A defining question

[tessa]

All insights and opinions sought.

Asked in all seriousness. Well, as serious as I can be...

What is truth?

Are there any absolutes encypted within the concept of truth?

When faced with cognitive dissonance, can truth be at all?

And even outside the realm of such existential crises, is truth to be found?

Again I ask-

What is truth?


---

[Euryleia]

When I think about defining Truth, I think of the parable about the six blind men who were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body.

The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.

A wise man explains that all of them are right; the elephant has all the features mentioned. They 'see' it differently because each of them could only touch a part of the animal.

So, my short answer is that truth can be stated in different ways. There are no absolutes and no-one has a monopoly on what is true. The best you can hope for is to find your own truth and then work to live in harmony with everyone else's.

[Just A Girl]

I second Euryleia

Truth is unique to the individual... it's your interpretation of your experiences in life. What may be true to you, may not be to another, but that shouldn't diminish it in anyway because it is personal.

[cadence]

Truth is not deception, lies or self contradictory
If you agree with me then we deem this statement to be true.

That's all I have really. I would go into the whole logical relativism aspect of it, but it just makes me cranky, since I have to type out pages and can't condense it.

I'll wait for someone else to do it, maybe Tom he's good at it!!

[Merle]

Oh, gods the papers I wrote on this. I think I still have my 128 page thesis somewhere around. I could email it to you.....

Mostly, I think truth is just the idea agreed by the majority at a given time. (And the general majority agrees that 'truth' is a fact that has been verified,websters) The 'truth' is part of your perspective, your side of the issue, and so 'truth' is a flexible human notion that will be what it will be.

...That sounded better in my head. And made sense too. Really.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tell all the truth but tell it slant,
Success in circuit lies,
Too bright for our infirm delight
The truth's superb surprise;

As lightning to the children eased
With explanation kind,
The truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind

[ObjectivistActivist]

So, my short answer is that truth can be stated in different ways.

If this was true then Truth wouldn't be called Truth, it would be called opinion. Opinion that doesn't adhere to reality is delusion, and delusion is false, not true. This is, of course, contingent upon whether or not you are speaking from a perspective consistent with this part of your statement:

The best you can hope for is to find your own truth and then work to live in harmony with everyone else's.

which implies that truth exists only as a matter of perception, and not as an objective absolute. We'll leave aside (for the moment) the fact that that implication is false.

There are no absolutes and no-one has a monopoly on what is true.

That statement is self-contradicting, in that saying "there are [absolutely] no absolutes" is making an asbolutist statement, as is saying that "[absolutely] no-one has a monopoly on what is true."

On the subject of truth, the answer is very simply stated as:

Truth is an aspect of the identities of those things, concepts, ideas, statements, and actions which adhere to and exist within reality.

Since reality is an objective absolute, truth is that which describes it. For example (and assuming an unaltered specimen of the to-be-mentioned fruit), the statement, "the apple is neon blue" does not describe reality, thus it is false, whereas the statement "the apple is red" accurately describes the reality of the apple, and thus is true.

Truth is unique to the individual... it's your interpretation of your experiences in life. What may be true to you, may not be to another, but that shouldn't diminish it in anyway because it is personal.

This statement is a more clear and honest statement of Euryleia's attempt to turn reality into a fog of moment-to-moment perceptions where no knowledge is possible, where no future can be known, and where the past is unconnected with the present. Amongst other evasions. The bolded portion in particular has been a bromide for that particular ideology for decades at the least.

The underlined portion, if taken at face value, means:

If I honestly believe it is my right to shoot you in the face, steal your car and whatever you have in your pockets/purse, and never face a moment's consequences for it, my opinion is just as "right" as the person who instead honestly believes in hard work, dedication, and earning for themselves what they have instead of stealing from another at the point of a gun.

Just because someone happens to hold a belief doesn't mean that belief is right or that it holds any value, or even that it commands any shred of respect from those who can see that belief for the bald-faced rationalization, or flimsy screen against acknowledgement of reality, that it is.

[tessa]

...implies that truth exists only as a matter of perception, and not as an objective absolute.

I responded to this part mainly because it is my firm belief that perspective (I shy away from using your term, to distance my meaning from the sensory-related definition 'perception' denotes) is what makes the world go around. But perspective is not truth, not in any form. It is a subjective evaluation at best. At worst, it's self-delusional propaganda.

Basing the definition of truth on an adherence to reality begs yet another question-

Which reality?

[Euryleia]

<snip>
Since reality is an objective absolute, truth is that which describes it. For example (and assuming an unaltered specimen of the to-be-mentioned fruit), the statement, "the apple is neon blue" does not describe reality, thus it is false, whereas the statement "the apple is red" accurately describes the reality of the apple, and thus is true.

I have neither the time nor inclination to argue all your points. I will point out that apples come in more colors that just red so your statement of reality would be false to those enjoying the tartness of a Granny Smith.

I stand by my belief that truth is largely a matter of my reality.

[ObjectivistActivist]

Since reality is objective, and to take a line from popular fiction:

There can be only one.

[ObjectivistActivist]

I have neither the time nor inclination to argue all your points. I will point out that apples come in more colors that just red so your statement of reality would be false to those enjoying the tartness of a Granny Smith.

I stand by my belief that reality is largely a matter of my perspective.

Nice to know that everything ceases to exist as soon as there are no longer beings of higher consciousness extant in the universe. How frightening it must be to live in such a place. Fortunately, I don't.

[Thrasher]

Guys.
This is fun.
This is the most fun I've had all day. Don't stop now.
Let's sing it together:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY

and, not to be outdone,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dbuF...eature=related

[tessa]

Oh, I so appreciate good humor. And whether one believes Monty Python is the epitome, or the antithesis, of humor, one will giggle or guffaw no matter.

Since reality is objective, and to take a line from popular fiction:

There can be only one.

Nice to know that everything ceases to exist as soon as there are no longer beings of higher consciousness extant in the universe. How frightening it must be to live in such a place. Fortunately, I don't.

You purport only one reality, yet by your own admission here, you are fortunate not to live in the other one. Hmm.

I will point out that apples come in more colors that just red so your statement of reality would be false to those enjoying the tartness of a Granny Smith.

Sensible comparison to make, as life, like apples, is filled with sweet and tart...and rotten. Truth in the form of apples- what a hoot!

Despite my need for objectivism and singleness, I am becoming of a mind that truth, with perspective reasoning figuring in heavily, is only what we make it,

So's an argument. But let's not make that, please.

[ObjectivistActivist]

You purport only one reality, yet by your own admission here, you are fortunate not to live in the other one. Hmm.

A mindset, or perception, is not a reality. Clearly, some people's perceptions and mindsets deviate from reality to a ridiculous extent.

[denuseri]

truth is the subjective ojectification of an idea and or observation rationalized as a conception within the context of the preception of an individual until that individual arrives at a consensus with other individuals over the veracity of whatever is addressed between them,
in other words truth alltough objective in and of itself within any given framework is dependent for its objects definition based on the subjective perspectives of those involved in its interpetation
its like trying to define what love or honor is,, we all know what is honor to each of us, yet defining one universal aplication or definition of honor that applies to all catagorical situations and or parameters is subjective to the conclusions of hypothetical situations,, imanueal kant addressess such definitions as eaither being universally applied truths or catagorically exclusive truths hypothetically applied to only one standard

so to be brief in laymans terms truth is what it is, and is universal in its definition to any one of us at a given time, yet we may argue as a matter of our own perspectives what each of us precieves that truth to be

[TomOfSweden]

All insights and opinions sought.

Asked in all seriousness. Well, as serious as I can be...

What is truth?

Are there any absolutes encypted within the concept of truth?

When faced with cognitive dissonance, can truth be at all?

And even outside the realm of such existential crises, is truth to be found?

Again I ask-

What is truth?


---

I'd say it's down to definition, and all are equally valid, depending on what you need it for. It's easy to get them confused.

Scientific truth is just one of them and is basically just about following the rules of the scientific method. It's just a convention to make life a little easier to cope with.... or at all.

This truth is quite different from my favourite definition which is Kant's, which basically states that the truth of something is how the thing in itself is to itself. Which doesn't really say much or help us in the least. But I think it's the most honest one.

The interesting thing is of course, how can we figure this truth out. Kant himself thought truth is just a social agreement, which I don't agree with, because I don't think human perception is infinitely malleable. I do think human interpretation of the world is to a large extent hard-wired. Kant can be excused for living in a time before physical studies of the brain was even possible.

I think there is a truth but I don't think it's knowable. At best we can make an agreement on how we chose to interpret the world, which tries to minimize variance. Heidegger's phenomenology project was just this. Saussure did studies in linguistics and how we symbolize the world, making us realise that there is more layers than just our senses and our brain.... there's also how we formulate those thoughts into language. The capacity of the language puts a limit on how much truth can be conveyed. The bits sticking out of the form gets by necessity cut off/out.

Basically, Tessa. To answer your question we'd have to mention the entire history of philosophy, because at it's core, this is the one main question they've all been trying to answer. I think having read philosophy makes it much easier not to run into traps of simplification. There's a famous Adam Smith quote on economy which is equally true for philosophic theory of truth, and I'll paraphrase it.

Those who say their only following their own heart and chose to think for themselves, are invariably following an obsolete theory of truth.

We are all following one of these theories of truth that these dusty old dead men once formulated. It doesn't hurt to know which one it is. Because if you do, it's easy to find criticism against it. There are plenty of problems with all formulations of truth and how we know it, (known as the school of epistemology).

[TomOfSweden]

BTW objectivist. The problem with the redness of apples in philosophy is known as "qualia".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

The truth of colour is that it is light particles bouncing off surfaces and reaching our retina. This can be measured. But we're decades, (if we ever can) away from working out how the mind evaluates/experiences this. So if apples is red or not, can be contested in certain definitions of truth.

edit: I'm actually leaning toward that experiences, (like colour) can be measured objectively as you claim, it's just that it's quite possible that we will not be able to translate the achieved measurement to anything meaningful when we interpret it. But the important thing is that we'll be able to compare threshold values scientifically. So even if we won't ever understand how red an apple is to other people, we still can compare the level to different people, which is a huge leap in understanding subjective experiences.

I belong to the crowd who believe that we'll in the near future be able to build robots who experience the world and evaluate it, exactly like we do. Will love, think, reason and hope like we do. Anyhoo, this was a side note.

[fetishdj]

A lot of modern physics is considering ideas that consider time, space and matter to be subject to perception. A simplified tenant being that humanity percieves time like a river - flowing from past to future - but the truth may actually be that time is more like a lake with all events occuring simultaneously ad humanity chooses which events to percieve.

The universe does not cease to exist if no one is there to observe it. It merely ceases to exist in the same way as it was percieved by that being. We build pictures of the universe inside our heads based on signals recieved by the senses. We all know that the apple is red/green because we were taught that the particular complex of sensory signals (reflected wavelengths of light) we receive when we look at the apple relate to that colour.

And to answer the question asked at the start: Surely everyone knows the answer to this. Truth is beauty and beauty is truth

[TomOfSweden]

http://www.myspace.com/jonnyberliner

If you think science is boring and just want a quick and amusing summary, this guy is a good bet. He's got a song called "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle" which I was looking for, since it connects with the problems with scientific truth. But alas, it's not there. I assume it'll be posted soon since it's quite new. The song Dark Matter is hillarious and a good summery of dark matter, which is a very cutting edge and complicated field.

[Just A Girl]

Just because someone happens to hold a belief doesn't mean that belief is right or that it holds any value, or even that it commands any shred of respect from those who can see that belief for the bald-faced rationalization, or flimsy screen against acknowledgement of reality, that it is.

I question whether or not you are adressing truth or fact here. Something does not need to be fact for it to be true.
Personally, I believe that if someone holds a belief then that belief is true, to them- respect doesn't come into it.
Although an athiest, I have no problem accepting that some people find truth in God, because to them, God is true- I may view these people as perhaps naive, and disagree with their truth, but I can still accept it as being true to them.
Unlike fact, truth is not a unifying definative...

We could of course go into the whole... well nothing can really be true because we cannot really be sure of reality etc etc... but I fear we would never end if we started that one...

[TomOfSweden]

I question whether or not you are adressing truth or fact here. Something does not need to be fact for it to be true.

I'm not so sure about that. I think that in philosophy "fact" and a "true statement" are synonyms. "Fact" does have separate specific uses than "truth" in other fields.

In journalism, "fact" is generally referred to stuff that the majority of all scientists agree on. While "truth" is an elusive beast they try to reveal as best they can. But it's a pretty specific field.

Personally, I believe that if someone holds a belief then that belief is true, to them- respect doesn't come into it.
Although an athiest, I have no problem accepting that some people find truth in God, because to them, God is true- I may view these people as perhaps naive, and disagree with their truth, but I can still accept it as being true to them.

Now you're in trouble. I think you're mixing up concepts. Are you equating "belief in that something is true" with actual "truth"?

Let's for sake of argument say that we all share the same reality. If this is so, a Christian's truth of the reality of the universe cannot be true if the atheists theory of the universe is true. In the same way, when a Christian has faith, they are implying that all Buddhists are a bunch of dim witted dumb-asses that don't get it. They might fool themselves into believing that they aren't judgemental or chauvinistic. But if they have faith, there's no way of getting out of this mess without coming across as the huge chauvinist they are. .... and in the same way, since you are an atheist you by definition don't "accept it as being true to them". I'm sorry for the strong language, but I wanted to get my point across.

I understand what you're doing. You're trying to come across as a nice person who can see things from other peoples perspective and respect them. But you aren't and you don't. I think you're simply being dishonest now. But you might still be a nice person

If you have faith in one definition of truth, you reject all the other ones, by necessity. That's what faith means.

A huge problem with religion and religious discussions is that when people talk about "God", it's usually used as an abstract term that covers a wide variety of concepts and manifestations. You might have a whole room of Christians agreeing on that they all love God and feel the holy ghost, while none of them are talking about that same thing. But even here it's deeply dishonest saying that you "accept it as being true to them" because you have no idea what they're talking about. It could be like that nunnery in the third century who said they could feel God's presence when they came from masturbation. No shit, so do I.

...and to end this ramble, I'd like to mention Dewey and the Pragmatists. It's a serious philosophical school based around the idea that we can't figure out what's true anyway, so who cares. They just assume that what ever is the most useful and works is true. This is arguably the most important philosophical school in USA today, so they shouldn't be dismissed. They are dismissively referred to "the Americans" but European philosophers. But I think that's a mistake. I think their importance will only increase in the future. But it won't help you to get an answer, Tessa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey

[Just A Girl]

For a start... I'm not trying to come across as a nice person who can see things from other peoples perspectives and respect them... like I said, respect doesn't come into it :P

I make no claim to be able to see things from other peoples perspectives, if I could I would most probably agree with them, but I can't... so I don't... and I never said I respect those with religious beliefes :P

To your comment "If you have faith in one definition of truth, you reject all the other ones, by necessity. That's what faith means."

I completly agree with you... my faith in my definition of truth does force me to reject all other truths within what I see realitity is... but that doesn't mean I have to reject that it is true to that person.

I live life with the idea that we cannot truly prove anything, and so anything can be true to anyone... because I may not view reality the same way as someone else.

In a murderer's reality they believe it is true that killing is good... and whilst I don't share this truth, and certainly don't respect it... I have to acknowledge that unless I can somehow make this person see reality the way I do, their truth is still true to them.

Perhaps the problem with defining truth is that, in order to define it, we have to establish a truth... we cannot know what we percieve to be truth is true.

I'm loving "we can't figure out what's true anyway, so who cares." though... very accurate... well... to me anyway

[denuseri]

without a consensus between us for the purposes of this discussion as to what is and is not considered truth all we are going to do is go in circles

perhaps a little excersise is in order?

could we agree that "truth" is the oposite of "false" ?

[Just A Girl]

without a consensus between us for the purposes of this discussion as to what is and is not considered truth all we are going to do is go in circles

perhaps a little excersise is in order?

could we agree that "truth" is the oposite of "false" ?

we could... but then we would have to establish what false is... and we'd be right back at square one :P

the wonders of philosophy eh?

[denuseri]

LMAO, yep its a quandary all right,, oh wait now we have to define that

[tessa]

its like trying to define what love or honor is,, we all know what is honor to each of us, yet defining one universal aplication or definition of honor that applies to all catagorical situations and or parameters is subjective to the conclusions of hypothetical situations

Back to unique and personal as a qualifier. This theme is becoming a constant throughout. Is that good or bad? Wait. Nevermind answering that. We would need another revolving door.

Kant himself thought truth is just a social agreement, which I don't agree with, because I don't think human perception is infinitely malleable. I do think human interpretation of the world is to a large extent hard-wired. Kant can be excused for living in a time before physical studies of the brain was even possible.

Hard-wired? Can I go that far in my evaluation of it all? I think not, but I can agree with the un-malleable part. Yeah, Kant got that one real wrong. Wonder if brain studies would re-define his "truth"?

I think there is a truth but I don't think it's knowable.

Not what I wanted to hear. ~sigh~

Those who say their only following their own heart and chose to think for themselves, are invariably following an obsolete theory of truth.

So whose heart and mind does one look to? And wouldn't their theory be obsolete as well?

I think I'm missing that point of yours entirely. Sorry.

The truth of colour is that it is light particles bouncing off surfaces and reaching our retina. This can be measured. But we're decades, (if we ever can) away from working out how the mind evaluates/experiences this. So if apples is red or not, can be contested in certain definitions of truth.

Would this be part of a possible explanation as to why 10 different people who witness the very same crime will have 10 different and/or opposing accounts of said crime? How much of that is due to personal perspective, and how much does the workings of each individual's brain play into the differences in accounting?

ps. Nice side note.

And to answer the question asked at the start: Surely everyone knows the answer to this. Truth is beauty and beauty is truth

This really appeals to me on a certain level. Surprising.

If you have faith in one definition of truth, you reject all the other ones, by necessity. That's what faith means.

You have to reject all the other ones, or you simply do? Are you saying it's a prerequisite or a choice? I'm asking, as I'm not sure what your meaning may be.

It could be like that nunnery in the third century who said they could feel God's presence when they came from masturbation. No shit, so do I.

And I laugh and laugh and laugh. You can exude brilliance, Tommy.

Perhaps the problem with defining truth is that, in order to define it, we have to establish a truth... we cannot know what we percieve to be truth is true.

Exactly why I asked my initial question. Establishing truth when truth is unknown. Ok, my mind is on overload, so I'm gonna stop now.

This discussion is riveting! Thank you all for your contributions.

[Flaming_Redhead]

You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

[tessa]

I'm settling on Clarence Darrow's truth-ful idea for the moment-

"Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coattails."

[TomOfSweden]

I live life with the idea that we cannot truly prove anything, and so anything can be true to anyone... because I may not view reality the same way as someone else.

I just want to point out here that there are no philosophers, (since the Sophists in ancient Greece) who have held this view to be correct.

I'm not sure if this is what you're doing, but this reminds me very much of what I hear in on-line philosophy discussions, and is a very common misunderstanding of the post-modern project. No matter how relative these philosophers, (Derrida, Foucault, Lacan, Zizek, Heidegger, Nietzsche, etc) think it all is, they all still believe that there is only one truth out there, no matter how you look at it. Philosophical relativism means asking the question, "what is this relative to" and rejecting the idea that anybody has an elevated position from where they can see everything clearly, (like Hegel and Marx thought they had). This is not the same thing as "anything can be true to anyone". I suspect that at its at its core its mostly just intellectual laziness. Philosophical relativism doesn't make anything easier to understand. It adds lots more layers of complexity.

Could it be that what you are proposing is simply Solipsism? Which no philosopher ever has held to be true.

In a murderer's reality they believe it is true that killing is good... and whilst I don't share this truth, and certainly don't respect it... I have to acknowledge that unless I can somehow make this person see reality the way I do, their truth is still true to them.

A person who is wrong but believes they are right, is still wrong. You know that their truth, is based on faulty premises. How can their truth be right even to them? Aren't you simply opening up the possibility that both of you could be wrong? Nothing wrong with that, but there's still only one truth.

Perhaps the problem with defining truth is that, in order to define it, we have to establish a truth... we cannot know what we percieve to be truth is true.

This I think is confusing. No matter what we perceive, there's still only one truth. There's plenty of pre-prepared systems to apply and then just walk through the steps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
That's what's so handy with philosophy. Somebody else has most often done all the heavy lifting for you.

I'm loving "we can't figure out what's true anyway, so who cares." though... very accurate... well... to me anyway

The goal with pragmatists was to go beyond these basic quandaries, without just picking one of the solutions and then glossing over it's problems. Like so many philosophers before them had done.

[TomOfSweden]

So whose heart and mind does one look to? And wouldn't their theory be obsolete as well?

I think I'm missing that point of yours entirely. Sorry.

The key word was "only". Of course you need to turn to your heart. There's no better judge. But it doesn't hurt to know how the mind is "helping" the heart out.

Would this be part of a possible explanation as to why 10 different people who witness the very same crime will have 10 different and/or opposing accounts of said crime? How much of that is due to personal perspective, and how much does the workings of each individual's brain play into the differences in accounting?

ps. Nice side note.

There's a tonne of theories behind that one. I recommend reading Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction by Susan Blackmore.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Consciousnes...2477957&sr=8-3
It's a very easy read and is fun. It runs through all modern theories of perception.

You have to reject all the other ones, or you simply do? Are you saying it's a prerequisite or a choice? I'm asking, as I'm not sure what your meaning may be.

*edit*
You have to.
*end of edit*

Ok, I'll be overly clear.

Let's take the solipsistic ride. Let's say the whole world changes compared to what you have faith in, even for other people. Let's say you're a Buddhist and you have a Christian friend. What happens when your friend dies? Remove solipsism and you have the same situation of just one truth being true.

Here's another one back to our world. Let's do the two doors example. You, (still a Buddhist) is standing next to the same Christian. Behind one of the doors is a leprechaun that gives everybody who passes through a big bag of gold. The other one just smells unpleasant and no gold. The Christian takes the door he has faith is the right one. He gets the leprechaun and the gold. When its your turn to pick, do you do the random choice, or do you go with the same door?

My point with the two examples is that when you assert that you know something, you also assert that everybody else that has a contrary view is wrong. If you claim that they can also be right "in their way", all you've done is asserted that you in fact don't know. You just think it is likely. It's totally fair to say, "this is what I think/hope is right, but I may be wrong". But this isn't "knowing what is true" aka faith. It's simply narrowing down the alternatives.

There's an extremely fun quote from an early female logician who's name escapes me. She said in a letter to Bertrand Russel, "I've recently taken up solipsism. I don't understand why more doesn't do it". The point being that, if you're a solipsist, everybody else that doesn't agree with you, you know are always wrong, so it doesn't really matter if they're solipsist too. I don't think she was really a solipsist.

[Just A Girl]

I'm out... cos I can't stand debates where people choose to pick and choose at statments therefore removing all meaning from them...
I dislike being told what i'm saying, when i'm fully aware of what i'm saying, and that i must be wrong because a bunch of other philosophers don't agree with me.
If that's all your argument is based on... a majority vote... then it's a bit of a lame argument really...

Have fun... I'll be keeping an eye... it's pretty interesting reading everyone elses views.