Philosophy question: If a man is talking in a deserted forest, will he still be wrong?

Answer 1

Good point, but....if the universe doubles in size overnight, should you pull the switch to divert the trolley so that it kills 1 person instead of 5? Or perhaps the prisoner should not confess, because there is no free will?

Answer 2

Possibly,2+2 is not 5 even in the deserted forest.

Answer 3

I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that what he's saying is actually wrong, like 2+2=5 or something, even though you didn't specify that there was anything wrong with what he was saying.

To answer you in that case, of course he would. A falsehood is still a falsehood whether it has a perceiver or not. This is necessary for falsehood to even exist. If my saying something was true was all that was necessary for it to be true, then for me, 2+2 might well be 5. The nature of truth is that it is the same for everyone. We disagree not because there is no objective truth, but because we often cannot figure out with certainty what the truth is. If a perceiver had to hear what this man said and point out that he was wrong in order for him to actually be wrong, that would be tantamount to this perceiver being able to influence the truth of what the man was saying.

Answer 4

Relativism? I don't think so. One of the Yahoo answers abover "Einstein" said it was up to him to decide, but we are not sure what he is wrong about. For arguments sake let's just say he is standing in a deserted forest and decides to call the sky orange, knowing it is blue, and call the tree's flowers, knowing that's not what they are. Would he not still be wrong? Of course he would be! It's not up to him to decide what something is when he already knows what it is not; that is, if he were to be calling trees flowers or the sky orange...he would be wrong.

Relativism is wrong for many reasons, but just to give you one reason to debunk the guy above is the fact that relativism depends upon an absolute notion of truth for it's acceptance...again relativism is denying such a thing as absolute truth but at the same time if truth were relative it would still be an absolute concept...relativism could never become a fact...ever...because it would constantly defeat itself on these grounds.

Answer 5

If whatever he's saying is wrong, it's wrong whether it's heard or not. If I think something that's wrong, it's wrong, whether or not anyone ever knows I thought it. So just the fact that no one is there to hear him doesn't affect whether what he says is wrong or not.

Of course he could be wrong for you but right for him (he could be saying "this is a wonderful place" but you could think it was dull and dank) or he could be factually wrong ("2+2=7"). But what if you think he's morally wrong? Are there absolutes?

(Answering questions with more questions - sorry!) :-)

Then of course there's the whole issue of how can the forest be deserted if he's talking in it? A radio, wierd echoes, ghosts...?

Answer 6

Your question is incomplete. If he were in a city and said "I am alone in a deserted forest" he would be wrong. If he made this same statement while alone in a deserted forest, he would be right. You need to complete your question.

Answer 7

Yes. If he talks of a deserted forest. That's an oxymoron.

Answer 8

It makes no difference where you are when you tell an untruth. Except that trees have ears so it is best to avoid a forest

Answer 9

If he is wrong, maybe he should go to a forest where there are other people.

Answer 10

That's a good question. The implication is that he is wrong while speaking. ("will he still be wrong").

If he's wrong, it doesn't matter if anyone is around to hear him. Or if no one ever hears him. He would still be wrong. What fact has changed? Nothing.