Talk:Trivialism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Do Discordians really believe in trivialism?

Discordians may possibly claim that they believe that all propositions are equally true and false, but it seems (to me at least) doubtful that anyone (Discordians included) actually really believes that, even if they might claim that they do. --SJK (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they do and they don't. Gebstadter (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gebstadter is correct. If everything is true, as some believe it is, then it is also certainly true that everything is not true, for that everything is not true is a proposition, and therefore true. This is why trivialism is impervious to refutation. The trivialist may affirm any refutation without rejecting trivialism. That said, not all Discordians disco with such agility. 67.188.123.216 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be cool if somebody wrote a paper or book that compares Discordianism to Trivialism. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such a book would be arbitrarily long. But, so, I suppose, would any book before it's written. There is a lot of Discordian stuff on scribd.com, though. Work on trivialism in particular is pretty sparse. Graham Priest is kinda the current champion of dialethism, but his treatment of trivialism in Doubt Truth to Be a Liar is very sad. I have been meaning to get a copy of In Contradiction to see if he does any better in the "more rigorous" work. 67.188.123.216 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating And Relevant

This is one of the few places on the web that even countenances trivialism as a legitimate philosophical theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does not maintain a separate article on the topic, and the links provided here are incredibly helpful. Thanks, Wikipedia! 70.138.217.107 (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Estrada-Gonzalez link

Can someone fix the Luis Estrada-González link? It appears to be dead. 70.138.217.107 (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back-up link just in case: http://www.academia.edu/891347/Models_of_Possibilism_and_Trivialism --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

found everywhere

I rather doubt that trivalis means "found everywhere" in the sense of "universal", as the use seems to be here. Literally it means "of the three ways" (see trivium for a related sense) and from that "of a cross-roads", and then from that to "frequent", "common" or "basic". So what was the first use of trivialism in English or any other language in the sense here of "everything is true"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumping (talk • contribs) 2015-08-27T18:05:30 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't mean "found everywhere" (and the citation for that claim doesn't support the claim). "Of the three paths" or "of the crossroads" is literally correct, and by derivation "commonplace".

The Trivium was the elementary course of study in a mediaeval uniiversity, and consisted of three subjects: rhetoric, logic, and grammar. These were the prerequisites for further study, which was the Quadrivium: arithmetic, music, astronomy and geometry.

The useful knowledge was in the quadrivium; the trivium provided the tools you need to reason and argue. The trivium was therefore less important - 'trivial'.

A proposition is "trivially true" if it can be seen to be true simply by inspecting the proposition, without reference to any real-world facts. If all statements are true by definition, then they can be said to be trivially true. That's a possible explanation for the term "trivialism". MrDemeanour (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the claim. The word trivial has several meanings, so we need a source clarifying which of these was intendend by the coiner(s). Paradoctor (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peanuts comic strip

Peppermint Patty endorses trivialism in the April 30, 1979 Peanuts comic strip. https://peanuts.fandom.com/wiki/April_1979_comic_strips CronoDAS (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice spot, but she endorses optimism, not trivialism, even if her brand of the former implies the latter. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Place worthy of an inn(?)

I wow-ed my dinner table the other night, not w/ the three-disciplines tradition, but my claim that wherever ‘’tres via’’ come together, a savvy entrepreneur will build an inn, where travelers exchange all sorts of (uhh…) worthless info, over beer and brats. Do I owe my buds a retraction? Or have two coincidental constructions of one mini-phrase produced mini-miraculum? — ex-user:Jerzy 173.220.230.26 (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]