Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,975
- 9,997
- 2,040
What is truth?
- Thread starter onefour1
- Start date
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,538
- 32,619
- 2,180
iamwhatiseem
Diamond Member
Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,975
- 9,997
- 2,040
Another example -
To mormons, catholicism is not true.
Catholics believe protestant religions are not true.
Atheists don't believe god is true.
The reality for each is very different and therefore, so is their truth.
So, which is really the "truth"?
To mormons, catholicism is not true.
Catholics believe protestant religions are not true.
Atheists don't believe god is true.
The reality for each is very different and therefore, so is their truth.
So, which is really the "truth"?
percysunshine
Diamond Member
The immutable laws of physics and nature say otherwise, Luddly.
You are upside down.
.
iamwhatiseem
Diamond Member
Truth is fact.
Everything else is either interpretation or belief.
It is that simple.
Everything else is either interpretation or belief.
It is that simple.
Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,975
- 9,997
- 2,040
You just proved its correct.
Your "truth" is that he is incorrect. lOW, what YOU believe is YOUR truth.
Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,975
- 9,997
- 2,040
And just like iamwhatiseem, you have just proven the very same point: YOUR perception is YOUR truth.
percysunshine
Diamond Member
And yet, if you drop a hammer, it will still land on your head and not your foot...regardless of my opinion.
.
iamwhatiseem
Diamond Member
You just proved its correct.
Your "truth" is that he is incorrect. lOW, what YOU believe is YOUR truth.
No. That is my belief.
Truth is not interpretable. It cannot change. It is fact. And fact cannot change.
For instance, religion in it's entirety is not truth. It is a belief system based on historical writings and passed down beliefs. So the reason "it is true to one person and not another is because BELIEF is in the eye if the beholder.
Truth is universal. It cannot be changed. When it is altered it immedietely becomes an interpretation.
So people can have different interpretations of the truth. But truth itself remains itself.
We are witnesses to the truth of what we know.
The moment someone tells me a lie I know to be a lie, the truth of what I know is a lie I know to be a lie.
Just ask anyone who has been lied to by undercover policemen.
My name is Sam Stone. I live on hemp lane up in pot city Arkansas.
The moment someone tells me a lie I know to be a lie, the truth of what I know is a lie I know to be a lie.
Just ask anyone who has been lied to by undercover policemen.
My name is Sam Stone. I live on hemp lane up in pot city Arkansas.
Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,975
- 9,997
- 2,040
False equivalency because a hammer is an inanimate object and that action is bound by the "laws of physics and nature".
Your opinion and your perception are not bound by any limitations.
Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,975
- 9,997
- 2,040
You just proved its correct.
Your "truth" is that he is incorrect. lOW, what YOU believe is YOUR truth.
No. That is my belief.
Truth is not interpretable. It cannot change. It is fact. And fact cannot change.
For instance, religion in it's entirety is not truth. It is a belief system based on historical writings and passed down beliefs. So the reason "it is true to one person and not another is because BELIEF is in the eye if the beholder.
Truth is universal. It cannot be changed. When it is altered it immedietely becomes an interpretation.
So people can have different interpretations of the truth. But truth itself remains itself.
"Truth is not interpretable."
Of course it is. Ask ten people to describe an auto accident. Ask the members of any religion if their beliefs are the truth.
"So the reason "it is true to one person and not another is because BELIEF is in the eye if the beholder."
Exactly. And that person's belief is that person's truth.
Avatar made the same point above when he wrote about different people describing the rock falling on someone. Even though each witness might describe the incident differently, it still their truth, as they perceive it.
Instead of the simple sure I really know what truth is statement, I offer two pieces to mull over. Humor as truth and how we know truth. Find the truth - Good luck.
"Many of my Republican friends have said to me, “George, why are you voting for Barack Obama?” They assume it is because I believe in his radical socialist agenda of being fair to everyone, even the poor. But that’s not it at all. I could actually care less about the poor. We have some living near us, and pee-yew. They are always coming and going to their three or four jobs at all hours of the day and night. Annoying! No, the reason I am voting for Obama is more complicated. And it’s painful. But there’s a lot at stake in this election and so I’m going to confess some embarrassing personal stuff here."
"And now, at long last, my moment is here. I am going to vote for Obama in memory of the broken, sniveling boy I was in 1977, even if it means every poor person in America has a fair shot. I am going to vote against Romney - Ryan even if it means those poor freaks living near me end up at home more often, and with health care. I will vote against Paul Ryan even if it means that the rich—the true princes, who give us everything that we have, and ask only to be allowed to produce—must continue to suffer under the many restrictions, such as the law, such as taxes, imposed by the small parasitic men who malinger beneath them, hoping for their crumbs."
George Saunders 'I Was Ayn Rand’s Lover' I Was Ayn Rand s Lover - The New Yorker
"Moral anti-realists like me of course recognize that moral attitudes tend to be responsive to non-moral facts-even the most subjective evaluative attitudes are so responsive, after all. The judgment, "We shouldn't eat at La Bistro Francais Pretense," will typically give way before a satisfying gustatory experience there. More importantly, the evaluative judgment, "Don't eat the pork dishes at Szechuan West, they're made from cat," is quite plainly defeated by the revelation that this is a slander on the restaurant's proprietor. Changes in our understanding of the facts have surely played some role in changes in our moral attitudes, yet this just pushes the explanatory question back one step: namely, why were people so slow to correctly cognize the non-moral facts, why were they so ready to accept factual claims that could not, in fact, withstand scrutiny in light of the canons of epistemic warrant otherwise operative in contemporaneous scientific investigations? Canons of epistemic warrant and justification are, after all, themselves norms or values, and yet they were rendered inert in certain domains by countervailing inegalitarian moral attitudes. Some other evaluative attitude-disgust with, contempt for, antipathy towards, e.g., Africans or Jews-was itself an obstacle to responsible investigation of the non-moral facts. That phenomenon should hardly be surprising in light of recent work in social psychology. In an influential paper ten years ago that synthesized a wide body of empirical research,' Jonathan Haidt argued that moral judgments in most ordinary contexts arise from powerful emotional responses, not rational reflection, and that while reasons and evidence are often supplied post-hoc, commitment to the evaluative judgment typically survived the failure of the reasons and evidence to support them! Haidt suggested that "the mere fact that friends, allies, and acquaintances have made a moral judgment" was more important to understanding someone's commitment to it than the actual rational support for the judgment.' That suggests the best explanation for the prevalence of a moral judgment will be psycho-social in character-whatever it is that explains the community convergence-rather than something epistemic or cognitive." Brian Leiter
"Many of my Republican friends have said to me, “George, why are you voting for Barack Obama?” They assume it is because I believe in his radical socialist agenda of being fair to everyone, even the poor. But that’s not it at all. I could actually care less about the poor. We have some living near us, and pee-yew. They are always coming and going to their three or four jobs at all hours of the day and night. Annoying! No, the reason I am voting for Obama is more complicated. And it’s painful. But there’s a lot at stake in this election and so I’m going to confess some embarrassing personal stuff here."
"And now, at long last, my moment is here. I am going to vote for Obama in memory of the broken, sniveling boy I was in 1977, even if it means every poor person in America has a fair shot. I am going to vote against Romney - Ryan even if it means those poor freaks living near me end up at home more often, and with health care. I will vote against Paul Ryan even if it means that the rich—the true princes, who give us everything that we have, and ask only to be allowed to produce—must continue to suffer under the many restrictions, such as the law, such as taxes, imposed by the small parasitic men who malinger beneath them, hoping for their crumbs."
George Saunders 'I Was Ayn Rand’s Lover' I Was Ayn Rand s Lover - The New Yorker
"Moral anti-realists like me of course recognize that moral attitudes tend to be responsive to non-moral facts-even the most subjective evaluative attitudes are so responsive, after all. The judgment, "We shouldn't eat at La Bistro Francais Pretense," will typically give way before a satisfying gustatory experience there. More importantly, the evaluative judgment, "Don't eat the pork dishes at Szechuan West, they're made from cat," is quite plainly defeated by the revelation that this is a slander on the restaurant's proprietor. Changes in our understanding of the facts have surely played some role in changes in our moral attitudes, yet this just pushes the explanatory question back one step: namely, why were people so slow to correctly cognize the non-moral facts, why were they so ready to accept factual claims that could not, in fact, withstand scrutiny in light of the canons of epistemic warrant otherwise operative in contemporaneous scientific investigations? Canons of epistemic warrant and justification are, after all, themselves norms or values, and yet they were rendered inert in certain domains by countervailing inegalitarian moral attitudes. Some other evaluative attitude-disgust with, contempt for, antipathy towards, e.g., Africans or Jews-was itself an obstacle to responsible investigation of the non-moral facts. That phenomenon should hardly be surprising in light of recent work in social psychology. In an influential paper ten years ago that synthesized a wide body of empirical research,' Jonathan Haidt argued that moral judgments in most ordinary contexts arise from powerful emotional responses, not rational reflection, and that while reasons and evidence are often supplied post-hoc, commitment to the evaluative judgment typically survived the failure of the reasons and evidence to support them! Haidt suggested that "the mere fact that friends, allies, and acquaintances have made a moral judgment" was more important to understanding someone's commitment to it than the actual rational support for the judgment.' That suggests the best explanation for the prevalence of a moral judgment will be psycho-social in character-whatever it is that explains the community convergence-rather than something epistemic or cognitive." Brian Leiter
Capstone
Gold Member
- Feb 14, 2012
- 5,502
- 953
- 290
Truth is objective, uncreated, and eternally-existent. It is neither generated nor in any way effected by our subjective perceptions/beliefs; we can only hope to align our perceptions, beliefs, and belief systems to it (which, BTW, is a whole lot easier said than done).
Human perception is a piss-poor arbiter of truth, because, all too often, beliefs are formed as much on the basis of what escapes one's perceptions as they are on what's captured by the senses. That's how so-called magicians make their living.
Human perception is a piss-poor arbiter of truth, because, all too often, beliefs are formed as much on the basis of what escapes one's perceptions as they are on what's captured by the senses. That's how so-called magicians make their living.
Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,975
- 9,997
- 2,040
midcan5
"Jonathan Haidt argued that moral judgments in most ordinary contexts arise from powerful emotional responses, not rational reflection, and that while reasons and evidence are often supplied post-hoc, commitment to the evaluative judgment typically survived the failure of the reasons and evidence to support them! Haidt suggested that "the mere fact that friends, allies, and acquaintances have made a moral judgment" was more important to understanding someone's commitment to it than the actual rational support for the judgment.' That suggests the best explanation for the prevalence of a moral judgment will be psycho-social in character-whatever it is that explains the community convergence-rather than something epistemic or cognitive." Brian Leiter"
I find this fascinating. It explains the reasons for the point I was making.
And, sadly, it seems to be part and parcel of the human condition that we all seek out that which reinforces what we already believe.
"Jonathan Haidt argued that moral judgments in most ordinary contexts arise from powerful emotional responses, not rational reflection, and that while reasons and evidence are often supplied post-hoc, commitment to the evaluative judgment typically survived the failure of the reasons and evidence to support them! Haidt suggested that "the mere fact that friends, allies, and acquaintances have made a moral judgment" was more important to understanding someone's commitment to it than the actual rational support for the judgment.' That suggests the best explanation for the prevalence of a moral judgment will be psycho-social in character-whatever it is that explains the community convergence-rather than something epistemic or cognitive." Brian Leiter"
I find this fascinating. It explains the reasons for the point I was making.
And, sadly, it seems to be part and parcel of the human condition that we all seek out that which reinforces what we already believe.
iamwhatiseem
Diamond Member
You just proved its correct.
Your "truth" is that he is incorrect. lOW, what YOU believe is YOUR truth.
No. That is my belief.
Truth is not interpretable. It cannot change. It is fact. And fact cannot change.
For instance, religion in it's entirety is not truth. It is a belief system based on historical writings and passed down beliefs. So the reason "it is true to one person and not another is because BELIEF is in the eye if the beholder.
Truth is universal. It cannot be changed. When it is altered it immedietely becomes an interpretation.
So people can have different interpretations of the truth. But truth itself remains itself.
"Truth is not interpretable."
Of course it is. Ask ten people to describe an auto accident. Ask the members of any religion if their beliefs are the truth.
"So the reason "it is true to one person and not another is because BELIEF is in the eye if the beholder."
Exactly. And that person's belief is that person's truth.
Avatar made the same point above when he wrote about different people describing the rock falling on someone. Even though each witness might describe the incident differently, it still their truth, as they perceive it.
Your still talking about two different things.
Truth and belief are not the same thing.
A rock fell, a man died. That is the truth in his story.
How different people percieved the rock falling is an interpretation of that truth.
But the rock fell and a man died is the only thing that remains the same. Because that, and only that, is the truth.
Last edited:
iamwhatiseem
Diamond Member
Truth is objective, uncreated, and eternally-existent. It is neither generated nor in any way effected by our subjective perceptions/beliefs; we can only hope to align our perceptions, beliefs, and belief systems to it (which, BTW, is a whole lot easier said than done).
Human perception is a piss-poor arbiter of truth, because, all too often, beliefs are formed as much on the basis of what escapes one's perceptions as they are on what's captured by the senses. That's how so-called magicians make their living.
Well said.
As a side note, I find it fascinating that Luddly agreed with this post since it is polar opposite of everything he has wrote in this thread.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #39
The absence of fallacy.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
New Topics
-
-
-
🚨 TX-23's GOP nominee Brandon Herrera owns Mein Kampf...and that’s just the start- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 14
-
-
