11 Nov 07
Originally posted by josephwI was just trying to be aware of Starrman’s cautions about turning such words as “truth” into things-themselves. What is true is what is real; the truth is just reality, such as it is. Whether I am able to put it into concepts or not.
This answer really made me think. It made me ask myself whether "truth" has an object? Does there need to be "something true" for there to be a "truth"? Does the knowledge of the meaning of "truth" require there to be an object that is "true"?
Is "truth" something true?
We call our concepts, ideas, propositions “true” when they accurately represent (are isomorphic to) reality.
13 Nov 07
I believe Jesus' response to Pilate was indicative of Pilate's ability to hear. Where moments before His response to the soldiers in pursuit of Him was "I am He," indicating His acknowledgement of their ability to hear, to Pilate, hard of heart, hard of hearing, silence was the only response.
13 Nov 07
True and truth as with most English words have a range of meanings.
In mathematics there are logical truths.
I disagree with other posters who have said that reality is truth. Reality is reality and we say a claim about reality is true or a truth if it accurately reflects reality. Reality itself is not the truth. The truth is the statement about reality. When I tell you 'the truth' or tell you 'a truth' then I am making a statement that accurately reflects reality.
13 Nov 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think this reality/truth distinction is fine and useful in normal discourse, and probably follows Western philosophy right down the line. However—
True and truth as with most English words have a range of meanings.
In mathematics there are logical truths.
I disagree with other posters who have said that reality is truth. Reality is reality and we say a claim about reality is true or a truth if it accurately reflects reality. Reality itself is not the truth. The truth is the statement about reality ...[text shortened]... truth' or tell you 'a truth' then I am making a statement that accurately reflects reality.
There are philosophies, such as Advaita Vedanta, that developed within the context of a language (e.g., Sanskrit) that does not hold that distinction. It would be, I think, specious to conclude that such a philosophy that speaks of the real as the true is simply mistaken.
I often wonder how much of our thought becomes linguistically driven; to what extent our differently-constructed languages are derived from how we experience reality, and to what extent they in turn influence how we (think we) experience reality. Palynka once said that the first time he found himself actually thinking in another language, he discovered that it changed his perspective on the world.
In any event, when I identify the true with the real, I am speaking out of a Hindu/Buddhist/Vedantist model of thought (based on the identification of satya/sat); however, I will try to be careful in normal discourse to keep the distinction.
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by YugaYou seemed to have defined "belief", but not "truth" (unless you think that "truth and "belief" are the same thing).
Truth is one's perception of what is real.
A lunatic in an insane asylum might have the perception that he is Napolean Bonapart, but that wouldn't mean that it were true that he was Napolean Bonapart.
People can believe things that aren't true, right?
People used to perceive as reality that the Earth was flat. But that didn't make it flat. The people who thought that the Earth was round (more or less) had "the truth", while the people who thought that it was flat didn't have "the truth."
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerNot so fast. All that we have is our perception to identify what we think is true as you rightly pointed out no matter what you are talking about. Therefore, all we can do is use such perceptions that are subject to error to try and identify what the truth actually is. Having said that, how is one ever to know 100% what the truth then is about anything?
You seemed to have defined "belief", but not "truth" (unless you think that "truth and "belief" are the same thing).
A lunatic in an insane asylum might have the perception that he is Napolean Bonapart, but that wouldn't mean that it were true that he was Napolean Bonapart.
People can believe things that aren't true, right?
People used to per ...[text shortened]... he truth", while the people who thought that it was flat didn't have "the truth."
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyAren't you failing to distinguish between whether something actually *is* true or false, and whether you can *know* it is either true or false? Surely, knowledge that P or ~P is not necessary to determine whether P or ~P.
Not so fast. All that we have is our perception to identify what we think is true as you rightly pointed out no matter what you are talking about. Therefore, all we can do is use such perceptions that are subject to error to try and identify what the truth actually is. Having said that, how is one ever to know 100% what the truth then is about anything?
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI agree.
You seemed to have defined "belief", but not "truth" (unless you think that "truth and "belief" are the same thing).
A lunatic in an insane asylum might have the perception that he is Napolean Bonapart, but that wouldn't mean that it were true that he was Napolean Bonapart.
People can believe things that aren't true, right?
People used to per ...[text shortened]... he truth", while the people who thought that it was flat didn't have "the truth."
Indeed, one good definition of reality is what is left over after you take away perception.
14 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdWhat exactly is a claim corresponding to that makes it true? You might say that it is a fact about the world. But what makes that fact true? A further meta-fact about the world?
I was just trying to be aware of Starrman’s cautions about turning such words as “truth” into things-themselves. What is true is what is real; the truth is just reality, such as it is. Whether I am able to put it into concepts or not.
We call our concepts, ideas, propositions “true” when they accurately represent (are isomorphic to) reality.
14 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI’m not understanding the question. Can a fact be false? Let me try this: we take our conceptions of reality to be true to the extent that they appear to be isomorphic to our perceptions of reality.
What exactly is a claim corresponding to that makes it true? You might say that it is a fact about the world. But what makes that fact true? A further meta-fact about the world?
Maybe you and/or Starrman or twhitehead can correct me on this; I’m certainly open to it.
____________________________
Maybe this ties in with my problem with your definition of reality above:
Our perception is part of reality, as is our ability to form/create concepts on the basis of that perception. To say that reality is what’s left over after you take away perception is to say that reality is what’s left over after you take away us—and all other perceiving beings, for that matter. The flip side is the implication that perception is something added to, rather than derived from, the larger reality.
I think that self-inclusion is inescapable, whatever problems that raises vis-à-vis such things as objectivity and self-looping-reference.
As I put it, the grammar of our consciousness (how we perceive and conceive) is part of the larger syntax of the cosmos that we are trying to read. We are not only immersed in reality, we are of it. We have no access to some “view from nowhere”; we don’t even have access to some “view from elsewhere.” We have no access to reality except via that grammar of our consciousness; to speak of any other reality is, I think, immaterial in a strict sense. We just have to accept that as an existential limit to our epistemology, and move on—or lapse into a kind of radical skepticism that I suspect is unsustainable.
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYour example does not refute the idea that truth is eternal and unchanging.
Suppose you have a birthday, and are now 21 instead of 20.
Hence, yesterday it was true that you were 20; today it is true that you are 21.
So: is truth eternal and unchanging?
It is a fact that AT A SPECIFIC POINT IN TIME, that I was 20 years old.
Bill Clinton was the President, and now George W. Bush is the President. The fact that Mr. Bush is now the President doesn't negate the unchanging fact that Mr. Clinton was the President at a specific point in time.
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerYeah, what gaychessplayer said.
Your example does not refute the idea that truth is eternal and unchanging.
It is a fact that AT A SPECIFIC POINT IN TIME, that I was 20 years old.
Bill Clinton was the President, and now George W. Bush is the President. The fact that Mr. Bush is now the President doesn't negate the unchanging fact that Mr. Clinton was the President at a specific point in time.
And that goes double for me 🙂
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by vistesdI like this notion; that the truth is the real. I'll have to think on it for a while, but at first glance it seems to me that the actual essence of existence must be what is true it. That which is false must therefore be that which opposes the actual or in some way misrepresents it, consequently that which is surreal?
I’m not understanding the question. Can a fact be false? Let me try this: we take our conceptions of reality to be true to the extent that they appear to be isomorphic to our perceptions of reality.
Maybe you and/or Starrman or twhitehead can correct me on this; I’m certainly open to it.
____________________________
Maybe this ties in with my pr ...[text shortened]... emology, and move on—or lapse into a kind of radical skepticism that I suspect is unsustainable.