Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Truth      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 1
TruthPage 1 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
The topic is truth. Truth, capitalized for grammatical reasons only, is central to all thought/belief and has been a topic of much controversy for millenia. Just wondered what some of the members here thought about it. Specifically, where and/or how does it originate?
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 2
Truth
Posted: 7/2/2012 12:39:44 PM
Ok. So I often hear folk talking about his truth, her truth, my truth, and your truth. Are these people talking abut truth or belief? I mean, belief is insufficient for truth. Belief can be false, truth cannot.
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 3
Truth
Posted: 7/2/2012 1:34:02 PM
Gravity is truth? I'm at a loss here. What does the term "objective" add to reality? Is measurement necessary for truth? It seems to me that it is not." The dog has fleas" is or is not a true statement regardless of whether or not we look to see, right?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Truth
Posted: 7/2/2012 2:54:57 PM
A bit of a large subject concept, OP.

Responding logically, I would say that it is n't possible to answer any of your questions until YOU define what version of the word or concept you are talking about.

"Where and/or how does truth originate?" in particular, requires that you isolate exactly what sort of truth you are talking about first. Spiritually oriented people, religious people, will likely tell you that Truth came from their God, and that it should be obvious to you.

Non-believer types, might tell you that truth is a discoverable, unchanging set of characteristics of an entity of some sort, living or non-organic.

My best question for you in return, in order to whittle this down to a manageable discussion, is to ask you what was the exact context and situation that caused you to ask your questions?

For example, I know that in a dynamic situation, there are a lot of people who will somewhat vaguely refer to "the truth," in order to call upon an unquestionable authority, in order to defeat your arguments and let them have their way. It's an avoidance of responsibility on their part, to a large extent.

So what's your exact context?
 gedanken
Joined: 9/2/2009
Msg: 5
Truth
Posted: 7/2/2012 3:21:55 PM
Truth perhaps can be defined as: "that which is not falsifiable". While the word (as a concept) plays a role in logic and philosophy, due to the inherent subjectivity, in all practical day-to-day matters it is practically useless.

I can make a supposed true statement that I live in a big country. But in relation to what? I can attempt to be more objective and say that I live in the 2nd largest country, which can be determined to be true by a variety of sources. However, then someone challenges this truth by pointing out if we look only at total land area, I in fact live in the 4th largest country. So, truth requires context and detail, and in most instances is temporal.
Consider the following statement: "He the oldest person in the world". Is it a truthful statement? How do you know he is the oldest? What happens when he dies? Ultimately, most statements like this will be determined to be false.

Truth is used in religion (philosophy), particularly with Christians who believe that such things as disease, social deviation or disaster are tests to their faith, especially when they hit close to home. And thus they seek some sort of higher truth to rationalize why their God allows bad thing to happen.

In general, truth is not used in science. One can make a statement that "the speed of light in a vacuum is constant", but there is no attempt to classify it as a truth. Rather, it is considered a postulate (ie something that can be agreed upon, with no attempt to canonize it as eternal truth). In general scientists do not consider that we live in a predestined universe and thus seek solutions to problems that are 'best fit'. There is an accepted presumption that the boundaries of a theory will eventually be challenged and replaced by a newer theory that is a better fit.

As far as gravity is concerned, Newton could have said (as a truth) that masses attract each other via an action at a distance type force, which causes them to accelerate towards each other. Thus, a cup placed on a table is at rest, however when it is knocked off the table, it accelerates towards the floor and is smashed. Einstein however demonstrated that this is not the truth. Gravitational force doesn't exist; it is simply the inertial movement of objects in space-time that is curved due to a massive object. Thus the cup is in an accelerated frame of reference while it is on the table and knocking it off simply sets it in motion on an inertial space-time line until it is impacted by the floor accelerating up to meet it.
 Greg22297
Joined: 6/9/2012
Msg: 6
Truth
Posted: 7/2/2012 7:07:58 PM
Aristotle: “To say of 'what is' that it is not, or of 'what is not' that it is, is false, while to say of 'what is' that it is, and of 'what is not' that it is not, is true”.

Building on Aristotle is Aquinas, who, roughly translated, said that truth is the correspondence between the object and the intellect. Or in other words, truth is the correspondence between what is in the mind and what is thought about, whether that is a physical object, a person, an event, etc. So for Aquinas, the truth of what is in the mind is governed by the reality of the object. (I think he would say that when the form of the object is identical to the form in the mind, that is truth.) Interestingly, this is reversed in the case of God, i.e., an object (the "res") is true insofar as it corresponds to what is in God's mind/intellect, not the other way around!

I think when someone says "my truth", they are speaking more of a conviction or belief. If someone says "Justin Bieber is the greatest singer ever, and that's MY truth!", they are asserting a value or belief or opinion, and are using "truth" in a derivative or slang sense.


Truth is used in religion (philosophy), particularly with Christians who believe that such things as disease, social deviation or disaster are tests to their faith, especially when they hit close to home. And thus they seek some sort of higher truth to rationalize why their God allows bad thing to happen.


I honestly have no idea of how this is relevant. Those are scenarios that deal with theodicy (the problem of evil), not truth.
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 7
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 12:53:00 AM

Yes, coz it can be measured, tested and replicated.


You're conflating verification/falsification methods and truth. Verification is insufficient for truth. Our checking does not make something true, nor does it make something like gravity exist.



Obviously an individual's reality is not necessarily an objective one, correct?


You've missed the point. I'll attempt to make it clear. The terms "objective/subjective" add nothing but unnecessary confusion to talk of reality. We are both objects in the world and subjects taking an account of it. We cannot remove the subjectivity. There is no such thing as an objective assessment. Assessments are comprised of statements. All statements, including yours about fact/reality come through a subject. The distinction cannot be maintained. It inevitably leads to incoherence.



You can say the dog has fleas all you like. But until you check and find them the jury is out.


Again, you've missed the point. "The dog has fleas" is true(or not) regardless of whether or not we check to see. It only follows that we need not check in order for that statement to be true/false. We do need to check in order to know that much, but that's another matter altogether and has no bearing upon truth.
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 8
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 1:08:38 AM

A bit of a large subject concept, OP.

Responding logically, I would say that it is n't possible to answer any of your questions until YOU define what version of the word or concept you are talking about.


Indeed. The most all encompassing notion known to man. I'm hesitant to call it a 'concept'. Concepts are man-made and truth is not. I'm talking about truth, as it is autonomously instantiated(presupposed) in thought/belief formation.



"Where and/or how does truth originate?" in particular, requires that you isolate exactly what sort of truth you are talking about first. Spiritually oriented people, religious people, will likely tell you that Truth came from their God, and that it should be obvious to you.

Non-believer types, might tell you that truth is a discoverable, unchanging set of characteristics of an entity of some sort, living or non-organic.


I would argue against the idea that there is more than one kind/sort of truth. I'm not talking about the various uses of the term "truth". Rather, I'm talking about that which makes things true; that which thought/belief, logic, and meaning all presuppose.


My best question for you in return, in order to whittle this down to a manageable discussion, is to ask you what was the exact context and situation that caused you to ask your questions?


We all form questions. There is no exact context which caused the questions. It's just my favorite philosophical subject matter, and it is one which I hold that most humans have gotten wrong throughout written history.


For example, I know that in a dynamic situation, there are a lot of people who will somewhat vaguely refer to "the truth," in order to call upon an unquestionable authority, in order to defeat your arguments and let them have their way. It's an avoidance of responsibility on their part, to a large extent.


Such folk have a gross misunderstanding. Anyone who refers to "the truth" has made a mistake and conflated true statements and truth. Truth is not an object like the table, the chair, or the sun. To prefix truth with "the" or "a" is to objectify truth.
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 9
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 1:18:36 AM

Truth perhaps can be defined as: "that which is not falsifiable".


If that were so, any statement that is not falsifiable would count as truth. "There is an undetectable egg-yolk which created the universe."

Surely you see the problem here?



While the word (as a concept) plays a role in logic and philosophy, due to the inherent subjectivity, in all practical day-to-day matters it is practically useless.


Words are not concepts. Truth is central to everything thought/believed and/or spoken. The existence of subjectivity has no negative affect/effect on truth. There is a certain amount of absurdity in the above quote. I mean you're saying that it is practically irrelevant whether or not what you think/believe and/or say throughout your day to day matters is true. We know better than that.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 5:13:09 AM
So far, OP, your "clarifications" aren't clarifying anything at all.



I would argue against the idea that there is more than one kind/sort of truth. I'm not talking about the various uses of the term "truth". Rather, I'm talking about that which makes things true; that which thought/belief, logic, and meaning all presuppose.


This is the closest you have come so far to answering my request to say what YOU mean by truth, and you still managed only to say something so indefinite and slippery, that it's still functionally meaningless.

You say you're "not talking about the various uses of the term "truth". Big problem. If you set aside all uses of the word TRUTH, and then call for us to discuss it, you've effectively suggested a discussion of absolutely nothing, and done so in a decidedly non-funny, non-Seinfeldian way.

You then say "I'm talking about that which makes things true; that which thought/belief, logic, and meaning all presuppose." Since you used medium sized words like "presuppose," it almost sounds as though you said something, but you didn't. "Thought/belief, logic and meaning" are all Human activities. They are not independent entities. Thus in total, you have declared that you have spent a ton of time, and want to discuss here, NOT what any other people say truth is, but rather what YOU say it is. Then you refuse to say what YOU say it is.

It can sound deep for a few seconds, when someone waxes vague about a potentially grand subject area, but after those few seconds, the rest of us realize that we just heard a big blast of trumpets, as if announcing the arrival of a great thing...followed by nothing.


So you want to discuss truth, but not any of the versions 0f it that any one has ever defined?


We're back to square one.

PS: any chance that what you are after, is a NON subjective, but still essentially SPIRITUAL "Truth?" If so, that answer is easy: no such thing. "Spiritual" is in teh mind of the person feeling, thinking, or talking about it. Purely subjective.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 11
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 5:56:41 AM

It seems to me that you have started a thread here with a very large distinction and not defined your terms at all, then picked apart the responses of others when they have tried to understand what you mean.

That right there is the truth.
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 12
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 10:49:59 AM


I_Neva_Know:

I would argue against the idea that there is more than one kind/sort of truth. I'm not talking about the various uses of the term "truth". Rather, I'm talking about that which makes things true; that which thought/belief, logic, and meaning all presuppose.


Igor:

This is the closest you have come so far to answering my request to say what YOU mean by truth, and you still managed only to say something so indefinite and slippery, that it's still functionally meaningless.


May I suggest a more careful reading?

There are any number of different avenues available to pursue here. I do not like wasting time. My approach is quite deliberate. The problem with the objection(s) is that what I've written is true. Truth, as it is automously instantiated(as it emerges in thought/belief and the language which follows), has an interesting and unique sort of existence that is unlike any other. It requires a subject, but is not subjective. It requires an object, but is not objective. It is necessarily presupposed in all thought/belief and the statements which follow. It is presupposed in thought/belief, argued for with justification/falsification methods, and proven by nothing.

Which of these claims are you objecting to?


You say you're "not talking about the various uses of the term "truth". Big problem. If you set aside all uses of the word TRUTH, and then call for us to discuss it, you've effectively suggested a discussion of absolutely nothing, and done so in a decidedly non-funny, non-Seinfeldian way.


This is a philosophy forum. I'm doing philosophy. The above is specious. I've not set aside all uses of the term "truth". I'm drawing a distinction between most uses and what I'm setting out here, and that does not have the consequence that you've suggested.


You then say "I'm talking about that which makes things true; that which thought/belief, logic, and meaning all presuppose." Since you used medium sized words like "presuppose," it almost sounds as though you said something, but you didn't.


Rhetoric. The 'size' of a word has no inherent value in and of itself. To imply otherwise is not a good sign.



"Thought/belief, logic and meaning" are all Human activities. They are not independent entities.


Irrelevant.

Thought/belief, logic, and meaning need not be independent entities in order to necessarily presuppose truth. Are you denying that claim?



Thus in total, you have declared that you have spent a ton of time, and want to discuss here, NOT what any other people say truth is, but rather what YOU say it is. Then you refuse to say what YOU say it is.


False. I've declared no such thing, nor have I refused to say what truth is. To quite the contrary, I'm actively setting it out.


It can sound deep for a few seconds, when someone waxes vague about a potentially grand subject area, but after those few seconds, the rest of us realize that we just heard a big blast of trumpets, as if announcing the arrival of a great thing...followed by nothing.


More rhetoric.


So you want to discuss truth, but not any of the versions 0f it that any one has ever defined?


Again, may I suggest that you read a bit more carefully and put your own presuppositions aside?



PS: any chance that what you are after, is a NON subjective, but still essentially SPIRITUAL "Truth?" If so, that answer is easy: no such thing. "Spiritual" is in teh mind of the person feeling, thinking, or talking about it. Purely subjective.


No.

This is prima facie evidence of the aforementioned presupposition(s) in play. Carefully read what is written and set the presupposition(s) aside.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 11:24:49 AM

Truth, as it is automously instantiated(as it emerges in thought/belief and the language which follows), has an interesting and unique sort of existence that is unlike any other. It requires a subject, but is not subjective. It requires an object, but is not objective. It is necessarily presupposed in all thought/belief and the statements which follow. It is presupposed in thought/belief, argued for with justification/falsification methods, and proven by nothing.

Which of these claims are you objecting to?


I'm "objecting" to the fact that you couched all of that in a passive voice, which means that you the narrator don't take any responsibility, draw any conclusions, or state anything as being what you yourself believe is a definition of anything. You make claims about "truth," without saying what it is.

Take the sentence which pretends to define it: "Truth, as it is automously instantiated(as it emerges in thought/belief and the language which follows), has an interesting and unique sort of existence that is unlike any other. " Take out the specious adjectival clauses, and we are left with:

"Truth has an interesting and unique sort of existence that is unlike any other. "

A statement ABOUT the "truth" you have yet to specify, nothing more. Again, you write a series of grand-sounding introductory statements, and then break away to chastise me for asking what you are trying to say. Still no straightforward statement saying

"I, The Originator of this Thread, define Truth as ____________________."


Okay, I give up. I guess I'm from another planet, relative to how you are expressing yourself. I see lots of "what I'm not saying," and lots of complaints about the fact that I don't understand you, but still no clarification of what you mean by "Truth".

I leave you to it. Maybe someone else can figure out what you are on about, and translate it for me.
 wanderer1999
Joined: 2/10/2007
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 11:24:55 AM
Truth by the most rigourous definition is that which has been stated as factual.
Factual is that which we have accepted to be true.

Circular argument, ultimately leading nowhere.

Just because we accept something to be factual does not mean it is factual, just as us accepting something to be true does not make it true.

All is based upon some level of assumption. For example, I assume that what I percieve as factual is correct. That may or may not be true, or factual. The concept of Ultimate truth is merely a construct, since we have no way of incontrovertibaly verifying that something is objectively true.

See the problem?

So, as a purely philosophical/semantic argument, all this shows us is that we do not have the tools to divine anything to the point of absolute certainty.

All we can really say is, "It appears to ME that XXX is true". Of course, saying "appears" all the time would be annoying as heck, not to mention pretentious, so we just drop that part and state it as True, since if you're stating something, it's pretty self evident that that's how it appears to You.

Having spent more than my fair time in rhetoric and philosophy courses, the only Truth I managed to reach is nobody actually knows, nobody can really define it, and that's that.
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 15
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 1:01:16 PM

It seems to me that you have started a thread here with a very large distinction and not defined your terms at all, then picked apart the responses of others when they have tried to understand what you mean.


A couple of things here...

1. Truth, as it emerges within thought/belief formation, does not succumb to definition. Definitions are comprised of language. Language is comprised of thought/belief. Thought/belief is comprised of correlation(s). Correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content, and thus presupposes it's own truth. As I've already said, truth has a unique sort of existence. It is one of which we can only become more aware of. We can use language to set it out, but it requires discipline.

2. To say that I've picked apart the responses when they have tried to understand what I mean is to presuppose that others were attempting to understand what I mean. It seems to me that I have been assessing what others have said; how other have been using the term "truth", while simultaneuosly developing my own argument. Most importantly, what has been set out by me thus far has been neither refuted nor granted. Granting is required for understanding. Valid argument is required for refutation. The historical uses of the term, is not something that can be neatly summarized in one or two paragraphs. The brightest minds throughout history have struggled with this very idea. Volumes upon volumes have been written on the subject.
 gedanken
Joined: 9/2/2009
Msg: 16
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 2:06:02 PM
Truth is central to everything thought/believed and/or spoken. The existence of subjectivity has no negative affect/effect on truth. There is a certain amount of absurdity in the above quote. I mean you're saying that it is practically irrelevant whether or not what you think/believe and/or say throughout your day to day matters is true.

Now that you are offering a bit more info as to where you are going with this, I believe the stance you are taking is of the metaphysical realism branch of philosophy. If this is the case, then I think what you mean by truth is in fact reality. My thought on the word ‘truth’ is that in the context you are using it is archaic, and has largely been replaced by the latter. Surely, do a Google search for ‘truth’, or ‘seeking truth’ or ‘searching for truth’ and you get pages and pages of largely Christian web sites. As no particular slight to anyone, this word seems be their preoccupation and no one else’s. More succinctly, I proffer that since the word ‘truth’ may be archaic in the physical sense that you are using it, you could replace it with the term ‘reality’ in this thread, which can facilitate a much better discussion using proper philosophical terms of which we can all agree upon the definition.

The stance you take is ontological, as opposed to epistemological, and thus you believe that the reality of the universe is absolutely objective. Not everyone is of that opinion. While Newton maintained the determined clockwork universe that you support, Berkeley was a proponent of idealism and claimed that an object is only real if it is perceived by the mind. Newton's concept pretty much prevailed until the advent of quantum mechanics in the early 20th Century. At that point, reality became very cloudy and such things as the double-split experiment, Schrödinger's cat and Bell's theorem gave serious challenge to the deterministic approach. And thus, when Einstein asked the question to Abraham Pais: “Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?”, he was referring directly to his displeasure with implications of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; a final lament on his desire to perceive the universe in metaphysical reality terms. Since this time of the maturity of the quantum theory in the 1930s, the objective claim to a universal frame of reference to which we would attribute "the cat has fleas" to have a reality regardless of what you think, or observe or misdiagnose, has largely determined to be false.


"There is an undetectable egg-yolk which created the universe."
Surely you see the problem here?

One may construct a plethora of randomly contrived statements, which by means of sharp challenge (without even arising an admission that the original statement was "just made-up") can quickly be falsified by reductio ad absurdum.
I just threw the original definition out there as food for thought, however considering the weight of your counter argument, I will continue to stand by it.


Words are not concepts.

Words are labels that through which we construct concepts in an attempt to explain situations that arise from experience. One such concept is truth, to which you want to be established as an absolute, whereas I am simply countering that it's existence (or nonexistence) does not occupy an a priori state in the in the existence of the universe, but rather is a product of our minds. Replace truth with other concepts such as reality, love or beauty and I will make the same argument.


I mean you're saying that it is practically irrelevant whether or not what you think/believe and/or say throughout your day to day matters is true. We know better than that. We know better than that.

Who are the royal "we". Not knowing exactly the context or meaning of ‘true’, but assuming you mean ‘real’, then I would hazard to guess that 'we' you are grouping yourself with have little experience with either philosophy, the history of science or quantum mechanics.
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 17
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 2:10:36 PM

I'm "objecting" to the fact that you couched all of that in a passive voice, which means that you the narrator don't take any responsibility, draw any conclusions, or state anything as being what you yourself believe is a definition of anything. You make claims about "truth," without saying what it is.


A couple of things here...

1. Facts cannot be false. What you've set out above is not fact. It is your conclusion(s), which presuppose truth. Those are based upon your interpretation. Interpretations can be wrong; yours is, and here's why...

We can misattribute meaning to another's words. It is important to note that writing in a "passive voice" does not equate to anything you've suggested. To quite the contrary, I welcome the responsibility of shouldering the burden of proof for my claims, draw many conclusions, and stand behind those. In addition, assuming honest testimony, statements are products of and/or follow from pre-existing thought/belief. So, not only have I been making statements, but those also double as claims regarding my belief(s). Furthermore, it is bad argumentative practive to ignore the claims of an author in lieu of focusing upon the author's person... fallacious even.



Take the sentence which pretends to define it: "Truth, as it is automously instantiated(as it emerges in thought/belief and the language which follows), has an interesting and unique sort of existence that is unlike any other. " Take out the specious adjectival clauses, and we are left with:

"Truth has an interesting and unique sort of existence that is unlike any other. "


Rhetoric.

Sentences do not pretend. I am certainly not pretending to define truth. This has been addressed by myself in previous posts. I welcome another to read through and put forth relevant questions if need be. The removal of certain portions of the claim and the subsequent labeling of "specious adjectival clauses" does not constitute a valid couter- argument/rebuttal. That requires being argued for - NOT just stated. What was removed is pivotal to the argument being made. If the reader cares enough about the topic to understand, then s/he ought be disciplined in their reading. Regarding the portion that has been waived aside...

There are certain everyday facts, as they occur, that clearly show that truth emerges within thought/belief prior to language. This is supported by the existence(our possession of) of true belief prior to language acquisition. It is by looking at such things(facts as they occur) that we can know that truth is automously instantiated within thought/belief formation. If true belief exists prior to language, then so too does truth. Any attempt to deny that we require explaining how true belief can exist without truth. That is an inconceivable/incomprehensible and completely counter-intuitive notion. We could discuss this aspect further if need be.



A statement ABOUT the "truth" you have yet to specify, nothing more. Again, you write a series of grand-sounding introductory statements, and then break away to chastise me for asking what you are trying to say.


Rhetoric.

I've chastized no one. The facts clearly show that I've been addressing the claims. To quite the contrary, you have repeatedly talked about me. That will not suffice. It would serve us best to address the words and not the author. Moreover, evidently, we do not share an understanding of what an acceptable form of asking is. It is been already said, but it bears repeating; truth is not something that can be neatly summarized in a few paragraphs. Due to our cross-posting, I realize that that had not been written at the time of your response.



Okay, I give up. I guess I'm from another planet, relative to how you are expressing yourself. I see lots of "what I'm not saying," and lots of complaints about the fact that I don't understand you, but still no clarification of what you mean by "Truth".


It is quite unhelpful to take things personally. The above expressed thought/belief about yourself is a product of your own imagination. I have no such thought/belief about you. Rather, those thoughts/beliefs about the conversation at hand are false. I've also not complained. I have no idea how you've arrived at such a thing.

May I suggest a more careful reading of what I have written, as opposed to what you think/believe that that means and/or entails? If there are questions regarding what I mean, just ask. I'm confident that with a little patience and with careful unassuming reading we can get somewhere beyond this sort of pettiness.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 18
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 2:10:43 PM

1. Truth, as it emerges within thought/belief formation, does not succumb to definition.

The irony, it burns.
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 19
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 2:16:11 PM

I'm "objecting" to the fact that you couched all of that in a passive voice, which means that you the narrator don't take any responsibility, draw any conclusions, or state anything as being what you yourself believe is a definition of anything. You make claims about "truth," without saying what it is.



A couple of things here...

1. Facts cannot be false. What you've set out above is not fact. It is your conclusion(s), which presuppose truth. Those are based upon your interpretation. Interpretations can be wrong; yours is, and here's why...

We can misattribute meaning to another's words. It is important to note that writing in a "passive voice" does not equate to anything you've suggested. To quite the contrary, I welcome the responsibility of shouldering the burden of proof for my claims, draw many conclusions, and stand behind those. In addition, assuming honest testimony, statements are products of and/or follow from pre-existing thought/belief. So, not only have I been making statements, but those also double as claims regarding my belief(s). Furthermore, it is bad argumentative practive to ignore the claims of an author in lieu of focusing upon the author's person... fallacious even.





Take the sentence which pretends to define it: "Truth, as it is automously instantiated(as it emerges in thought/belief and the language which follows), has an interesting and unique sort of existence that is unlike any other. " Take out the specious adjectival clauses, and we are left with:

"Truth has an interesting and unique sort of existence that is unlike any other. "




Rhetoric.

Sentences do not pretend. I am certainly not pretending to define truth. This has been addressed by myself in previous posts. I welcome another to read through and put forth relevant questions if need be. The removal of certain portions of the claim and the subsequent labeling of "specious adjectival clauses" does not constitute a valid couter- argument/rebuttal. That requires being argued for - NOT just stated. What was removed is pivotal to the argument being made. If the reader cares enough about the topic to understand, then s/he ought be disciplined in their reading. Regarding the portion that has been waived aside...

There are certain everyday facts, as they occur, that clearly show that truth emerges within thought/belief prior to language. This is supported by the existence(our possession of) of true belief prior to language acquisition. It is by looking at such things(facts as they occur) that we can know that truth is automously instantiated within thought/belief formation. If true belief exists prior to language, then so too does truth. Any attempt to deny that we require explaining how true belief can exist without truth. That is an inconceivable/incomprehensible and completely counter-intuitive notion. We could discuss this aspect further if need be.





A statement ABOUT the "truth" you have yet to specify, nothing more. Again, you write a series of grand-sounding introductory statements, and then break away to chastise me for asking what you are trying to say.



Rhetoric.

I've chastized no one. The facts clearly show that I've been addressing the claims. To quite the contrary, you have repeatedly talked about me. That will not suffice. It would serve us best to address the words and not the author. Moreover, evidently, we do not share an understanding of what an acceptable form of asking is. It is been already said, but it bears repeating; truth is not something that can be neatly summarized in a few paragraphs. Due to our cross-posting, I realize that that had not been written at the time of your response.



Okay, I give up. I guess I'm from another planet, relative to how you are expressing yourself. I see lots of "what I'm not saying," and lots of complaints about the fact that I don't understand you, but still no clarification of what you mean by "Truth".



It is quite unhelpful to take things personally. The above expressed thought/belief about yourself is a product of your own imagination. I have no such thought/belief about you. Rather, those thoughts/beliefs about the conversation at hand are false. I've also not complained. I have no idea how you've arrived at such a thing.

May I suggest a more careful reading of what I have written, as opposed to what you think/believe that that means and/or entails? If there are questions regarding what I mean, just ask. I'm confident that with a little patience and with careful unassuming reading we can get somewhere beyond this sort of philosophically uninteresting conversation.
 Greg22297
Joined: 6/9/2012
Msg: 20
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 4:15:04 PM
He's just a troll baiting people into arguing.
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 21
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 4:23:07 PM


I_Neva_Know:

Truth is central to everything thought/believed and/or spoken. The existence of subjectivity has no negative affect/effect on truth. There is a certain amount of absurdity in the above quote. I mean you're saying that it is practically irrelevant whether or not what you think/believe and/or say throughout your day to day matters is true.


gedanken:

Now that you are offering a bit more info as to where you are going with this, I believe the stance you are taking is of the metaphysical realism branch of philosophy. If this is the case, then I think what you mean by truth is in fact reality. My thought on the word ‘truth’ is that in the context you are using it is archaic, and has largely been replaced by the latter.


Three problems here...

1. Your assuming things about my argument that are false. It would serve us better to allow the author to make their own claims and respond according to what is written, and/or what those claims require. I am not equating truth and reality, nor need I. It is my contention that doing so leaves us at a complete loss as to explain how it is that things can be true.

2.This does not address my objection to the earlier definition put forth and the supporting claims which followed. The argument put forth succumbs to a reductio.

3.We can wrongfully define things, especially those which are not contingent upon our language for their existence. Truth is one such thing.

The position I'm arguing for hinges upon the meanings/uses of the terms "fact", and "reality", and the relations between those. Thought/belief begins by being about fact/reality as it occurs. Thought/belief and/or the statements which follow is/are true if, and only if, it/they correspond(s) to fact/reality(correctly sets out the way things are).



Surely, do a Google search for ‘truth’, or ‘seeking truth’ or ‘searching for truth’ and you get pages and pages of largely Christian web sites. As no particular slight to anyone, this word seems be their preoccupation and no one else’s. More succinctly, I proffer that since the word ‘truth’ may be archaic in the physical sense that you are using it, you could replace it with the term ‘reality’ in this thread, which can facilitate a much better discussion using proper philosophical terms of which we can all agree upon the definition.


I would be interested in reading how you justify your claims about my use.



The stance you take is ontological, as opposed to epistemological, and thus you believe that the reality of the universe is absolutely objective. Not everyone is of that opinion. While Newton maintained the determined clockwork universe that you support, Berkeley was a proponent of idealism and claimed that an object is only real if it is perceived by the mind. Newton's concept pretty much prevailed until the advent of quantum mechanics in the early 20th Century. At that point, reality became very cloudy and such things as the double-split experiment, Schrödinger's cat and Bell's theorem gave serious challenge to the deterministic approach. And thus, when Einstein asked the question to Abraham Pais: “Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?”, he was referring directly to his displeasure with implications of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; a final lament on his desire to perceive the universe in metaphysical reality terms. Since this time of the maturity of the quantum theory in the 1930s, the objective claim to a universal frame of reference to which we would attribute "the cat has fleas" to have a reality regardless of what you think, or observe or misdiagnose, has largely determined to be false.


Strawman.

While these avenues of thought could be useful, may I suggest that you allow me to make my own argument? I am both, capable and willing. It is not at all helpful for you to tell me what I think and/or believe, and with whom I may or may not agree with.



One may construct a plethora of randomly contrived statements, which by means of sharp challenge (without even arising an admission that the original statement was "just made-up") can quickly be falsified by reductio ad absurdum. I just threw the original definition out there as food for thought, however considering the weight of your counter argument, I will continue to stand by it.


What you're calling the "original" definition of truth succumbs to a reductio ad absurdum. That which is not falsifiable is not necessarily true, let alone does that quality equal truth. I offered one such claim which shows the inherent absurdity in your definition and the argument for it. Whether or not the statement was "made up" is utterly irrelevant. Thestatement satisfied the criterion you've put forth. It is/was unfalsifiable. Thus, if we grant your definition, it only follows that we must conclude that 1.my example qualifies as truth(per your criterion), or 2.realize that that definition is found to be sorely lacking as a result of leading to absurd consequences.



Words are labels that through which we construct concepts in an attempt to explain situations that arise from experience. One such concept is truth, to which you want to be established as an absolute, whereas I am simply countering that it's existence (or nonexistence) does not occupy an a priori state in the in the existence of the universe, but rather is a product of our minds. Replace truth with other concepts such as reality, love or beauty and I will make the same argument.


Allow me to make my own argument. Discipline is necessary here. I have not invoked "absolute". To quite the contrary, I object to such language. You may be right in your objections that follow from what you've presupposed, assuming that you've interpreted my claims correctly. The problem is that your conclusions about my argument do not match, nor follow from what I've written.




I mean you're saying that it is practically irrelevant whether or not what you think/believe and/or say throughout your day to day matters is true. We know better than that.


Who are the royal "we". Not knowing exactly the context or meaning of ‘true’, but assuming you mean ‘real’, then I would hazard to guess that 'we' you are grouping yourself with have little experience with either philosophy, the history of science or quantum mechanics.


There is no "royal we", nor need their be. Let's rid ourselves of the assumptions regarding what you think that I think - shall we?

The existence of true thought/belief requires the existence of truth. True thought/belief and/or statements are pivotal, dare I say irrevocable, to our gaining an understanding of the way things are. Do you agree?
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 22
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 4:35:16 PM

I find it quite amusing that your initial post which started this thread asks for people's thoughts on the subject and when we do offer them you show no signs of valuing them and write paragraphs on how you think we're all wrong and you're right. Well if thats your contention, then a bit of advice for the future; Don't ask for other people's thoughts on anything. :)


This is a philosophy forum. I'm doing philosophy.

If we all agreed upon everything, we would still believe the world is flat. I value true thought/belief, and I'm unapologetic about that. I do not value incoherence and/or falsity. The criterion and standards that I hold another's argument to are held to by myself as well. What more could another ask?
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 23
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 4:47:28 PM

He's just a troll baiting people into arguing.


Geez o peets.

This is a philosophy forum, and I'm doing philosophy. Argument is essential to philosophy. When one enters into a philosophical discussion they enter into a voluntary agreement to justify their claims, and/or address any valid objections which may arise. I do that and expect it from others. If that constitutes my being a troll, then I stand guilty as charged.
 PROTON67
Joined: 4/26/2012
Msg: 24
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 4:57:26 PM
One of the best definitions of some of the most important truths these days is ... that which is politically incorrect.
 I_Neva_Know
Joined: 6/29/2012
Msg: 25
Truth
Posted: 7/3/2012 10:42:12 PM
I think that perhaps a discussion of that which is truth-bearing is on order. It can often help to reduce the irrelevance. I mean, what sort of things can be true, and perhaps more importantly, what makes them so?

Statements. Thought/belief. Anything else?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Truth