Posts by Jonathan Kelly8

Terry Martinez10 said:Look, I have neither the desire nor the mental energy to engage at that particular level of discourse, nor am I out here making things up as I go along.
If anyone actually cares to understand, there's a perfectly concise breakdown available at this link.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/syn...ples-quiz.html

Your link claims synergy means the whole is greater than the sum of its parts—essentially saying 2 + 2 = 5 in mathematical terms.

Look into Gestalt theory. We often perceive entire patterns or configurations rather than just individual components. People sometimes simplify this by saying, "the whole is more than the sum of its parts," or even use that "2 + 2 = 5" analogy.

A more precise way to put it would be: 'The whole is something else than the sum of its parts, because summing is a meaningless procedure, whereas the whole-part relationship is meaningful.'

The whole is fundamentally different from the sum of its parts—summing is a meaningless procedure, while the relationship between the whole and its parts is what carries actual meaning.

Amanda Jackson5 said:I get where you're coming from, but that sounds suspiciously like Hegelian dialectical logic or some brand of speculative reasoning.

And what exactly are we building on certain observations then? Assumptions are the bedrock of beliefs, not necessarily truth.

So I guess we don't have anything better to work with.

Is that really the definition of truth?

I'm curious—from what possible angle does 2+2 equal 5?

The terms were in quotes in my previous post...

In everyday American English, "truth" is used loosely—it can mean anything from a simple belief to something much heavier.

Truth and belief are semantically intertwined; people swap them constantly without thinking.

Which truth are we even talking about? Objective truth, subjective truth, normative truth... the list goes on.

People also tend to conflate truth with fact—as if they’re identical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Wikipedia defines it this way: Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

As for a fact, it states: A fact is something that is true.

There is also an interesting page regarding 2 + 2 = 5.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:I don't know if that was your point, but 1+1=2 is true regardless of the system or the base you're using. You can't confuse the actual number with how you choose to write it down.

I assume you noticed the smiley at the end. Since the author didn't specify a base, we're left with this ambiguity—I guess. What does 7 + 7 equal in his specific base? (could be hex, for all we know)🤷

Amanda Jackson5 said:It feels like nobody actually understands the distinction between raw facts and the actual truth.

Moved from the Philosophy-Science-Religion thread

It’s already there. Similar. The topic is already established—no need to keep repeating things we've already covered here.

Amanda Jackson5 said:So, if the facts themselves are wrong, does that mean we just flip the script and assume the non-facts are suddenly true?

This isn't working—if you actually want to get your hands on the truth or a verifiable fact, you really need to use... Constructive logic—if you can even call it that—is a bit of a headache. It’s all about proving things actually exist rather than just showing that their absence is impossible. I guess some people find that rigor refreshing, but to me, it feels like an endless loop of unnecessary hurdles. Maybe it’s just my cynicism talking, but it seems like a lot of extra work just to reach a conclusion that was probably obvious from the start. 🙂

Olivia Smith2 said:1+1=2 isn't just a fact—it’s more of a fundamental truth that physical conclusions must align with if they want to hold any water. Even the ancient Greeks made a distinction between mere appearance and actual truth.
We possess much more direct, axiomatic knowledge than we realize.
Take one example: God exists, or perhaps that God is love. With these kinds of immediate truths, you can't really find proof of the opposite. That’s where things get tricky—especially when people start swapping facts for truth, as I mentioned earlier. In a strictly critical, assumption-free philosophy, what one person considers an obvious, self-evident truth is viewed by someone else as something that still requires rigorous proof.

That simply isn't true. 1 + 1 = 10In binary, I suppose. 🙂

We base our "facts" on uncertain observations—and I suppose we build our "truth" on nothing more than assumptions.