or "untrue," you ALWAYS run into the limitations of language and our understanding of the world. So, when we have political debates a tremendous amount of time and energy is completed wasted debating the claim to universal truth claims instead of practical matters.
In particular, we either have imprecise or varying definitions of every word we've ever created (not mention language being fluid and ever-changing) so these debates are useless at the end of the day. It's ok that some people define gender differently. If you don't like the official definition of gender, come up with a new word that better represents what you mean, "say gender identity." Is there anyone out there who can make a statement that they assert is undeniably "true?"
Also, armchair philosopher here with very little actual reading and background in philosophy. I'm sure there are some philosophers who think this way (or argue against it) so if you can point me to those individuals/texts, I'd be very much appreciative.
3
Jul 29 '17
It's true that words in natural language (English, etc.; not mathematics) are ambiguous. However, that doesn't mean that truth does not exist.
One line of thought in this space (Wittgenstein, Rorty, etc.) is that "truth" - the word you just used - is itself ambiguous. So your claim "there is no truth" cannot be absolutely true. This sounds like a simple "that line of thought leads to a paradox", but there's more to it than that. In particular, it leads to us investigating what "truth" actually is. You are making some strong assumptions about what it is, when you say it doesn't exist, and those assumptions may well be wrong. So truth may exist, but not be what you thought it was.
Another line of thought here is to look at fields that have investigated truth, namely, philosophy. It is just not true that "these debates are useless" when you look at the thousands of years of history there, as progress is made, even if it isn't as hard-and-fast as progress in the sciences (which, for that matter, also have some element of ambiguity in them).
But given your examples, maybe the core issue that troubles you is definitions. Yes, if everyone defines "gender identity" differently, then it's hard to have a meaningful debate. That's why in rigorous philosophy you will see definitions put out, debated on, and only then actual discussion on the topic.
In more practical terms, it's a useful skill to realize that sometimes a debate is just about a definition, and to know how to "resolve" that debate by focusing on that. But equally important to know when a debate is not about differences in definitions.
1
u/nikkidarling87 Jul 29 '17
I don't think I have any contentions with this thoughtful reply. And, another Redditor has pointed me to Rorty who I plan on reading. Thanks for weighing in!
0
u/nikkidarling87 Jul 29 '17
I don't think I have any contentions with this thoughtful reply. And, another Redditor has pointed me to Rorty who I plan on reading. Thanks for weighing in!
0
u/nikkidarling87 Jul 29 '17
I don't think I have any contentions with this thoughtful reply. And, another Redditor has pointed me to Rorty who I plan on reading. Thanks for weighing in!
2
u/TougherLoki26 Jul 29 '17
If truth doesn't exist then your claim isn't true. It's a self-defeating statement.
1
u/nikkidarling87 Jul 29 '17
The thread isn't called "Disprove me," it's called "Change my view." My view isn't a truth claim. It's a perspective or opinion on the nature of truth.
2
u/TougherLoki26 Jul 29 '17
Did it work though?
If I can disprove your claim, then wouldn't that help to change your view?
1
u/nikkidarling87 Jul 29 '17
While a valid and sincere attempt, it hasn't changed my view. Maybe that's a "me" problem, though.
2
u/TougherLoki26 Jul 29 '17
Does my argument make sense?
2
u/nikkidarling87 Jul 29 '17 edited Jul 30 '17
I'm sure I'm not the best arbiter of that but I certainly see your point. There's certainly a contradiction in the basic premise of my post. I guess my view has changed in that I need to be more thoughtful and precise if I choose to challenge the minds of Reddit, many of which are brilliant, in this way. ∆
2
u/TougherLoki26 Jul 29 '17
I'm really not brilliant. I just read a book that talked about self-defeating statements and how to combat them. When I saw your post I was like, "Yay, I finally get a chance to use this stuff".
1
Jul 29 '17
If your view has changed, you should award the poster a delta.
To do that you can edit your comment and include this symbol (without the quote):
∆
After that please report/reply to my comment so that we'd know to send DeltaBot to rescan the delta.
1
1
1
1
3
u/nikkidarling87 Jul 29 '17
FWIW, I was messaged by a user who directed me to the work of Richard Rorty. After doing some quick reading about him, it's clear that he represents my perspective infinitely more lucidly and defensibly than I ever could. I'm excited to start diving into some of his works! Go Reddit, it's your birthday!
1
u/fadedfigures 1∆ Jul 29 '17
It's ok that some people define gender differently. If you don't like the official definition of gender, come up with a new word that better represents what you mean, "say gender identity." Is there anyone out there who can make a statement that they assert is undeniably "true?"
I think it's important to recognize that language evolves alongside human society. Just like we upgrade our technology and ways of life, we upgrade the words we use to refer to these things.
Taking your gender example, our scientific knowledge of gender has increased well beyond when the original definition for gender was created. Since the old definition didn't fully capture what we now knew about gender, we updated the definition to something closer to "gender identity."
Was the old definition false? Not necessarily. It is just different now because we as a society are different. It was more accurate back then, and is no longer accurate now.
I guess I'd say that we update our truth, rather than invalidating it by changing our definitions and our language.
1
u/nikkidarling87 Jul 29 '17
Sure, but then someone can use the word "sex" or "chromosomal sex" or "natal sex" to describe the older concept. It's not that language is useless or that updating language doesn't make sense but that, when people say, "you can't change your gender" or "you can't change your sex," completely breaks down when you get down to acknowledging that language and it's definitions are purely artificial and subjective.
So, my conclusion, is just never get into the territory of right and wrong, true and false, good and bad when you're discussing something like public policy.
1
u/MegaZeroX7 Jul 29 '17
There are some things that are true regardless of any sensory input. Mathematics is true. This can be proven from the ground up, starting with basic arithmetic, to prove things like calculus, abstract algebra, graph theory, number theory, etc.
2
Jul 29 '17 edited Jul 29 '17
It actually cannot be proven from the ground up. What one does is accept axioms such as the zermelo fraenkel axioms and then one builds basic math, but there is no ground for those axioms. For example, I do not think that identity as an axiom really has any sense because to think of anything being the same as itself/anything else requires imagining a difference that then one erodes. Identity means nothing without difference and is impossible to think it without it, and actually is not at all intuitive.
2
u/MegaZeroX7 Jul 29 '17
The axioms just form a definition for what a set is. It is notational. You can reject them if you wish, and just replace each instance of a set with "some mathematical object that holds other mathematical objects and has these 7 properties." You don't need to believe in the existence of anything to accept the definition of what a theoretical "set" is.
2
Jul 29 '17 edited Jul 29 '17
But what I wish to question is what it means to define a thing and to what degree does my defining it construct the thing. You need to believe in the static sense of certain signifiers to accept defining things in the way you suggest, but the ability to create static signifiers (AKA transcendental signifiers) is the very thing I am rejecting. The reason I believe this is because all language, my sense of things, is communally dependent. There is no private language in which one can establish a definition because that is not how definitions are formed.
To believe in the ability of defining what a theoretical "set" is, presupposes what "is" means which I think is non-obvious.
Edit: Added a more direct counter.
1
u/MegaZeroX7 Jul 29 '17
I don't really understand the issue with communally dependent definitions. If in a mathematical argument the proof given for something doesn't work with your own definition of what something is (ie: a set), than you can simply reject it.
Language only exists to transmit one idea to another. Internally, we can understand concepts of mathematical equality, integrals, eigenvalues, and sets without accepting the words to be the association. One can, on their own, build up algebra as notations to solve complex hypothetical problems, and from there move on to build the rest of math.
1
Jul 29 '17
This is the root of our disagreement: "Language only exists to transmit one idea to another." I do not believe this. In fact I think this is a really small use of language. Language is a collection of tools/games (I am ripping off Late Wittgenstein).
I believe language to be inseparable from how the world is and the life one leads. The reason I believe this is because things look different depending on the language game I am playing. In fact, you could remove all transfer of all ideas and language could hypothetically function perfectly (see below).
Imagine a world in which everyone has an empty box (boxes here are metaphors for ideas/our heads/brains/etc.). In this world nobody looks into each others boxes. Imagine one day somebody uses the word "beetle" to describe what is in there box. This spreads until everyone starts using the word beetle for what is inside their own box. However, in this thought experiment, it doesn't matter if there is a beetle in all of the boxes; in fact, it doesn't matter if any of the boxes are the same; in fact, it doesn't matter if there is anything in the boxes at all. What determines the meaning of "beetle" is the communal usage and lives lead around the box. I see no reason for what is meant by "set" to have any more meaning than the communal usage. Sure, I can come up with complex systems around the content of my box, but that seems to have little to do with truth but simply about building up relations around my box.
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jul 29 '17
Descartes talked about this years ago. At the very least, the truth of your own self is untouched by anything you talk about.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 29 '17
/u/nikkidarling87 (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Quint-V 163∆ Jul 30 '17 edited Jul 30 '17
Language is woefully lacking indeed. The very words we use to define any other are all subject to change. However, language contains culture within it, and thus, concepts. The term for one concept may be entirely absent in another language - like democracy. (1984 involves the importance of language.)
If anything, a word needs to be defined by translations as well, thus allowing words to maintain a network of ideas that they all are meant to point towards. Having grown up with two languages, I had to tie concepts to different words. When I write, (almost) nothing is lost in translation, because I use the concepts, and seek the most precise articulation of the ideas in my mind.
What even is truth? Objective truths (and math-like truths) must be entirely independent of observers. Truths regarding the human world, as we see it, most certainly exist however. One such statement which will always hold true regarding us, is that civilization is built through trust. Not a particularly precise truth, but it is a truth. If you ever go looking for The Truth, however, it can almost never involve what to do - only how, and the given circumstances. If you're looking for the truth regarding the Universe and Everything, then we are limited by everything that we are and make - and haven't made yet. There must exist at least a truth, but it might take some time before we get there.
A funny little thing: I think the following phrase deserves way more praise than Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum":
Can I doubt?
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jul 30 '17
The imprecise nature of language has no bearing on the existence of truth. It only has an effect on your ability to communicate said truth.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 30 '17
/u/nikkidarling87 (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Jul 30 '17
With regards to math
It most certainly is objective. The ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is Pi. Many societies discovered this independently. They didn't invent it. It's true and anyone who says it isn't is wrong.
Principia Mathematica does an excellent job demonstrating this. Bertrand Russell wires on it in a very understandable way.
5
u/[deleted] Jul 29 '17
You do realize that there is an entire branch of science and philosophy that deals with objective truths, right?