Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Even if no thinking being existed, there would still be a... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Even if no thinking being existed, there would still be at least one 'truth in itself'.

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If no thinking being existed, the proposition 'There exists no thinking being' would be true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.That true proposition could not be known or held by any thinking being (since none would exist).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore it would be a 'truth in itself' — a true proposition independent of any mind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A proposition that is true in a world with no thinking beings cannot be evaluated for truth without invoking a perspective external to that world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The supporting argument smuggles in a covert evaluator: we, as thinking beings, judge the counterfactual scenario, making the 'truth in itself' observer-dependent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the argument is self-undermining: it requires minds to establish the existence of mind-independent truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.For Wittgenstein and deflationary truth theorists, 'P is true' adds nothing beyond asserting P, so 'truth' is a logical device within language, not a metaphysical realm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Language and propositions are social-institutional practices that presuppose communities of language users, making propositions ontologically dependent on minded beings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bolzano's 'truths in itself' therefore posit a spurious third realm that conflates the logical grammar of truth-talk with a substantive metaphysical claim about mind-independent entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language2 linked

    Related

    A proposition that is true in a world with no thinking beings cannot be evaluate...Bolzano's 'truths in itself' therefore posit a spurious third realm that conflat...For Wittgenstein and deflationary truth theorists, 'P is true' adds nothing beyo...If no thinking being existed, the proposition 'There exists no thinking being' w...
    +5 moreShow less
    Language and propositions are social-institutional practices that presuppose com...That true proposition could not be known or held by any thinking being (since no...The supporting argument smuggles in a covert evaluator: we, as thinking beings, ...Therefore it would be a 'truth in itself' — a true proposition independent of an...Therefore the argument is self-undermining: it requires minds to establish the e...

    Similar

    If no thinking being existed, the proposition 'There exists no thinkin...87%Therefore it would be a 'truth in itself' — a true proposition indepen...84%The assumption that being could exist without thinking and thinking wi...84%Necessary truths would be true even if there were no finite minds to t...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: bolzano
    View source passageHide passage
    Something could be true even if nobody knew that it were so. We therefore need a concept of truth that does not require of every truth that someone knows it. For this concept Bolzano introduced the term ‘Wahrheit an sich’ (‘truth in itself’). If something is a truth and no human being knows that it is, then — for Bolzano — it must be a “truth in itself”. A “truth in itself” (Wahrheit an sich) is nothing but a true proposition, i.e., a proposition that has the property of being true. Bolzano take
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit