A defining question

[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.