There is absolute truth

The Sceptic's pair of Dock’s What is important to note about the sceptics paradox is that it is a self-sufficient argument, it asserts no claim other than that a proposition must be true in order to make the claim. It’s as simple as a proposition is a proposition, and to even make a claim against it, well a claim must be made against it. In that I mean proposition to be a claim. Thus any claim is absolutely a claim. Nothing is being “attempted” or has been related to ‘Subjectivism’, ‘objectivism ‘or ‘Grounding”, “binary” or “a liar paradox”. These relations speak beyond the claim I made in this argument and thus constitute a Strawman Fallacy. A final thing to note about something having to have a ground or binary truth of course depends on that notion being True First. So the saga continues….. The Foolish Law of Tooth As for the law of truth, I simply said the truth equals the truth, or it wouldn’t be true. In the very sense that A, whatever it may represent, that thing which it does represent is equivalent to itself. And I mean anything: An experience is an experience, a perception is a perception, the sensation of red is a sensation of red. A dog is a dog, etc. I use the symbol A to represent specifically, nothing in particular. It is important to note that the symbol 1 is the same type of expression. It is by not referring to anything particular which gives it the ability to represent anything. For anything is nothing in particular. And in similar fashion thus 1=1, Thus to prove The Law of Truth wrong Con must show that A is in fact not A at the same time. He must show how a thing in its self can contradict itself. That 1 is not 1. Remember the Law of Truth is not the Law of non-contradiction; it is the Positive grounding that Justifies the law of none contradiction. And that is straight from the Hill! Hint from the Hill!: ( (Nothing in particular)=1) =/= ( (nothing at all)=0) What I refer to as the Law of Truth as itself is an atomic truth. It is the truth that all others Forms of truth must cohere too. Aka all other formulas of truth stand under The Law of Truth. Another expression of this is that The Law of Truth supersedes all that is true. I verify with my little ‘eye’ something that corresponds to Cool Correct me if I am wrong but I believe my opponent is assuming or confusing the Correspondence Theory of truth as the only or only given form of “Truth”, in that the truth of something depends on its correspondence to something else. In this way a binary condition could now be placed, because of the possibility of something not corresponding. This correspondence Theory of truth is a form of verificationism. I am assuming he understands it in its most popular form which implies that something is true only if it can be physically verified physical Sense Data. And that which can’t be verified is neither true nor false. This was a popular proposition brought forward by the logical positivist philosophical movement of the late 19th and early 20th. But this physicalist verification theory has long since fallen out of favour for a few reasons. Firstly by calling only that which exists as physical information they lost their ability to justify their claims that verification is the only form of truth. As soon as the question was raised on what justifies the notion of physical verification, as the only truth, a grave silence had befallen the positivists which ended up being the desolation of the entire view point in philosophy. Despite its debunking just as long ago as the debunking of Freudian psychology it remains a popular understanding within Pop science, and Pop philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org... It’s all chill at the Hill Now, I agree that there is a valid correspondence formula of truth. Remember a truth cannot be a theory for a theory is a lesser claim then a truth where a theory may turn out to be false. But of course of all things, the Truth can’t be False.(for that is absolutely true) But its justification cannot come from physical observation alone because there must exist something else for it to correspond too. That is it must be true that there is an “idea” which exist which can verified. And of course the entity which is we check for verification of correspondence truth of an idea. So here is a modernized version Straight from the Hill. An idea is considered physical knowledge if it in fact corresponds to Physical Sense information(aka The Cons worldly Facts). But what is the grounding for this truth? hmmmmm. The Law OF Truth. That is, the Law of truth is needed to ground that a correspondence formula of truth is true when things in fact corresponding, and false, when don’t correspond. AKA a thing in itself is a think in itself. (Law of truth) I repeat that all other truths depend on the Law of truth for its ground. This Debate and Beyond: One thing I should mention is that I have no idea where my partner has derived the statement ‘all things are subjective or all knowledge is subjective’. For I asserted or meant to assert that All things even those that are subjective exist in the absolute universe. Correct me is I am wrong but I take it as a misinterpretation until shown otherwise. Fun with Larze Larze: Let us begin by imagining how one might know something to be absolutely true. Granted, some stuff is grounded - like the color of the beach ball is grounded in the perception of our eyes. However ultimately, since these ideas are based on assumptions we cannot prove or disprove Them. The Fool: So we need to prove it true that we are imagining for it to be true that we are imagining? Hmm something is just not fitting right. Actually I must confess in all my Foolishness I would claim that an imagination as an experience is self-evident as experience is absolutely true by the fact that all I consciousness consist in of it. For any experience it is absolutely true that there is conscious. Consciousness is self-evidently the necessary condition to have any conscious knowledge at all and that is absolutely true. It’s not a matter of language because you must be conscious to even learn the language. That is cogito Indubitable and absolutely true. For you would have to be unconscious to claim otherwise, which of course doesn’t make any sense. It’s pre- linguistical and doesn’t depend on what you mean in linguistical terms. Just as babies experiences before they know any language. In fact you need to already have awareness to learn language. And that absolutely true. Furthermore we could never be wrong if we are experiencing pain, we may label it wrong but it is absolutely true by the feeling itself that we feel it. We may mislabel it but we could never mis-feel it. If you are feeling pain and someone says you’re not, and you belief them, then you my friend are not a Fool but a clown. Denouement The Fool carries the torch into the next generation of philosophy. For we don’t want something old, that been locked in a kripke. <(Xp) We want something new, progressive and absolutely true. That Fresh and frosty cool. That Sh!t that makes you say Dang! Vote Fool!!!