You cannot tell the difference whether you're really hungry or you're just hallucinating, without "either logic or material observation." Without that, you cannot know whether your statement is "a member of the set of all truthful statement." Heidegger would know better.
In your opening statement "You cannot tell the difference whether you're really hungry...." acknowledges the truth that there is such a state as being really hungry. You know that this is so from your own subjective experience and don't arrive at this knowledge by way of either logic or material observation. The statement "You are aware that you are hungry." corresponds exactly with the opening stipulation that 'you are aware that you are hungry' and is therefore truthful. Automatically discounting the veracity of statements on the grounds that there is a possibility that they correspond to nothing outside an hallucination doesn't work. If a madman says "2+2=4" does 2+2 cease to equal 4? Lastly, since you introduced the old 'hallucination' argument - how do you know your logic and material observations aren't hallucinations?
heidegger: >In your opening statement "You cannot tell the >difference whether you're really hungry...." >acknowledges the truth that there is such a state >as being really hungry. Yes. >You know that this is so from your own subjective >experience and don't arrive at this knowledge by >way of either logic or material observation. I'm not sure what planet you're from, but that second statement is so far from reality as to be laughable. My knowledge of "real hunger" comes *only* from logic and material observation. "Real hunger" (as opposed to just feeling hungry, which can happen for a variety of reasons) is quickly followed by symptoms which can be materially observed -- weakness, sickness, death. Also, if I begin to feel hungery I can logically determine the likelyhood of said feeling to be reality based or not by a bit of simple logic -- if I haven't eaten for 8 hours, it's *highly* likely that the feeling is real. JB
I"m just challenging traderNik's definitive restriction of truth to truth that's arrived at or supported by logic or material observations. The bulk of truths we encounter are subjective and can't be supported by logic or material evidence. For instance: You feel cold; you say "I feel cold". "I feel cold" is a truth in statement form and is based on the truth that you feel cold. This point may seem trivial but acknowledging its validity opens the door to a universe of truth other than that which can be supported by logic or material evidence.
Greetings, Earthling... (or am I assuming?) Hunger is a subjective experience. It is sometimes occasioned by such physical events as low blood sugar or excitement of the hypothalamus but however it's generated it remains a subjective event that exists in the mind as an entity independent of its causes. We may observe the causes, symptoms, and effects of hunger but we cannot observe hunger per se. You may be able to explain the existence of your hunger but this explanation is ancillary to its existence and to the truth of its existence. First the hunger will exist as a subjective truth, then you will explain it; the explanation is unnecessary to its existence or the truth of its existence.
heidegger: >... however it's generated it remains a subjective >event that exists in the mind as an entity >independent of its causes. Sorry, but not true. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hunger (n) hunger, a physiological need for food; the consequence of food deprivation http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hunger a weakened condition brought about by prolonged lack of food. Hunger can be very "real", can be logically determined and materially observed. JB
It's evident that you're quite confused. According to your logic (or lack of), the statement "I see a unicorn" is also the truth, whether or not there is a "real" unicorn. On second thought, that's an excellent way to prove that unicorns are indeed real!
... please explain what that "truth" will be supported on if not logic or material evidence Illogical and insubstantial makebelieve is about all you will have left.
Let's say that you're hallucinating and your hallucination causes you to see a unicorn (that isn't really there). If you were to say "Over there is a unicorn." you'd be speaking an untruth because there is no correspondence between your statement and the facts. If, however, you said "I see a unicorn." and in fact, by way of hallucination, you do see a unicorn, there is a correspondence between what you are saying and what you are seeing. Your statement is true and your experience is real (true) in that it exists even if it exists only in your mind.