A defining question

[tessa]

"overly clear"...

I laugh because it's going to take me like 53 read-throughs to even begin to start comprehending all you've posted in your response to my queries. Your truth of "overly clear" and mine are clearly at opposite ends of cognition here.

I'm out...

Dang. You've made some fantastic comments.

[MMI]

In life's wilderness,
Choked by the weeds of error -
Bloom of beauty: truth.

(Author not known)

All the philosophy's over my head, but I think it is commonly held that truth is "good" and, perhaps, beautiful.

[Mr.FixIt]

truth=fact

Opinion is an antonym of fact. Synonyms of opinion are: point-of-view & perspective. Therefore: opinions, points of view, and perspectives cannot equal truth--mathematically speaking!

Furthermore: Opinions, (to include points of view, and perspectives), are like assholes, everyone has one (some have two!), and they all smell like shit! However, from a BDSM perspective, assholes can be fun and interesting--in my honest opinion!

Nice debate though!

Now, I have spanking to do, and that is the truth! Or is it?

[stripedangel]

Truth. wow.

if i tell the truth, that means to me that i have stated what i know, and not what i've made up. i've told what is true to me...may be what i've heard and am mistaken, but i'm telling what i know. To lie takes effort, and creativity. To lie, i must think of something other than the facts that i am aware of.

May already be here, but wiki says this:

The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular. The term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree. Various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.

i agree.

[MMI]

Opinion isn't an antonym of truth. I'm sorry to contradict you, Mr Fixit, but there it is. False is the antonym, or lie.

That's my opinion, anyway, whether it's true or false.

Now, I'm off to watch some surfing ...

[tessa]

In life's wilderness,
Choked by the weeds of error -
Bloom of beauty: truth.

(Author not known)

Unknown author said it as true as true is.

All the philosophy's over my head, but I think it is commonly held that truth is "good" and, perhaps, beautiful.

I'll agree with the good part. Not sure if I can go with beautiful, though. I've seen some ugly truth. If it was truth...

i've told what is true to me...

I think somewhere therein lies the truth.

Speaking of assholes-

--

Many might consider that a truth.

[TomOfSweden]

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 did? What statement did I ignore?

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.

I didn't. I did suspected where your ideas came from, and refuted that source. If your source is another, then I was wrong.

If that's all your argument is based on... a majority vote... then it's a bit of a lame argument really...

erm.... what? In what way did I appeal to appeal to the majority?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority

[Thrasher]

I really wish I could just sit here and watch this thread all day. err...to everybody doing the work of actually writing out the answers, I just want to say thanks for the work. I really want to write something substantial, but I'll be damned if I can think of anything to add that isn't discursive or trite.
Since there are obviously some minds here that can help me tackle this, I just want to ask this: If there "is no body," and hence "no mind/body problem" is it even approaching correct to say that a mind which still has substance and therefore a responsibility to figure out some kind of "truth" as a starting point for moral decision making, can ever approach truth as "what is," or "that which is"? Is a Caspar Hauser or boy raised by wolves and completely "uncultured" still able to discern truth, or is that just solipsism?

[Thrasher]

Could it be that we just don't have enough or the right kind of "hard wires" to know a transcendent truth? (one that everyone will agree with)If we are all in the cave together, maybe we can just try to stay up to speed on and respectful of the scientists all around, digging for our little nuggets of ore?(if that is as good as it is ever going to get.)

[tessa]

I really want to write something substantial, but I'll be damned if I can think of anything to add that isn't discursive or trite.

~looks over Thrasher's thoughts and queries~

If that's "discursive or trite", I'd be no doubt blown away by your substantial effort.

Seriously.

I'll add something personal here. I originally posed the question because I am seeking answers to my life's questions. Some here understand that, others, not so much. It doesn't matter as people can say what they want in any way they want. I can put on my wading boots any time I need to.

Many would say, "why the hell ask here??". Because "here" is one of the few places I feel comfortable in asking. Yes, the anonymity helps, but it's more about like-minds and such, despite the differences we obviously have. My other asking option involves those who are very...defined in their responses. While I can appreciate their input, I also appreciate the outside-the-box thinking to be had here.

Thank you for your input Thrasher. You've given me even more to consider. (and I mean that in a good way)

[gagged_Louise]

"To some Parisian intellectuals, the proposition "(p) is true" equals "Jacques Lacan knows that (p)"

(Lacan was a hip philosopher-psychiatrist with a devoted following, From Dan Sperber, "On Symbolism", a quite illumninating book)

[denuseri]

mabey if you actually told us what that life question is we could be more consiece

[Euryleia]

I was playing around on the web and I rediscovered Stephen Colbert's use of the word 'truthiness.' He used the term in his pilot for the 'Stephen Colbert Report' that airs on the Comedy Channel. He used the concept to mean the truth we want, in our gut, to exist, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts. I'm not sure if this helps you, Tessa, answering your life's questions but it is pretty funny (and kind of scary).

Stephen Colbert on Truthiness

Wikipedia on Truthiness

[tessa]

mabey if you actually told us what that life question is we could be more consiece

I'm not looking to limit the scope of responses in any way. Besides, even in the wading, one can be enlightened.

I'm not sure if this helps you, Tessa, answering your life's questions but it is pretty funny (and kind of scary).

It does help. ~hugs~ Thank you so much.

[jaded_sub]

IMO... all truth is subjective. It is strictly what a particular person interprets it to be. What is true to me, may be something very different to you or anyone else. Just as ones interpretation of cheating may be. (IE: is it cheating if it's on line?)

My thought is if it's what you believe to be true in your heart, that's all that matters. Then it is true. If someone else disagrees, it is their problem to cope with, not yours.

[Thorne]

IMO... all truth is subjective. It is strictly what a particular person interprets it to be. What is true to me, may be something very different to you or anyone else. Just as ones interpretation of cheating may be. (IE: is it cheating if it's on line?)

My thought is if it's what you believe to be true in your heart, that's all that matters. Then it is true. If someone else disagrees, it is their problem to cope with, not yours.

That's all well and good, as long as what you believe to be true doesn't fly in the face of reality. I once knew a man who firmly believed in the "truth" that the world was flat, simply because the Bible claimed there were four corners of the Earth! While that may have been "true" to him, it certainly didn't agree with reality!

Truth changes, constantly, because truth is just what we decide. At one time, people believed that kings and queens ruled by virtue of divine authority, that is, God's will. To them it was true and undeniable. I doubt that you would find too many "civilized" people nowadays who still believe this to be true.

So don't cling too tightly to the concept of "truth". Today's truth may be tomorrow's quaint superstition.

[TomOfSweden]

IMO... all truth is subjective. It is strictly what a particular person interprets it to be. What is true to me, may be something very different to you or anyone else. Just as ones interpretation of cheating may be. (IE: is it cheating if it's on line?)

My thought is if it's what you believe to be true in your heart, that's all that matters. Then it is true. If someone else disagrees, it is their problem to cope with, not yours.

Here's a question. Let's take two people who both label themselves Christian and both believe God created the world. Christian 1 believes that whatever created the world is God no matter when or how, (pantheism) and Christian 2 and believes that God created the world right before the wheel was invented, (Creationism).

Both are Christian, both try to follow the example of Jesus in the Bible. Do they share the same faith?

Here's another question:

Two people look through a window.
1) Objective truth A can be seen.
2) Person one looks through the window and interprets objective truth A as a dog.
3) Person two looks through the window and interprets objective truth A as a pig.

What is A? Can it be both a pig and a dog at the same time?

You're reiterating what "just a girl" was saying that I refuted. It's politics, it's not a real opinion. Treating the abstract as the concrete doesn't give it meaning. It's stuff religious people in USA say, in order to wallpaper over the problems they have about being:
1) Religiously bigoted.
2) Having freedom of religion.

It doesn't make sense. You can't change what's really there by interpreting it differently. It's 100% bollocks.

Let's take your example. Cheating on-line. Let's take a couple. Mr and Mrs. Mrs has a slave on-line and loves showing her naked body in a web-cam. Mrs defines cheating as having them put their penis inside of her. Mr defines cheating as showing your naked body to someone.

The interesting thing here is the truth, not the definition of what can be considered cheating.

The truth is that one thing happened, and only one thing. It's both true that Mrs was and wasn't cheating at the same time. So much is subjective. But her performed acts weren't open to interpretation. If Mr had seen her he would without hesitation put her in one category, while Mrs would without hesitation put her in the other.

PS! I recommend anybody who wants a course in applied epistemology without any fancy terminology to see the film "Lars and the real girl".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/
It's absolutely hilarious, and very cleverly crafted.

[tessa]

My thought is if it's what you believe to be true in your heart, that's all that matters. Then it is true. If someone else disagrees, it is their problem to cope with, not yours.

What if I'm the one disagreeing with my own self? Talk about an endless debate.

Truth changes, constantly, because truth is just what we decide.

So don't cling too tightly to the concept of "truth". Today's truth may be tomorrow's quaint superstition.

If truth, in some way, has to conform to reality, how does truth stay truth when we decide something else should be the reality? Can we decide such a thing?

Your comments here made me stop and think, so that was me thinking out loud more than anything. But any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

The interesting thing here is the truth, not the definition of what can be considered...(truth).

The truth is that one thing happened, and only one thing.

This thought you present here is a new perspective for me. I am trying to get beyond the acceptance of justified reasoning as truth, and this from you helps me trememdously.

PS! I recommend anybody who wants a course in applied epistemology without any fancy terminology to see the film "Lars and the real girl".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/
It's absolutely hilarious, and very cleverly crafted.

I must see this movie.

[TomOfSweden]

I must see this movie.

Just so you know. It's one of those films best seen with your lover. It's very much a feel-good film.

[Thorne]

If truth, in some way, has to conform to reality, how does truth stay truth when we decide something else should be the reality? Can we decide such a thing?

I never claimed that truth has to conform to reality. In fact, throughout history "truth" has quite often been in direct conflict with reality. Whenever science has come into conflict with those in control, truth is whatever those in control declare, and reality suffers.Because "truth" is only what we believe to be reality, not necessarily reality itself.

A good example of this is the current global warming debate. The reality is that the planet is growing warmer, slowly but surely. The "truth" which is being propagated by certain people is that it's all mankind's fault, that we are responsible. Yet evidence shows that the Earth has undergone other periods of warming and cooling which rival the current period, before man ever became "civilized" enough to have a significant effect. So how much of an effect are we really having? Nobody knows for sure, but those with an agenda, one way or the other, will tell you the "truth" as they declare it to be.

[TomOfSweden]

Thorne. I suggest reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions or just readers digest version in the wiki article below. I think you'll like it, because it sums up pretty much what I think you're trying to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Str...ic_Revolutions

It's a scathing critique of scientific truth being hammered into people, as if it is the only truth. And this book did create a revolution. Even though it wasn't written that long ago, it has already changed scientific terminology in its fundamentals.

Scientific truth changes every couple of weeks to fit the newest theories. The reality isn't changing, only the "truth". What does that tell us about scientific truth. I think this is the strength of science, and is why it is a superior method in finding the truth.

And here Richard Dawkins makes a case that we'll never know the truth, because we can't. We can only understand things that our brain is already hard-wired to accept.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

So basically, we probably couldn't understand reality, even if we had all the required education and had it read out to us.

This makes things a tad more complex. We have to believe in a truth that is a simplified model. ie, not true. The trick is to pick the one that is as much like reality as possible, and just pretend like its the truth, for our own mental well being. I mean, demanding it from ourselves to only accept he absolute truth would drive anybody bonkers. This explains the total mess the world is in. How do you have an argument where everybody involved that no matter the outcome everybody will know they all are wrong.

[Thorne]

The trick is to pick the one that is as much like reality as possible, and just pretend like its the truth, for our own mental well being. I mean, demanding it from ourselves to only accept he absolute truth would drive anybody bonkers. This explains the total mess the world is in. How do you have an argument where everybody involved that no matter the outcome everybody will know they all are wrong.

I think that this is the real goal of science, as it has evolved. Very seldom do scientists declare something to be the absolute truth anymore. They now prefer to hedge their bets by saying something is true "to the best of our knowledge!" And our knowledge is, hopefully, still growing. So what is true today may not be quite so true tomorrow.

So we should try to keep away from declaring things to be absolutely true. I suppose we can leave that exercise to religion.

[MMI]

... or politics

[tessa]

This really is a fascinating discussion.

Nobody knows for sure, but those with an agenda, one way or the other, will tell you the "truth" as they declare it to be.

A-freakin'-men to that.

The trick is to pick the one that is as much like reality as possible, and just pretend like its the truth, for our own mental well being.

I think, therefore I am. I am sure horses are real (unless the one I ride is a hallucination). Unicorns are drawn to look a lot like real horses (except for that horn and all). Therefore I am quite content to think that unicorns are real.

Flawed logic makes me happy.

It won't set you free, but truth can help you decide to chew your own foot off to escape the bear trap.

"The truth is what we can't help but believe." That's my new "truth".

[lstsl]

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.

Well I would say that depends. Perhaps the particular apple in question IS neon blue. It could be owned by a po-mo artist, an undergrad in genetics, or possibly on a remote mountain top, as yet undiscovered by any except the mountain goats who enjoy Blue Apple pie on holidays. The saying "All apples are neon blue" would be false because it does not accuratly describe reality. Saying "The red apple is neon blue" is self-contradictory and non-sensical and can be discarded.

Truth is just a your own personal perspective on the universe. To use the so called 'fruit statement' one could argue that if the apple is headed away from you at near light speed it will appear blue, whereas to somebody standing where the apple is approaching at near light speed the apple appears red (I may have that ass-backwards), so at the same time, the same apple may be accuratly described as both blue and red depending on the position of the observer.

[lstsl]

Hi again, I would just like to clarify something in my previous statement. The phenomenon where an object appears to be blue when headed in the opposite direction of the observer when traveling at near light speed is called "blue shifting". It occurs because blue light travels faster than red light, and as the object is moving farther away, the blue light begins to outpace the red light by an even greater degree. Usually viewed as galaxys zoom about the universe, but the same should hold true for apples as well.

[Thorne]

Hi again, I would just like to clarify something in my previous statement. The phenomenon where an object appears to be blue when headed in the opposite direction of the observer when traveling at near light speed is called "blue shifting". It occurs because blue light travels faster than red light, and as the object is moving farther away, the blue light begins to outpace the red light by an even greater degree. Usually viewed as galaxys zoom about the universe, but the same should hold true for apples as well.

I think you have this reversed. Objects which are approaching the observer appear bluer, while those receding appear redder. And this is caused by frequency shifting, not by velocity. The speed of blue and red light in a vacuum are the same. As an object approaches, the light waves are compressed and the light seems blue, just as when a train approaches the sound waves are compressed and the pitch of the whistle is higher. With light receding from you, the frequencies are "stretched", causing the light to appear redder (red-shifting, in astronomy), just as the train whistle's pitch gets lower as it recedes.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect for a fairly simple explanation.

[Meena]

What is truth?

In Vedas, (Atharvveda) in a chapter for political management (Vedas are spiritual books which deals with every aspect of life including science, physics, geology, mathematics, political science etc theology etc and Rigveda is considered to be the oldest scripture of the world)...I read about truth. It says the truth is that which informs the manager of a society about the actual conditions and problems and ways of progress towards the benefits of each and every individual of society in accordance with his individual liberty and his duties regarding the society. The truth is that which informs a citizen, the actual sense of right and wrong with respect to his abilities of rational faculty.

Truth is that which is backed by reason.
Almost similar ideas I read again in books of Ayn Rand, when she said, A is A!

I wonder but I understand, that no matters how old a book is, if it has got some reasonable explanation about its content, and if the reason is valid, it will itterate similar message. I find no difference between spiritual scriptures of Vedas and Atheistic views of Objectivism.