Truth,Experience,Language,Logic

[Srinivas Sista]

Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:

> Why should you infer anything from your experience?  It could have been
> the result of your being drunk or feverish or any number of other things.
> The very essence of truth is it is objective and constant.  It cannot
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> depend on any persons experience.  Experience can at best be supporting
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> evidence for the truth or falsehood of a proposition.  It is _only_
> through language and logic we have a framework for independantly
> determining the truth.

Disclaimer: The following questions are only meant to engender enquiry.

Now how are you going to prove that? Where did you infer that from?
Or is it your definition of truth? If it is somebody else's definition,
what made you accept that? What is the status of a truth that is validated
only through language and logic and not otherwise? How sure are you that
language and logic are not a result of your being drunk or feverish or
any number of other things? Why are the chirpings of birds unintelligible,
whereas the blabbering of humans suddenly acquire enormous significance?
Why are patterns of grass/leaves meaningless whereas scribblings of humans
carry lot of meaning? How broad is this truth which you are formulating, if
it is only objective and constant?

regards,
Srinivas Sista.