0

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/57084/23399

It answers the question per site guidelines.

I've recently read a book in which a certain sentence sparked a question in my mind:

"the Platonic philosophy is a search for truth, the certain truth. Such truth... is necessarily static" (emphasis mine)

This popped a question to my head - is there a concept of "truth" (as in, objective metaphysical truth) that thinks of it as a dynamic idea rather than static, an ideal. Of course, I do not mean subjective truth, as it is obviously dynamic, but rather an objective truth that talks about a changing world, a "dynamic theory of forms"/"theory of dynamic forms" so to speak. Has anyone proposed such theory?

enter image description here

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/40295/23399

  • 1
    For mere mortals like us who can't see deleted post, could you please put a screenshot/quote your deleted answer? – Andrew T. Nov 16 '18 at 22:08
  • Geoffrey Thomas is a new mod. He may have done it with good reason, or he may have misunderstood the standard procedures and/or made an error. To me, it attempts to answer the question, which means people are free to downvote it if they don't like it, but it isn't a candidate for deletion. – Dan Bron Nov 17 '18 at 16:48
  • Looks like there's more story behind this? From Geoffrey Thomas's comment, looks like you flagged Mozibur Ullah's comment as unwelcoming/rude? If that's the case, I could see a reason why the answer got deleted because it raised unnecessary flags, but I could only speculate and this is only my opinion. – Andrew T. Nov 17 '18 at 17:21
  • @AndrewT. The answer did not raise a flag. – Mr. Kennedy Nov 18 '18 at 4:35
  • 2
    The answer did raise a Very Low Quality flag from another user. Mozibur Ullah's criticism (that quote and content do not match up) effectively makes the post nothing else than your own personal opinion, which is a fair reason for removal (although I may have first put a notice on it), especially since this is the so manieth time you are pushing your own ideas without context and ranting about metaphysics where this does not belong. – user2953 Nov 18 '18 at 15:53
  • Even if you think Mozibur Ullah is in error w.r.t. the content, you could edit your post to make it easier to understand for him and others. That is usually an easier and more pleasant way forward from criticism than a personal attack ('ignorance of the history of philosophical ideas'). And before you start, that you think he is harassing you personally is irrelevant. If you see something out of place, flag it, but it is not a reason to not reply to remarks regarding content. – user2953 Nov 18 '18 at 15:55
  • @Keelan precisely why I edited the answer to improve the explanation that metaphysicians such as Aristotle do not provide an adequate hypothesis, nor can metaphysics, as well as how "metaphysical truth" is oxymoron (#anobviousfact). Deleting the post was not required as - just how the site is designed and specified for use - comments were being used to *improve the answer.* – Mr. Kennedy Nov 18 '18 at 17:13
  • @Keelan Also, the statement "ignorance of the history of philosophical ideas" is simply a fact as demonstrated by the comment - it is not my personal opinion. For further evidence see this gross misattribution by Moz: philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/30560/23399 – Mr. Kennedy Nov 18 '18 at 17:30
  • @Keelan Lastly, I am not ranting - it is a simple fact that metaphysics have not one iota of relevance to philosophy, truth or advancing knowledge claims. Please stop letting your personal bias towards me - you have stated several times your dislike of me - control your moderation of the site. The question should be re-opened as it meets community guidelines. – Mr. Kennedy Nov 18 '18 at 17:43
  • I am not saying that Mozibur Ullah is not ignorant, nor am I saying he is, but what I am saying is that your way of communicating is unfriendly. – user2953 Nov 18 '18 at 17:48
  • @Keelan the same could be said of your "way of communicating" - this is, however, beside the point as Stack Exchange is not a dating site, and in the context of philosophy, the emphasis is upon propositional content which is empirically verifiable and falsifiable. If you read my contributions here as "not nice" I suggest you curb your personal prejudices. – Mr. Kennedy Nov 18 '18 at 21:32
  • 1
    Fair enough, I'll keep it down. But you should know that proper manners are a prerequisite for whatever is the goal of this site. – user2953 Nov 19 '18 at 5:55
1

This is Yechiam Weiss's question (my emphasis):

This popped a question to my head - is there a concept of "truth" (as in, objective metaphysical truth) that thinks of it as a dynamic idea rather than static, an ideal. Of course, I do not mean subjective truth, as it is obviously dynamic, but rather an objective truth that talks about a changing world, a "dynamic theory of forms"/"theory of dynamic forms" so to speak. Has anyone proposed such theory?

These sentences summarize the answer that was deleted (my emphasis):

The whole of metaphysics amounts to nothing more than "what is true to you {to me; us; them}" - i.e. unjustifiable descriptions, rationalizations, imponderable speculations, solicitations to agreement, and the conclusions issued from metaphysics merely opinion - not the advancement of knowledge claim, nor the rational assessment of truth value. Because metaphysical claims are imponderable, no knowledge can be demonstrated, and you are left only with speculative excursions and contemplative reveries, i.e. not love of wisdom, and the adjectival use of "metaphysical" upon "truth" simply oxymoron.

The question is asking whether there exists a dynamic concept of objective, metaphysical truth. The answer claims that there is no metaphysical truth whatsoever. That answer may be true (although I don't think it is), but there could still be, in spite of that, a dynamic concept of objective, metaphysical truth. So, the answer does not address the question.

I don't recall if I voted to delete this answer or if I flagged this, however, it is something that I would have flagged as not an answer or voted to delete from a review queue.

  • So, in short, there was no good reason for deleting the answer other than disagreement with the answer and prefer this site to be a forum for soliciting agreement with imponderables? – Mr. Kennedy Dec 20 '18 at 15:14
  • 5
    @Mr.Kennedy As I see it there was a good reason: the answer did not answer the question. One could have given an answer saying that there are no concepts of dynamic metaphysical truth . Or one could have said such concepts exist listing the philosophers who presented them. But to say there are no metaphysical truths whatsoever, dynamic or not, is not answering the question about whether concepts of such dynamic truths have been presented or not. – Frank Hubeny Dec 20 '18 at 15:43
  • There is no rationally assessing a truth value to "metaphysical truths" - the concept is oxymoron. There is only soliciting agreement with sentiment, and that has no relevancy whatsoever to philosophy. Furthermore the issue of a "dynamic" concept was addressed in the answer. The issue here, however, is that the question was closed, therefore it is unable to be improved, whether you feel it answers the question or not (which it does). – Mr. Kennedy Dec 21 '18 at 0:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .