If matter is all there is then there is no truth, because truth does not have a material shape.
If truth is eternal and we can know it, then there must be a part of us that is like eternal, because like receives like.
There is. It's not eternal, but it's eternal-like.
The reason why you don't see anybody claiming this, no matter how much their metaphysics point to it, is because it's a claim about human physiology. It's a claim for potentials that would unquestionably be labelled as paranormal in the current time. Technology can't measure it yet, so trying to push the idea is pointless.
>>7392923
>What does that even mean? And how do you know?
There is no one configuration of particles that is more truthful than an other.
>All of my what
For example, heat can only be transferred between already heated bodies. A thing can only be made longer or shorter that is already an extended body. You can only change the colour of something that is already coloured. You can only see something that gives off visible light. Like receives like. If truth is something simple and eternal then there must be a simple and eternal principle in us that can receive it.
>Stoner philosophy
It goes back to Plato.
"nothing is true, everything is permitted"
-dank nigga in white robes
but if there is something that classifies as "not true", wouldn't that imply there has to be something that is "true" somewhere? or if everything is equally "not true", wouldn't that mean that it is actually just as true as it is untrue since there's no contrast? Im confused...
>>7392950
>There is no one configuration of particles that is more truthful than an other.
Truth is a concept dude. We made it. If truth means something along the lines of "how things really are" then yes, there is a configuration of particles that are more truthful, namely the way they are.
Also, on your premise of likeness beaming: We are material beings, that receives material input.
Try and think about the concept of relations. Two material objects create an abstract concept, that is not within either of them. The same could be the case for any concept of truth that you might operate with.
>>7392972
>Truth is a concept dude. We made it. If truth means something along the lines of "how things really are" then yes, there is a configuration of particles that are more truthful, namely the way they are.
No, it's not the way that they are that is more truthful, it's the way that our mind correctly perceives the way that they are that is more truthful. Truth is the adequacy of mind to being or reality.
Our minds did not make truth anymore than our minds made themselves. Our minds did not lay down their own principles.
>Also, on your premise of likeness beaming: We are material beings, that receives material input.
Of course. But if we are only material beings then we cannot receive truth, because truth is not a material thing (if truth is a material thing then it should have material properties, like mass and extension).
> Two material objects create an abstract concept . . .
This is logically impossible.
>>7392909
Matter may or may not be eternal, and we being matter share that property.
Truth is purely cognitive, since we can only understand matter by it's predicate, we conceptualize the subject (matter) by it's predicates - the value of truthiness is rated by it's accurateness to matter.
Matter is interconnected, since we cannot describe the truth of matter as a whole we divide it into separate imaginary (conceptual) parts and systems.
Since truth is a reflection of matter, the eternalness of truth is bound to the eternalness of matter.
>>7392985
>This is logically impossible
Why?
>>7392985
>Our minds did not make truth anymore than our minds made themselves. Our minds did not lay down their own principles.
Just because our intellect forms the concept does not mean that it forms the truth, because to form the truth it would also have to form the very reality to which the concept corresponds, because, as I have said, truth is the agreement of the concept with the reality.
This agrees with our common sense.
>>7392994
And all this to say what exactly? That we are eternal? I get what you're saying. As we are matter, we are eternal insofar as matter is eternal, but is matter eternal?
>>7393002
Good question. Nobody knows.
>>7392997
Because matter and concept are in different orders of being. Matter is individual whereas concept is universal, e.g. there is a material chair before me which is individual, but the concept "chair" applies to all such individuals throughout all space and time. How can a material object, or a group of material objects, limited to space and time, create something that is universal and unlimited by space and time?
Note, it is very important not to confuse an individual chair in your imagination with the concept of a chair. Whenever you imagine a chair it will be bound by particulars not universal to all chairs, e.g. it will have a certain size, shape, material, colour, etc., that is not an inherent part of being a chair. However, the concept of chair is not limited in this way. As an exercise, try to imagine a chair like an ordinary wooden chair, then a desktop chair, then a gilded throne, then a chair as a rock being sat on as a chair, then a little toy chair for dolls to sit on, etc., all of these are equally chairs, the concept of chair is not bound to any one of them - it is universal.
>>7392994
> Since truth is a reflection of matter
Truth isn't a reflection of matter. It is a reflection of the forms of things material and immaterial onto our intellects. Pure formless matter is not comprehensible by our intellects. Matter has to be given an intelligible form before it can be intelligibly perceived. It is the forms of individual material objects that our intellect contemplates, not matter in itself.
>>7393023
Right, I explained that
> Truth is purely cognitive, since we can only understand matter by it's predicate, we conceptualize the subject (matter) by it's predicates - the value of truthiness is rated by it's accurateness to matter.
>>7393023
e.g. the first thing that we notice about an individual material car is that it is a car, i.e. the first thing we see by the light of our intellect is the universal form "car". Then we might notice colour, brand, quality, size, etc. We only get back to the individual material object by way of reflection, e.g. we first notice that it is a car, and then we reflect that it is this particular car, belonging to this particular person, belonging to this particular time and place. So the truth is not in matter being formed in our intellects but in the intelligible forms of things being formed in our intellects.
The intelligibility of reality is its capability of being intellectually perceived. Just as material light makes the world perceptible to our material eye, so intelligible light makes it perceptible to our mind's eye.
>>7393034
Yeah, the universal exists as a form in the intellect, and the form is an amalgamation of generalized predicates. This is probably the most efficient way of maneuvering about through communication - referring to the universal form "car" instead of jumping down into particulars about the car. But you have to remember the the universal form does not exist in reality, only the particulars exist. The predicates of the form "car" is efficient in it's truthiness, but the predicates of the form "dodge viper" is even more accurate in its truthiness. Again - truthiness is related to what exists as matter. I could describe the predicate of color by saying the viper is red, but it would be more accurate to specify the wavelength.
While abstractions are great for cognitive shortcuts and understanding - the more abstract you are about conceptualizing the particular predicates of matter the further away you are from the truthiness of that particular pattern of matter.
>>7392909
You mean like your mum's pussy receives my penis?
>>7393066
Precisely, sexual organ receives sexual organ.
