North Face Outlet Texas

Iebitas Reference:

all know the famous Aristotelian reasoning, that if I say "everything is false, I am implicitly asserting a universal truth (because then it is true that all is false).

This reasoning, shared, but only to look at "the result," the assertion.
But if we look at the procedural level, we we see that the skeptic, to come to the conclusion that everything is false, he must have implicitly compared his concept of truth with reality, concluding that there is no match. So the universally true, or considered that already exists in the procedure.

clarify this concept with a more concrete example of Umberto Eco. If I want to determine if a document is real or fake, will confront him with a document of the same type that I know (or feel) is true, and I'll see if there is sufficient similarity.
Same thing for notes. I think, ideally, as a bill to be true (with the watermark, etc) and compare my idea of \u200b\u200ba bill true, with the note that I checked for patency.

So, my idea is that everything is false the statement that contradicts itself even before the result, because each test involves a real object held true. (A criterion of truth).

I want to know your opinions (and of course the criticism welcome:)

Piergiorgio Response: According to me it depends on the philosophy that embraces: the Greeks had a naturalistic understanding of world politics and community, so were talking a lot in terms of "totality" (in few words had a holistic, as opposed to modern bourgeois-individualist).

By this I mean that if you redo to philosophers such as Aristotle, Spinoza, Hegel, and perhaps even (if we admit God as first cause, origin, and therefore it is also all original), all is not an object abstract (I hope that in addition to liberal philosophy, pragmatism, neo-Kantian, analytical, positivist and in a word, bourgeois know that cos it's all for Hegel and Spinoza:
for Spinoza is the only substance to the spirit of Hegel as a process, how to become dialectical), but something concrete. Kant criticizes the idea of \u200b\u200bSpinoza's substance, but can do nothing against the Hegelian totality. In any case it is clear that some philosophers (who generally are more communitarian, that is, believe in the community as a common foundation for the pursuit of truth through dialogue between individuals) there is a totally real or ideal, understood (especially by the Greeks) as reaching of 'harmony (this is why it is very important in Greece, the Pythagorean concept of number and the concept of balance, measuring).

So to say that "everything is false" is not sustainable as a universal (Eco) is to deny the existence of any universal
and, in my view, to cut the tree branches of dialogue and research philosophy, that their research on the universal from the individual should be based. But that is functional to the current ruling class, who need to destroy the very concept of community to promote social atomism. Support atomism and at the same time the possibility of existence of universal would indeed be heard, so Eco and others are consistent with the interests of defending.

add: the question seemed very interesting. I should add, as I mentioned Hegel, that it really (that is, in fact, in the synthesis) is not the problem of the universal and the particular. And this for one simple reason: because he sees them moments as simple opposites, which, beyond the intellect of the separator, recompose dialectically in the reality of Spirit. This is very important because it means that philosophers and holistic community take into account the particular, while the individualistic philosophy usually tend to amputate that part of reality that is universal, not realizing that the loss is the loss of the universal particular. And this for one simple reason: to separate and compare them with the understanding that I need to be present in both dialectically Reality, in the summary.