0

So the definition of truth is that p is true if and only if p.

However, since the Liar Paradox states that p is true if and only if p is false, this is a contradiction.

So the words truth and falsity are basically both poorly defined, and as such those words "don't exist" in a sense.

However, one caveat is that changing definitions do not change the world. You cannot make Pluto bigger by calling it a planet. You cannot make slavery intrinsically good by calling it moral.

So really, its not like the alethic nihilist denies things like snow is white.

They just think we shouldn't use the word true, since it doesn't really have a proper defintion.

Some believe that truth can be used in general but just not in certain scenarios where contradictions run.

Alethic nihilists believe truth shouldn't be used at all because restricting in certain scenarios seems ad hoc.

They think truth's poor definition and falsity's poor definition is proof enough that those words don't accurately exist in a sense.

Am I correct?

HelpMePlease
  • 83
  • 5
  • that's great, but not really a question –  Aug 19 '23 at 04:23
  • more like an epiphanic repetition of some stuff you already knew. anyway, good luck in having more –  Aug 19 '23 at 04:31
  • 1
    What else can we do? – Agent Smith Aug 19 '23 at 05:19
  • I was asking to see if im right cuz im not sure – HelpMePlease Aug 19 '23 at 06:30
  • Yes, this is, roughly, Liggins's position. There are motivations besides the Liar paradox, but he makes it the centerpiece. The more modest deflationists you allude to restrict the use of T-schema in paradoxical situations, but do not reject it completely (e.g. Horwich), so they are not nihilists. – Conifold Aug 19 '23 at 08:03
  • @AgentSmith paternity test. in reality, this was over as soon as they started to follow me in secret. –  Aug 19 '23 at 11:51
  • You're asking the truth value of your alethic nihilism view since 'am I correct' is same as 'is my said proposition true' colloquially. It's an alethic non-nihilism perspective judging its negation which is confusedly mixed. In alethic nihilism it's just what it is, no more and no less, in the same way as 'snow is white' since snow is white, p->p. Thus under nihilism everything is utterly simple *though* your mind may not have such eidetic access, and now you should know it's either not easy to constantly uphold such view if impossible or just useless like the laity, a precarious position... – Double Knot Aug 20 '23 at 23:31
  • @DoubleKnot I don’t believe in alethic nihilism, I was just trying to understand what it means… – HelpMePlease Aug 21 '23 at 04:55
  • Certainly you've made great progress for the ideas of alethic nihilism which is an obviously precarious position. Now you understand why alethic nihilists advocate removing the illusional truth/falsity concepts which indeed are heavy and loaded words but frivolously appear everywhere and most of which are self-claimed or from liars. Why don't you believe in it if you understand such? Is it because it's inconvenient to communicate or apply the common bivalent logic? – Double Knot Aug 21 '23 at 06:15

1 Answers1

2

You are correct that there are reasons to believe in counter intuitive conclusions, and it must be reassuring that you can believe in those conclusions without obviously contradicting yourself, internally or in speech, though of course, nothing you say is true.