Question of the Week

[Der Übermensch]

Ok, here's an idea I had... Approx. Every Week, I'm going to post an extremely vauge, open ended, philosophical question, for which people can answer.
It works like this. When you post it, don't scroll down and look at what other people have posted, as I'm not looking for refutations or anything, I just want open thoughts on the matter... a sentence, or maybe a paragraph... just a short aphorism, not a entire tract.
This also isn't really for discussion on the matter, more just a statement, although I guess argument's on it will be inevitable.
If this one works, then i'll keep doing this... if not, then ... not...


so, What is Truth?

[ashman]

Good idea


Truth is Subjective.

[griftadan]

fact is objective, truth is not. both involve accurate observations, though.

[BassRevelation1029]

Hard to define something we hear everyday. I'll just say that truth is absolute.

[PerpetualBurn]

Not often I agree with BassRevelations, but I do. Truth to me is objective and absolute - if it wasn't, it would be an illusion at best.

[ashman]

Not often I agree with BassRevelations, but I do. Truth to me is objective and absolute - if it wasn't, it would be an illusion at best.

What we take as true is nothing more then an illussion. What we sense is nothing more then interpretations of electrical impulses our brain picks up.

[peeted]

how can truth be subjective? shurley if something is subjective then it cant be a truth in itself?

[lfantwister]

There is no truth. And that's the truth.

[JBJ]

Smoking-related illnesses remain the number one preventable cause of death in the United States, killing more than 440,000 people each year.

[italic zero]

There is subjective and objective truth.

[thedeadwalk!]

Truth is the simplicity which you believe.

[SubtleDagger]

What we take as true is nothing more then an illussion. What we sense is nothing more then interpretations of electrical impulses our brain picks up.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Regardless of what your brain perceives, there is always an absolute truth. Its absoluteness is not put into question by how people attempt to view it.

[Reaganista]

fact or reality

[superpeer]

Truth is whatever one believes to be true, simple.

[Atomic Rain]

Truth is a name we give to what we believe in.

[PerpetualBurn]

You can believe in something that isn't true.

[Atomic Rain]

of course, but it's true to you.

Ask a schizophrenic if the government are hunting him down he'll say "yes", ask him if he's telling the truth, he'll say "yes", ask you, you'll say "no"

neither is lieing since lieing imples intentful deception so both are telling the truth, in their own way

[Reaganista]

god damn you're stupid

and that's the truth

[Atomic Rain]

It must be the eurocommie society I was brought up in, eh?

Truth is an entirely human construct.

[PerpetualBurn]

of course, but it's true to you.

Ask a schizophrenic if the government are hunting him down he'll say "yes", ask him if he's telling the truth, he'll say "yes", ask you, you'll say "no"

neither is lieing since lieing imples intentful deception so both are telling the truth, in their own way

Since the events are mutually exclusive (i.e he is either being chased or not chased and there is no in between) only one person is right. There is only one truth.

[SubtleDagger]

You can believe in something that isn't true.
Exactly.

Absolute truth is seperate from what people choose to believe.

[Hutch306]

Not having read any of anybody's else's thoughts, truth is simply what one believes to be true. In a nutshell, it can be a statistic that is true to every person, or it can be completely subjective from one person to the next.

[PerpetualBurn]

It's not true just because you think it is.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Der Übermensch]

Not having read any of anybody's else's thoughts, truth is simply what one believes to be true. In a nutshell, it can be a statistic that is true to every person, or it can be completely subjective from one person to the next.

This guy gets what I am looking for here... What your answer is don't matter... What matters is that its what you think of, not what others make you think of.

[Reaganista]

This guy gets what I am looking for here... What your answer is don't matter... What matters is that its what you think of, not what others make you think of.
ok lame-o new-age hippy middle school teacher

[SubtleDagger]

No see, you can think something is true all you want and that doesn't make you correct.

You can think the truth is that a car isn't coming right at you, but once it hits you then sorry, you're wrong. The truth hurts that way.

[PerpetualBurn]

I suppose a better question is "how much truth can we ever know?" if people want to go into an argument of perception. But truth is actuality, perception is not.

[peeted]

of course, but it's true to you.

Ask a schizophrenic if the government are hunting him down he'll say "yes", ask him if he's telling the truth, he'll say "yes", ask you, you'll say "no"

neither is lieing since lieing imples intentful deception so both are telling the truth, in their own way
neither have the truth, they think they are telling the truth because they think they have knowlage, hence they are not lying but they are actualy expesing opinion of there missconceptions of the truth.

[PerpetualBurn]

If a lie has to be intentional, then sure, they aren't lying. I don't see how this could possibly make the claim true though.

[italic zero]

ok lame-o new-age hippy middle school teacher
nice avatar what is it

[peeted]

"cogito ergo sum" thats an example of truth.

[italic zero]

arguable

[peeted]

go on then, weres your argument

[italic zero]

I'm lazy and it's a somewhat difficult explanation. Look up David Hume.

[peeted]

david hume didnt nesciserily dissagree with descartes he mearley thought there were other routes to knowlage other than universal sceptiscism.

[italic zero]

That's not what I was referring to. He specifically addressed Cogito Ergo Sum.

[peeted]

care to give a quote?

[Reaganista]

nice avatar what is it
cover from the city sleeps in flames

[Der Übermensch]

ok lame-o new-age hippy middle school teacher

I just want sound-bites so to speak...

[echos]

The truth is what one is willing to believe, even if they know it isn't true.

[PerpetualBurn]

The truth is what one is willing to believe, even if they know it isn't true.

No it itsn't. That's the most blatantly self-contradicting sentence ever written.

[peeted]

how can you believe something you know not to be true? thats a contradiction.

[echos]

how can you believe something you know not to be true? thats a contradiction.

I realize that didn't really make sence.

I meant something along the lines of...even though one knows(or thinks they know) the truth, they will turn a blind eye to it.

[PerpetualBurn]

Why would you say such an irrelevant and meaningless thing?

[peeted]

Why would you say such an irrelevant and meaningless thing?
i concur.

[Hutch306]

Guys, there should be no argument as to what truth is. There should be simple input, thoughts, and ideas about what YOU, the thinker, believes what "true" is.

[LittlePound]

Truth is as interpreted by the individual.

Perpetual Burn: we are not supposed to be disputing each others answers, read the the threads first post!

[Reaganista]

Truth is as interpreted by the individual.

Perpetual Burn: we are not supposed to be disputing each others answers,
read the the threads first post!
your answer sucks

[PerpetualBurn]

Truth is as interpreted by the individual.

Perpetual Burn: we are not supposed to be disputing each others answers, read the the threads first post!

Truth is interpreted, the interpretations can be wrong.

LittlePound: We are not supposed to be freakin' morons, respond with some intelligence!

[humph42]

Like any word, truth is both subjective and objective.

If someone believes something is the truth, just because they are the only person who believes this truth, it doesn't mean they are wrong. We are each experiencing life subjectivley, anyone can be wrong, no matter how self-assured they are of something being the truth.

On the other hand, I believe their is an objective truth. I think Ghandi was on the mark when he said 'God is truth' (or later corrected to say 'truth is God').

[Fresh]

I think truth can take many forms

the first is one is the real truth as the eyewitness saw and knows

the second is what the interpreter of this truth beleives which may be slightly different, but still true in their eyes

the third is the truth that is partly true but is concealing some of the facts, this is not lying however because all of the statement is true but not all there

[Der Übermensch]

Truth is as interpreted by the individual.

Perpetual Burn: we are not supposed to be disputing each others answers, read the the threads first post!

Ideally yes, but this is a forum so thats impossible. All I really expect is that you answer before you get involved in debating it, rather then answer as part of a contention.

[PerpetualBurn]

I didn't intend to trample on the purpose of the thread, but people were giving borderline retarded answers.

[Hutch306]

I didn't intend to trample on the purpose of the thread, but people were giving borderline retarded answers.

This is a perfect example of what truth is. Although it is viewed by most everyone as an opinion, if Perpetual has no idea that he is wrong or that this comment is an opinion, the statement is true because he believes it to be. Obviously, we all know that people giving retarded answers is an opinion, but if Perpetual didn't know the difference, then there is truth in his statement.

Truth is, once again, completely subjective to the thinker.

[LittlePound]

your answer sucks
that's not what i believe truth to be, but that is what truth is today isn't it?
i agree with bassrevelation that truth is absolute. And why are you guys disputing answers, who gives a flying flip if you don't agree with somebody. OMGosh, it's going to happen, so get over it.

[Der Übermensch]

I didn't intend to trample on the purpose of the thread, but people were giving borderline retarded answers.

Which is what I'm looking for basicly. I just want what pops into peoples minds. I did this on AIM for the longest time, and it was usualy the seemingly stupid answers that were the best.

[Reaganista]

borderline
I disagree

that's not what i believe truth to be, but that is what truth is today isn't it?
i agree with bassrevelation that truth is absolute. And why are you guys disputing answers, who gives a flying flip if you don't agree with somebody. OMGosh, it's going to happen, so get over it
man you are such a smacked ***

[LittlePound]

k, it's nice to know you're opinion of me.....i uh, don't see the relevance that post has to this thread though.

[RockAndRoll]

Truth is too often confused with belief by people who don't know what they're talking about. :p

[Samuel]

Truth is happenings in reality. Whether or not we can even comprehend or percieve absolute reality is besides the point. It has to exist somewhere, and things that happen in it are true.

Although, I tend to think that we can percieve reality, and that we inhabit it. Of course, that's nothing but conjecture, due to the nature of the metaphysical bullshit you get when you open that can of worms. There's always someone who will insist that it's all a dream. . .

[PerpetualBurn]

if Perpetual has no idea that he is wrong or that this comment is an opinion, the statement is true because he believes it to be

No, I'm fairly sure that truth is by definition not wrong. How do you even think that that was worthy of posting?

it was usualy the seemingly stupid answers that were the best.

Then it's LittlePound's time to shine.

I disagree

Happily retracted.

i uh, don't see the relevance that post has to this thread though.

Because you're in a big boy forum now.

[WhoDidTheElf]

There is no truth. And that's the truth.


I don't know if this has been said yet in the thread, but isn't 2+2=4 the truth?

And to be quite honest, I don't really know out side of, that it's what is believed to be correct.

[AmericanWeiner]

so, What is Truth?

Truth is the objective reality without coloring or bias by sentient consiousness.

[Samuel]

I don't know if this has been said yet in the thread, but isn't 2+2=4 the truth?

It's a truth within the confines of mathematics. But mathematics is a human contrivance, just another language. It's an abstraction.

[PerpetualBurn]

Nope. 2+2=4

[Reaganista]

you 'we can't even be sure of our own existence' douchebags are so lame.

that **** is played out.

[lfantwister]

Nope. 2+2=4

if you didn't know any math would you still think 2+2=4? Let's say you were borderline retarded, (perhaps you frequented this forum a little too often lp), and didn't know what the concept of math was. Your truth would be different from someone else's truth who knows math.

[Reaganista]

you appear to be confusing 'truth' with 'whatever bull**** somebody can come up with'

[BassRevelation1029]

if you didn't know any math would you still think 2+2=4? Let's say you were borderline retarded, (perhaps you frequented this forum a little too often lp), and didn't know what the concept of math was. Your truth would be different from someone else's truth who knows math.
but it wouldnt be absolutely true. Mathematics is true in the way that it has methaphysical framework around it.

[dustindow]

so since truth is subjective its a contradiction? Isn't that when we fall into the definition of absolute truth.

[Reaganista]

i think i need to stop posting here

[dustindow]

i think i need to stop posting here

why ever so?

[WhoDidTheElf]

why ever so?


Cause were not mindlessing bashing Bush or Israel.

[peeted]

Truth is the objective reality without coloring or bias by sentient consiousness.
best answer yet if you ask me.

[PerpetualBurn]

if you didn't know any math would you still think 2+2=4?

No I wouldn't. But it still would.

I can't believe how astonishingly simple that is.

Your truth would be different from someone else's truth who knows math.

Your first sentence stated that I didn't know the truth, so "your truth" is a stupid notion.

[spitfirejunky]

Truth is independent of thought.

[Samuel]

Nope. 2+2=4
Yeah, as long as you're staying within the axioms of the standard reals, and using standard arithemetic.

What about in a modulo 3 system. Is 2+2=4 a true statement? Not really. You could say 4=1, but the whole point of the Mod 3 is to wrap the numbers back to the origin when you pass the modulus, so it's redundant to do so. . .

Mathematics is only concerned with truths within the confines of mathematics. 2+2=4 is a universal truth only so far as run is a verb.

Or maybe the confines of mathematics is reality, but that comes back to the weenies who think that the universe is a sleeping dinosaurs dream, or some ****.

[peeted]

maths is just a way of comprahending logic that we would otherwise not be able to express.
a sentance that is not analitic (like all bacholers are unmarried men) that could be described as true is that 2 strait lines canot contain space inbetween them (the way a circle or triangle can), maths is what we use to express the logic between statements like this that are un analitic but still true without experience.

analitic statements cant be counted as universaly true because at some point in time the 2 concepts were not linked, meaning that at some point in time there must have been someone who grouped all unmaried men together and said "they are batcholers" and before that they wouldnt have by deffenition been batcholers meaning that analitic statements cant be counted as universaly true, because for something to be universaly true it must transcend the perceptions (those being space and time).

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, as long as you're staying within the axioms of the standard reals, and using standard arithemetic.

What about in a modulo 3 system. Is 2+2=4 a true statement? Not really. You could say 4=1, but the whole point of the Mod 3 is to wrap the numbers back to the origin when you pass the modulus, so it's redundant to do so. . .

Mathematics is only concerned with truths within the confines of mathematics. 2+2=4 is a universal truth only so far as run is a verb.

Or maybe the confines of mathematics is reality, but that comes back to the weenies who think that the universe is a sleeping dinosaurs dream, or some ****.

Johnny has two apples, Peter gives him two apples...

[Samuel]

Johnny has two apples, Peter gives him two apples...
Recieving two apples after previously having two apples, and expressing the end quantity as four is not the same as proving that 2+2=4 in the number system.

We're operating on different levels. You're correct, if that's where you are going with this.

[PerpetualBurn]

One apple, two apple, three apple, four apple...

[spitfirejunky]

Recieving two apples after previously having two apples, and expressing the end quantity as four is not the same as proving that 2+2=4 in the number system.

Of course it is. Whether we call a quantity of four apples "five" or "six" or "twenty", the quantity will always end up being four.

[peeted]

Recieving two apples after previously having two apples, and expressing the end quantity as four is not the same as proving that 2+2=4 in the number system.

We're operating on different levels. You're correct, if that's where you are going with this.
1 represents 1 of whatever, 2 represents 2 of whatever. say if hat represents 1 apple and tin represents 2 apples then that cup represents 3 apples then: hat + tin = cup

the logic behind it is the same, its just the language used to express the logic that your gripeing over.

[SubtleDagger]

1 represents 1 of whatever, 2 represents 2 of whatever. say if hat represents 1 apple and tin represents 2 apples then that cup represents 3 apples then: hat + tin = cup

the logic behind it is the same, its just the language used to express the logic that your gripeing over.
No, because saying that tin represents two apples and cup represents three apples is illogical.

[peeted]

its only ilogical within the confines of the curent meaning of the word tin. ghdghdf could mean the same a 2.

the point is that he was gripeing wether 2 nesciseily means 2, i was pointing out that its unimportant if 2 means 2 because the concept of 2 whatever language it exists in is still real and it is inherent in that concept of 2 that wen added to the concept of 1 (or however it is expresed) it equils 3(or whatever word or sign you use to represent the concept pf 3).

basicaly im saying its stupid to say that 1 + 2 doesnt = 3.

[SubtleDagger]

So you're basically agreeing with him? I assumed he was making the same sort of point. :|

[Atomic Rain]

I guess it could be funny to ask where imaginary numbers fit into this right about...

now.

[Samuel]

1 represents 1 of whatever, 2 represents 2 of whatever. say if hat represents 1 apple and tin represents 2 apples then that cup represents 3 apples then: hat + tin = cup

the logic behind it is the same, its just the language used to express the logic that your gripeing over.
It's not just the language I'm griping over. Mathematics "exists" in what usually gets slated as the Platonic World of Mathematical Forms. This "world" arises from the restrictions placed on the standard system of mathematics, and the axioms that come with it. It is then further defined by theorems that arise from the axioms, and so on and so forth. Things like the Goldbach conjecture, Fermat's last theorem etc help to define the world of mathematics before they are proved or even acknowledged, because they arise naturally from the system they are contained in.

The use of extrapolating the formal logic of the system to the physical world is what makes mathematics so useful. But it's not defined by that extrapolation. Adding an apple to another apple gives you an apple and an apple, which can be simplified with the language into "two apples". Or cuatro apples, etc. The apples exist in reality (or at least, within our perception), and regardless of the language used to express their existance, they exist.

It does not prove that 2+2=4 in the world of mathematics. That arises as an axiom of the system. The existance of mathematical truth is dependant on the language that is used to express it.

I guess it could be funny to ask where imaginary numbers fit into this right about...

now.
Haha, don't be confusing us any more with misleading names. I'm thinking hard enough right now.

[PerpetualBurn]

It does not prove that 2+2=4 in the world of mathematics.

It equals four in both a mathematic system and as a function of Johnny's apples.

[Samuel]

It equals four in both a mathematic system and as a function of Johnny's apples.
Yes, it does. But the fact that 2+2=4 in our mathematical system is not a consequence of how many apples Johnny has. It's a consequence of the initial conditions that we set in the system.

The system we set up was made to model human experience, with idealized forms. But that does not define the system it's self.

[PerpetualBurn]

It's a consequence of the initial conditions that we set in the system.

Well maybe it wasn't designed specifically for counting apples, but counting in general.

I really don't see how this affects anything I said.

[Samuel]

Well maybe it wasn't designed specifically for counting apples, but counting in general.

I really don't see how this affects anything I said.
Hang on a second here.

What did you mean by "Nope. 2+2=4" in your first post on the subject?

[PerpetualBurn]

That two add two equals four.

[Samuel]

That two add two equals four.
Yeah, really. . .

Did you mean to say that it was an absolute truth, or something else?

I'm looking to find out what we're woking with here.

[PerpetualBurn]

Someone said that it was true. I agreed.

[Samuel]

Someone said that it was true. I agreed.
Do you distinguish between something such as a mathematical truth and an absolute truth? or do you not think there is a need for such a distinction?

[PerpetualBurn]

That 2+2=4 is true universally, though the actual terms are defined by humans.

[Samuel]

That 2+2=4 is true universally, though the actual terms are defined by humans.
I think we just have different concepts of absolute truth then, and that we're working on different levels of mathematical intuition.

I'm done, my **** for today is starting to pile up. Fun debating with you.

[peeted]

It's not just the language I'm griping over. Mathematics "exists" in what usually gets slated as the Platonic World of Mathematical Forms. This "world" arises from the restrictions placed on the standard system of mathematics, and the axioms that come with it. It is then further defined by theorems that arise from the axioms, and so on and so forth. Things like the Goldbach conjecture, Fermat's last theorem etc help to define the world of mathematics before they are proved or even acknowledged, because they arise naturally from the system they are contained in.

The use of extrapolating the formal logic of the system to the physical world is what makes mathematics so useful. But it's not defined by that extrapolation. Adding an apple to another apple gives you an apple and an apple, which can be simplified with the language into "two apples". Or cuatro apples, etc. The apples exist in reality (or at least, within our perception), and regardless of the language used to express their existance, they exist.

It does not prove that 2+2=4 in the world of mathematics. That arises as an axiom of the system. The existance of mathematical truth is dependant on the language that is used to express it.



right for 1 i dont get the relevence of platos forms to the rest of your disscusion so im going to leave that. your second point though sugests that you consider that because something is mearley a synthetic proposistion that has no physical existance in the relm of the perceived (eg. 1, wich is a concept rather than a thing that we encounter through our perceptions as oposed to our logical capacity) then none analitic apraori knowlage is imposible. if i am misinterpreting your argument then please corect me and explain it in such a way that i can understand (im only a young un).

but if that is your argument then i dissagree, i think that synthetic apraori statements can bare truth, for example "two straight lines canot contain space" this statement is none analitc yet it is undisputabley true. the same logic is displayed hear as is displayed through any other mathamatical reasoning.

[Samuel]

right for 1 i dont get the relevence of platos forms to the rest of your disscusion so im going to leave that.
Mostly to point out that the realm of mathematics is very much seperated from physical reality. And to suggest that I'm not just quibbling over the language used, because the axioms define the system it's self.

Just ignore it though, it probably wasn't a good point.

your second point though sugests that you consider that because something is mearley a synthetic proposistion that has no physical existance in the relm of the perceived (eg. 1, wich is a concept rather than a thing that we encounter through our perceptions as oposed to our logical capacity) then none analitic apraori knowlage is imposible. if i am misinterpreting your argument then please corect me and explain it in such a way that i can understand (im only a young un).
That problem mostly occurs from my limiting view of the absolute truth. I'm debating off the definition I gave earlier in the thread, which is a purposefully, and probably too limited view.

but if that is your argument then i dissagree, i think that synthetic apraori statements can bare truth, for example "two straight lines canot contain space" this statement is none analitc yet it is undisputabley true. the same logic is displayed hear as is displayed through any other mathamatical reasoning.
It is undisputedly true for a singularity point line, which is a part of the definitions of the system of euclidian and other geometries. But if plane geometries are nothing but an approximation to the universe on our scale, then is it a universal truth?

To continue the point, say I were to define a conceptual system whose purpose revolves around the process of creating and proving a "God" of sorts. If I were to come up self consistent axioms for the system, and created an elaborate conceptual framework that happens to coincide with physical reality at quite a few points, then is a theorem that results from a logical proof of the axioms a universal truth?

It's just a big sticky mess. I believe accurate a priori conjectures are perfectly possible within your given system. But when you start trying to define "universal truths", then everything you do ends up seeming a bit ridiculous in some way.

[peeted]

well since truth itself is a concept concieved by the human race then i think its fair to judge it within our relm without going of and saying that the only truth is "the form of good" or any of that platonic nonsense for as kant quite well pointed out, there is no point pursuing things that are beyonde our language as based on experience because we know nothing other than what we experience, to quote john lock we are born "tabularasa" (sorry about all these refrences i have an exam in this in hour and this is revision).

basicaly from your argument the only truth we can know must be free of any context or relm but as our language is based around the relm of perception and the self analitic i would say that it is imposible to define any universal truth free of these so therefor we must alocate some context inwich we can express truth, geomitery being (in our relm, that being the visible relm) best expression of this logic and therefor the closest any mind that exists free of omnipitance can get to truth.

[Reaganista]

my username is The Tway

this is true

now cut this stupid ****ing bull**** out

[PerpetualBurn]

But it's only The Tway within the confinement of the system created by people yadda yadda yadda ridiculous claim about subjective truth blah blah inane rambling about nothing.

[Whale and Wasp]

i think there is 2 kinds of truth.

theres...

1) the absolute truth of what really happened

and

2) the truth of what you percieve. like if you misheard someone say "fish" instead of "dish" which is what they really said, and you tell other people that you heard "fish", which isnt true but you are not deliberately lying

[Reaganista]

omg omg omg omg omg omg

[PerpetualBurn]

AAAAAARGH!

I swear people are doing this just to anger me.

[Against Miik!]

Truth in a literal form is something agreed upon by everybody. Truth in a more abstract form is always subjective.

[PerpetualBurn]

What the hell is "truth in a more abstract form" meant to mean other than "not true"?

[Against Miik!]

What the hell is "truth in a more abstract form" meant to mean other than "not true"?

I mean like the overall idea of truth. Like if you were tripping on acid and pondering truth. Somebody could say the sky is blue, and that would be the truth. Then somebody could come in and say, but what is blue really? You get what i'm saying? Probably not, but whatever.

[Reaganista]

ok somebody gimme a shotgun

[PerpetualBurn]

Then somebody could come in and say, but what is blue really?

This is funny to me.

[peeted]

these wikipedia articles may reduce retarded answers :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_Concerning_Human_Understanding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza
----http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason---- (this ones particualy intresting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

[Against Miik!]

I don't get why its so hard to understand what I mean. Think of what the word abstract means, then apply it to truth.

[peeted]

its because (unless you are expresing your idias very badley) your idia of truth simpily deffies the rules of logic.

[Against Miik!]

its because (unless you are expresing your idias very badley) your idia of truth is a paradox.

So. What if truth is a paradox. Kind of like free will.

[innerdark]

Truth is an illusion created by humanity to allow us to differentiate between 2 common factor

Truth is a binary form in that there is no middle ground. there is truth, that is. an undisputable fact "sight is a sense" is a true statement

on the other side side of the coin, there is mis-truth, or lies. which are determined by changing one part of the statement e.g. "sight is not a sense". however, humanity complicates matters for wishing to have shades of gray, or half-truths; which are still lies as the statement has been altered in such a way that it is untrue, while remaining true in 1 part

happy?

[person777]

Truth is an opinion.

[italic zero]

Truth is a branded calf gazing despairingly at the horizon.

[Reaganista]

Truth is a branded calf gazing despairingly at the horizon.
god can be a pencil

[RockAndRoll]

Truth is an opinion.
No, it's not.

[person777]

No, it's not.
Why?

[RockAndRoll]

Why?
because truth has to follow the law of non-contradiction. Opinion doesn't therefore opinion cannot be the same as truth. (an opinion can be the same as the truth though, but I'm speaking in general as in truth is not the same thing as opinion)

[peeted]

these wikipedia articles may reduce retarded answers :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_Concerning_Human_Understanding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza
----http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason---- (this ones particualy intresting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

hmm yes reading these article will help everyone discuss this subject beter :):thumb:

[SalientArbiter]

"Truth" is a state of personal consensus people believe makes them more "right" than others.

"Right" is the artificial state of a belief that people justify "truth" with.

True implies False is the only falsehood.

[RockAndRoll]

"Truth" is a state of personal consensus people believe makes them more "right" than others.

"Right" is the artificial state of a belief that people justify "truth" with.

True implies False is the only falsehood.
Truth is not a state a person is in.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

"Truth" is a state of personal consensus people believe makes them more "right" than others.

"Right" is the artificial state of a belief that people justify "truth" with.

True implies False is the only falsehood.ugh you don't really believe that, do you?

[Alpepiman]

Truth is what the majority of people believe and want you to believe.

I don't trust the truth.

[PerpetualBurn]

Truth is what the majority of people believe and want you to believe.

Nope. Try again.

[Alpepiman]

Well I know the truth about what truth is.

[PerpetualBurn]

Nope. Still way off.

[Der Übermensch]

I'll just throw my two cents in now.

Truth, absolute truth that is, I don't know if it exists. What we take for truth is really just expectations. We can say that the sun will rise in the morning, or that 2 + 2 will = 4, but thats just expectations. They always have before, so we expect they will continue to. But does that make it true?

[PerpetualBurn]

It's theoretically possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow, it's just stupidly unlikely.

2+2=4 because it is defined as such by mathematics. That is true.

What the hell do our expectations have to do with what is true?

[italic zero]

We have based our all truths on past experience and the assumptions that patterns will continue.

[Der Übermensch]

It's theoretically possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow, it's just stupidly unlikely.

2+2=4 because it is defined as such by mathematics. That is true.

What the hell do our expectations have to do with what is true?

The fact that we only assume reality functions logically because it has always done so in the past doesn't mean it is logical, and will remain so in the future. 2 + 2 may in fact = 5 tomorrow for all we know... Would it be logical? No. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen.

[LittlePound]

that would be scary i guess you could say, to have tomorrow 2+2=5. I mean, can you imagine how much just that one statement would change, let along if all our past experiences were thrown out and all of truth changed. It'd be like sending us on a rocket back to the stoneage and we'd have to figure everything out again.

[SubtleDagger]

The fact that we only assume reality functions logically because it has always done so in the past doesn't mean it is logical, and will remain so in the future. 2 + 2 may in fact = 5 tomorrow for all we know... Would it be logical? No. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen.
It also would have no effect on truth whatsoever.

[LittlePound]

no it would, not "real" truth, which is whatever happens to be true at the moment (which in this situation brought bup Das, could possibly change), but "truth" could change. We all accept 2+2=4 to be the truth. If tomorrow it changed to 2+2=5 that would still be true, but then, how could what was true change. That means that truth is only momentary (in that situation) and that all things that are considered true, would now have to be considered "true for the time being", or "true until the truth changes".

but this will probably never happen so i don't think we'll have to worry.

[SubtleDagger]

"Real" truth is all that is important regardless of what people believe, which is why people's speculations in this thread about perceptive truths changing are irritating to the rest of us.

[dustindow]

so truth is subjective?

[LittlePound]

"Real" truth is all that is important regardless of what people believe, which is why people's speculations in this thread about perceptive truths changing are irritating to the rest of us.
yes, we can say all that matters is "real" truth, but does something matter if nobody believes in it. If we lived in a world where people only believed their individual truths, sure, "real" truth would exist, but, it wouldn't matter.
and i'm not saying truth could change, i'm just saying, that's a scary thought if it could and that the changing of 2+2=4 to 2+2=5 would be would be catastrophic.

[SubtleDagger]

yes, we can say all that matters is "real" truth, but does something matter if nobody believes in it. If we lived in a world where people only believed their individual truths, sure, "real" truth would exist, but, it wouldn't matter.
and i'm not saying truth could change, i'm just saying, that's a scary thought if it could and that the changing of 2+2=4 to 2+2=5 would be would be catastrophic.
It's also pointless and irrelevant speculation.

[LittlePound]

so truth is subjective?
no truth isn't subjective.
subjective= Particular to a given person; personal. (though that is how a lot of people think today, whether they say it or realize it is one thing, but a lot of people hold this belief).
What is trying to be said is that truth is based on prior experiences. And that everytime we test a "truth" it aligns itself with the results of those prior experiences. Like 2+2=4. For as far back as we can remember 2+2=4. But, that doesn't mean it always has to be so, who said that truth is definite, who said that what is true now would be true always, noone. It's just assumed becuase all truth today is based on prior experiences, that doesn't take into account future ones.
Unlikely, yes, it is very unlikely. But possible, maybe.

[LittlePound]

It's also pointless and irrelevant speculation.
i wouldn't call it pointless and irrevelant, i would call it abstract.
if you would though, consider the question in my last post on page 7. Would " real truth" matter if everyone believed in their own individual/subjective truth?

[dustindow]

Thats what im saying though. You may say it to be so, and i may agree with you. But that sorta falls into the "Do we really exist" abstraction.

[LittlePound]

haha yeah...it is pretty far out there. But i can see where it comes from and it does really help you dwell on what truth really is, and that is the results of our past experiences...basically.

[SubtleDagger]

i wouldn't call it pointless and irrevelant, i would call it abstract.
if you would though, consider the question in my last post on page 7. Would " real truth" matter if everyone believed in their own individual/subjective truth?
Everyone believes in their own "truth" regardless, but of course that is of no importance in relation to the actual truth.

I don't see what you consider to "matter", to be honest.

[LittlePound]

what i was saying was in relation to your posting this:
"Real" truth is all that is important regardless of what people believe, which is why people's speculations in this thread about perceptive truths changing are irritating to the rest of us.
i asked would the "real" truth really matter, or be important, if everyone believed in their own subjective/individual truths. The answer would be no, becuase regardless of what is really true, as long as they refuse to believe it, it will bear no significance whatsoever in their lives. Mind over matter. The truth is, man can't fly. The person's individual truth is, that he/she can fly. If a person could convince themselves that was true, then in their mind they might really be able to fly, but in reality they can't, but that does'nt bear any significance to them becuase they still think they can.

[dustindow]

So can we call this argument pointless?

[LittlePound]

yeah, i don't think it was really an argument though. But it's only pointless b/c this will most likely never happen.

[Der Übermensch]

i don't think it was really an argument though
Well as I said, I was looking more for soundbites on a topic to vauge to effectively debate.

"Truth" is what I believe.
Truth is what probably no one believes... :p

[coheneran]

It's been five days, time for another question?

[guitrguy]

7 days in a week.

[coheneran]

Wow, I never knew that!:rolleyes:

[spitfirejunky]

Truth in itself is absolute, otherwise it's not truth. For those of you saying that truth is subjective and whatnot, then from what I can tell, you made an assumption that truth is limited by perception, when it in itself is not. However, our beliefs are limited by perception, and our beliefs incur what we believe is true. That in itself is not truth.

[Der Übermensch]

It's been five days, time for another question?

Possibly... I'll think about what to do next, but might not put it up today. Not sure whether I want it to be literaly "question of the week", or rather just put one up when the previous one starts to die down.

[Atomic Rain]

Possibly... I'll think about what to do next, but might not put it up today. Not sure whether I want it to be literaly "question of the week", or rather just put one up when the previous one starts to die down.

If the latter, do it now!

The former would probably better so that if you forget someone else can do it.

[RockAndRoll]

Would it be logical? No. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen.
Actually it does. Besides your theory about truth being based in expectation assumes that the only truth is in the future, as we must expect it, which clearly isn't true.

yes, we can say all that matters is "real" truth, but does something matter if nobody believes in it. If we lived in a world where people only believed their individual truths, sure, "real" truth would exist, but, it wouldn't matter.
Not true. For example if you run in front of a car it doesn't matter whether you believe you're going to get hit or not.

[peeted]

hegal had some pretty intresting views on truth, im trying to understand them but i havnt slept in 48 hours so its quite a strugle.

[Der Übermensch]

ok, well, I'm gonna just make it the Question of the approx. 5 day cycle or so... For naming purposes though, week just sounds better. New one will be posted up momentarily.

[Reaganista]

my question:

Do they owe us a living?

[Joe]

The truth is something that you see with your eyes and that you know the whole story too, because if you don't have either you don't know what's the truth and what's not.

[Der Übermensch]

"...of course they ****in' do."