Definition Of Philosophy Aristotle
The Truth is : Truth never exists.
Sounds obfuscating but irony of living in a real world makes it true.
So how does one go defining Truth?
A truth for you doesn't necessitate that it is a truth for a person who wants to view it as false.
Truth is subjective as well as relative! It has a start and hence has the ability to have an end as well. The dichotomy of Truth can bring out the pervasive anomalies of how things can appear different for the same context. Take for an instance, I intent to tell people that am honest person, but how do you make it a truthful description of yours? Well, your actions plays a major role here. The way you respond, the way you want to communicate can eventually lead to what people can perceive it as a global truth, at least for the life span each truth has.
Yet another dissection of properties of the truth. Since it is subject and is relative, as I would rather view it as. It has to have Time period as well. The idea of bringing about the truth in one's life is way beyond generalizing the concept of Truth.
We seek truth, a parameter or rather a factor which can get us the redemption of the feeling and the intensity to seek for a Truth.
Ambiguous statement it seems! We seek for truth, for the truth that can solace us.
Truth never really existed, it just a way of reckoning that certain things has changed or got displaced and we need to change or stay the same accordingly. Its a part of acknowledging our actions. Not just our actions, but people we are connected to as
a whole.
That speaks about relativity property of the Truth. A truth moment ago can become an appalling lie. How does that happen?
Even if you know that its a certain thing is actual description of certain thing, aka the Truth behind that. But you need to get an acknowledgment from another person to make it a subjective truth that can be apparent for the other people who would then scrutinize if it fits for the truth.
So, its about who believes its a Truth, not the other way round of self declaring it to be a true. Truth, is all about how we make other people believe, doesn't matter if it changes it definition later. At least, it was a truth for some period of time.
The bigger question to surmise upon is, how the definition of 'the Truth thing' changes in later course? People, didn't discover it was something else, and hence all these day they believed it to be truth. But now it is not.
And thats where the existence of truth gets questioned. It never existed. Now, if a truth can exist for one thing, then why doesn't it for others?
Truth is a relative entity to the other Truths. We can call it a Truth, since it appears the way it is at least for some point of time, and it makes few people to believe that it really does. It's relative meaning to our existence can only help you to get it deemed as a truth. So, doesn't it solve the quagmire of what is a Truth?
Confused? Ya, exactly... thats the Truth.
 |
No items matching your keywords were found.
Do you have any revoutionary Philosophical ideas?
What I mean by revolutionary is something that would necessarily change or challenge any of the existing ideas being taught in the Philosophy department.
For example, your disagreent with Decarte, Plato, Aristotle
based on so and so argument ( that has not been recorded on text).
My example: I thought of some possible questions agaisnt Decarte's 'I think therefore I am').What I read from Decarte is that he is sayingI can't doubt that I am doubting, therefore the doubter (which is I) must exist. My opposition of Decarte's argument comes in the form of questions; How do we know that we are doubting to begin with? What definitions of doubt are we confined to? What kind of existence?
Mistake: Decarte said " I think. I am" not " I think therefore I am" but my point in question still stands.
Others have explored the cogito quite extensively already. Nietszche, for example, argued that there is doubt, therefore there is something. A simplified version.
In response to your challenge, one cannot doubt that one doubts because the conception meant by the theory is one in which a premise is denied. If no premise is denied, then you cannot deny the premise that you doubt. A fuller explanation of doubt is unnecessary, so long as it includes that as part of it's conception, it is sufficient as the premise of the cogito and it is self-proving.
Ideas that are new or change the scope of an area of philosophy aren't that uncommon, if you have a narrow enough area. My senior thesis argued that the two most prominent theories on the philosophy of time, presentism and eternalism, both need to be modified in light of proven statements in physics, and once that is done, there is relatively little to distinguish the two.
Interesting consequences of this include:
An argument that P OR Not P is not always a true schema, especially in the future tense
A perspectivist view of ontology
A perspectivist view of mereology (this is less a consequence as it is a separate compatible theory of mine)
A physicalist argument for free will
Others too, but those are my favorites.
A Question of Definition - Reconciling Socratic and Aristotelian Notions of Akrasia
 |
Poetics (Penguin Classics) |
|
Classic work from the Ancient Greek philosopher, student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great, who laid down the foundations of Western philosophy. Recommended in Laura Berquist Medieval European Hist/Geog/Lit Syllabus Author: AristotleFormat: 144 pages, Paperback Publisher: Penguin Classics New Ed edition (March 1, 1997) ISBN: 978-0140446364 |
 |
On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse |
|
This new edition of George A. Kennedy's highly acclaimed translation and commentary offers the most faithful English version ever published of On Rhetoric. Based on careful study of the Greek text and informed by the best modern scholarship, the second edition has been fully revised and updated... |
 |
On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears |
|
Hailed as "a feast" (Washington Post) and "a modern-day bestiary" (The New Yorker), Stephen Asma's On Monsters is a wide-ranging cultural and conceptual history of monsters--how they have evolved over time, what functions they have served for us, and what shapes they are likely to take in the future... |