Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

khuct · 05-03-2004, 08:39 PM

i somehow got myself into writing a paper refuting some claim rather than just supporting it. But anways my paper is refuting the notion that there is nothing that is purely objective by saying of course that there is an objective reality, being that of absolute truths. The problem is that this topic now gets a little philosophically deep, which is the discipline I have very little knowledge of. Any good books to recommend on the topic?

And I have a few examples that I'm working with:

Some mathematical concepts:

-1+1=2 (being that 1 bag of chip and another bag of chips will equal 2 bags of chips in the domain of bags)
-1=1 (being I equal myself because of its reflexive/symmetric properties)
-a rock on a moon marked X, being that it exists or not will be an absolute truth...independent of anyone's sensory experience. (one of my former TA gave me this so I don't know how to articulate this much further)

I remember in logics class we did subproofs to reach a contradiction. After the contradiction we are allowed to presuppose anything...does that work the same way with premises?

05-03-2004, 08:39 PM	#1 (permalink)
khuct Upright	absolute truths/objective reality i somehow got myself into writing a paper refuting some claim rather than just supporting it. But anways my paper is refuting the notion that there is nothing that is purely objective by saying of course that there is an objective reality, being that of absolute truths. The problem is that this topic now gets a little philosophically deep, which is the discipline I have very little knowledge of. Any good books to recommend on the topic? And I have a few examples that I'm working with: Some mathematical concepts: -1+1=2 (being that 1 bag of chip and another bag of chips will equal 2 bags of chips in the domain of bags) -1=1 (being I equal myself because of its reflexive/symmetric properties) -a rock on a moon marked X, being that it exists or not will be an absolute truth...independent of anyone's sensory experience. (one of my former TA gave me this so I don't know how to articulate this much further) I remember in logics class we did subproofs to reach a contradiction. After the contradiction we are allowed to presuppose anything...does that work the same way with premises?