Absolute Truth Contradiction (?)

[Ziran]

1 hour ago, theleelajoker said:

Man, this way of thinking is too limited here.

Zooming out:  Unconditional language on its own is relatively harmless, because, most automatically preface or append the conditionals to the statement otherwise communication breaks down.  However, when unconditional language is coupled with criticism, that's the root of stereotyping.

1 hour ago, theleelajoker said:

When talking about nobody, nobody remembers nobody.

 

Unconditional language, is a "tell".  It's usually exaggeration.  Then, the question is:  "why exaggerate?" 

[theleelajoker]

1 hour ago, Ziran said:

Please compare:

 

 

 

 

The first is unconditional.  The second isn't.

Not all propositions.  That's unconditional.  This specific proportion and others like it.

1)  In this specific proposition, the subject, "nobody", is "talking about" stuff. 

2) The constituents of the proposition are in the form "not (truly knowing and talking about it)".  See below.  For it to be "true", the consequent is "or".  Or is unconditionally ambiguous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws 

A proposition can be ... but this specific one is special. 

For example:  "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT, including me"

Is it rational to listen and take advice from someone who openly admits they don't know what they're talking about?

Someone approaches and says:  "I'm lost."  Would you ask them for directions?

" ... is true OR not ... "

Are these two the same?

"NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT"

"NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT, OR NOT"

^^ it's non-sense ^^

Why listen to words that necessarily require "or not" appended to the end in order to retain their truth value?  

Minus the exasperation, it's equivalent to a shrug?

 

Bro, you're seriously still discussing this? 

I just passed a group of women they are getting drunk, great mood and preparing to go out. Definitely too old for me, but their outlook on the weekend looks like much more fun than discussing something someone said about nobody sometime in the past.

LOL

 

Edited 13 hours ago by theleelajoker

[zurew]

@Ziran What do you think we disagree on and what do you think I said that was false? (because based on the reply you gave I dont think you understand what im saying).

[Ziran]

2 hours ago, theleelajoker said:

Bro, you're seriously still discussing this? 

I just passed a group of women they are getting drunk, great mood and preparing to go out. Definitely too old for me, but their outlook on the weekend looks like much more fun than discussing something someone said about nobody sometime in the past.

LOL

Best wishes to you and yours

[Ziran]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

@Ziran What do you think we disagree on and what do you think I said that was false? (because based on the reply you gave I dont think you understand what im saying).

There is disagreement whether or not the proposition in question necessarily entails true knowledge of "what they are talking about".

[zurew]

9 minutes ago, Ziran said:

There is disagreement whether or not the proposition in question necessarily entails true knowledge of "what they are talking about".

Do you think its possible to have beliefs (not knowledge) about your own knowledge?

I am trying to imply with that question that it is possible to make a non-knowledge claim about your own knowledge.  Like "I dont know what im talking about" can be cashed out as "I know that I dont know what im talking about" and it can be also cashed out "I believe that I dont know what im talking about".

I wouldnt categorize the second as a knowledge claim, I would just categorize it as sharing your own belief about something (and in this specific case sharing your belief about your own knowledge)

[Ziran]

5 hours ago, zurew said:

Do you think its possible to have beliefs (not knowledge) about your own knowledge?

Of course.

Quote

I am trying to imply with that question that it is possible to make a non-knowledge claim about your own knowledge.  Like "I dont know what im talking about" can be cashed out as "I know that I dont know what im talking about" and it can be also cashed out "I believe that I dont know what im talking about".

I wouldnt categorize the second as a knowledge claim, I would just categorize it as sharing your own belief about something (and in this specific case sharing your belief about your own knowledge)

In what form is the proposition, "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT"?  The first, the second, or neither.

It's neither, right?

 

[zurew]

4 hours ago, Ziran said:

In what form is the proposition, "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT"?  The first, the second, or neither.

It's neither, right?

Its neither , but in my view it leaves it ambigous whether it makes a knowledge claim or a belief claim. We can solve this by explicating meaning further and with that move narrowing down how the statement can be interpreted (I should have done this way earlier)

"I believe nobody truly knows wtf he/she is talking about"

"I know that nobody truly knows wtf he/she is talking about"

I agree that the second is a knowledge claim and there you can derive a contradiction (could still be dodged if we interpret 'knowing' and 'truly knowing' differently, but for the sake of simplicity we can interpret those two phrases the same and there you will have a contradiction), but when it comes to the first there isn't any issue and you cant derive a contradiction from that.

---------

My other issue aside from the above was that the sentence "nobody truly knows what he/she is talking about" even if was said and interpreted by no one, it would still have a truth value (there would be a fact of the matter about whether that statement is true or whether it is false).

And you cant do the same thing that you can do with the liars paradox. Because from "nobody truly knows what he/she is talking about" being true , you wont get to "there is at least one person who knows what he/she is talking about". If you think otherwise, show me how you derive the contradiction.

Like its true that no one would know that the statement "nobody truly knows what he/she is talking about" is true, but thats compatible with "nobody truly knows what he/she is talking about" being true.

Edited 4 minutes ago by zurew