What is truth?

[iamwhatiseem]

When Jesus stood before Pilate, Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" The gospels do not give us Jesus' reply. So I present the question to you. In your opinion, what is truth?

A dog's smile..

Actually dogs grin, but they don't smile.

 

[Moonglow]

When Jesus stood before Pilate, Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" The gospels do not give us Jesus' reply. So I present the question to you. In your opinion, what is truth?

A dog's smile..

Actually dogs grin, but they don't smile.

Not the ones I've had...You get 'em stoned, they will smile...

 

[percysunshine]

So, from your perspective, in reality, the world is upside down.

Sounds like an excuse to me.

.

IOW, that is YOUR reality, YOUR truth.

The immutable laws of physics and nature say otherwise, Luddly.

You are upside down.

.

And just like iamwhatiseem, you have just proven the very same point: YOUR perception is YOUR truth.

And yet, if you drop a hammer, it will still land on your head and not your foot...regardless of my opinion.
.

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.

It is not a false equivalency. The hammer may be inanimate, but your head and foot are not.

Gravity is real because it exists external to the perception of any single human being. Everyone knows gravity, The people with problems perceiving gravity are usually young males whom never live beyond their teen age jackass years.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Whatever you personally believe is truth.

Yeah. That's probably the worst definition of something I have ever heard.

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.

You keep accidentally agreeing with me.

"A rock fell, a man died. That is the truth in his story."

And completely separate from what Avatar described and what I repeated but exactly the same as what you then wrote:

"How different people percieved the rock falling is an interpretation of that truth."

How YOU perceived/interpreted the incident is YOUR truth.
How I perceived/interpreted it is mine.
And we could both disagree with each other as well as the man who got bonked - and none of us would be wrong.

 

[PratchettFan]

When Jesus stood before Pilate, Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" The gospels do not give us Jesus' reply. So I present the question to you. In your opinion, what is truth?

Truth is that which is.

 

[PratchettFan]

Things as they are, things as they were, and things as they will be.

In other words, reality.

Who's reality? Your reality? My reality?

We don't have separate realities. We may perceive thingsndofferently. One or more of us may perceive things more incorrectly but that doesn't change what happens in reality.

A stone falls off a roof and crushes a man. One guy thinks he saw the roofer push it off. Another sees that the roofer somewhere else on the roof and no where near the falling stone. And one thinks the man underneath avoided the stone unscathed


Reality was it was an accident no matter.how sinister the one man thinks it was. Reality is also that the man was killed no matter how much the third man wants him to be safe.

Reality/ truth is what it is.

God is also truth. There is a reason He called Himself I Am. Because truth just is.

"We don't have separate realities. We may perceive thingsndofferently. One or more of us may perceive things more incorrectly but that doesn't change what happens in reality."


One's perception IS one's reality and therefore, it is also one's "truth".

One's perception is just their perception. It may or may not be accurate. Reality is not dependent upon perception. If it does, it is not real.

 

[Capstone]

..."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. ...

I think it's problematic to characterize subjective takes on objective reality as 'personal truths', when they may or may not be accurate interpretations of the true nature of the situation in question. An erroneous interpretation is a personal falsehood, not a personal truth; and the prospect that one may be wrong in his or her interpretation should be given priority over the possibility that he or she may also be right. Just because someone might happen to be correct WRT X-situation, is no reason for that person to claim that he or she is right and thereby in possession of a 'personal truth'.

In my view, this goes straight to the heart of the epistemic distinction between 'knowledge' and 'belief'. We are only justified in a truth claim if and when we know it to be true (as opposed to merely believing it to be true). In line with this, justifiable claims to truth are limited to situations in which the determinants of truth are in no way subject to interpretation.

..."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.

Only for those who are willing to allow that potential untruths can rightly be classified as "personal truths". As a proponent of the philosophical notion of objective truth, I personally wouldn't be among that group.

What you're describing in the falling rock analogy are subjective beliefs which may or may not correspond to the objective truth of the situation. As such, in my opinion, they don't qualify as justifiable claims to knowledge of truth.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Things as they are, things as they were, and things as they will be.

In other words, reality.

Who's reality? Your reality? My reality?

We don't have separate realities. We may perceive thingsndofferently. One or more of us may perceive things more incorrectly but that doesn't change what happens in reality.

A stone falls off a roof and crushes a man. One guy thinks he saw the roofer push it off. Another sees that the roofer somewhere else on the roof and no where near the falling stone. And one thinks the man underneath avoided the stone unscathed


Reality was it was an accident no matter.how sinister the one man thinks it was. Reality is also that the man was killed no matter how much the third man wants him to be safe.

Reality/ truth is what it is.

God is also truth. There is a reason He called Himself I Am. Because truth just is.

"We don't have separate realities. We may perceive thingsndofferently. One or more of us may perceive things more incorrectly but that doesn't change what happens in reality."


One's perception IS one's reality and therefore, it is also one's "truth".

One's perception is just their perception. It may or may not be accurate. Reality is not dependent upon perception. If it does, it is not real.

How many times do I need to write the same thing?

To each individual, reality is indeed dependent on that person's perception.
It is real to THAT person.
That makes it that person's truth.

Back to religion and/or believing in a god.

For the person who believes there is a god, that is that person's truth.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

..."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. ...

I think it's problematic to characterize subjective takes on objective reality as 'personal truths', when they may or may not be accurate interpretations of the true nature of the situation or thing in question. An erroneous interpretation is a personal falsehood, not a personal truth; and the prospect that one may be wrong in his or her interpretation should be given priority over the possibility that he or she may also be right. Just because someone might happen to be correct WRT X-situation, is no reason for that person to claim that he or she is right and thereby in possession of a 'personal truth'.

In my view, this goes straight to the heart of the epistemic distinction between 'knowledge' and 'belief'. We are only justified in a truth claim if and when we know it to be true (as opposed to merely believing it to be true). In line with this, justifiable claims to truth are limited to situations in which the determinants of truth are in no way subject to interpretation.

..."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.

Only for those who are willing to allow that potential untruths can rightly be classified as "personal truths". As a proponent of the philosophical notion of objective truth, I personally wouldn't be among that group.

What you're describing in the falling rock analogy are subjective beliefs which may or may not correspond to the objective truth of the situation. As such, in my opinion, they don't qualify as justifiable claims to knowledge of truth.

"I think it's problematic to characterize subjective takes on objective reality as 'personal truths', when they may or may not be accurate interpretations of the true nature of the situation or thing in question. An erroneous interpretation is a personal falsehood, not a personal truth ..."

I certainly have not meant to imply that one's personal truth is in fact, real, provable, hold-in-the-hand-truth.

That's the whole point, isn't it?

"What you're describing in the falling rock analogy are subjective beliefs which may or may not correspond to the objective truth of the situation. As such, in my opinion, they don't qualify as justifiable claims to knowledge of truth."

Yes. That's what I keep saying - Our truths are indeed subjective and based on our perceptions.

We have no choice but to be the pearl in our world's oyster. That is our only real point of view. We can try to sympathize, empathize with other view points but, in the end, our "truth" is a product of a wide variety of forces.

That doesn't preclude striving for true facts but quite often, even indisputable facts don't sway our opinions.

 

[Roadrunner]

Whatever you personally believe is truth.

Whatever Luddy says, that ain't it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Whatever you personally believe is truth.

Whatever Luddy says, that ain't it.

Yet another poster proves me correct.

This is Roadrunner's perception of reality. It is HIS truth.

Its not based on facts but it is most certainly his truth.

 

[norwegen]

Whatever you personally believe is truth.

Look up conviction, judgment, opinion, etc., and join that discussion two doors down. Here we wish to find the actual state of things.

 

[norwegen]

Whatever you personally believe is truth.

Yeah. That's probably the worst definition of something I have ever heard.

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.

If ten different people cite ten different versions of a car crash, at least nine of them do not know the truth.

 

[onefour1]

There is an old illustration of 6 blind men who are touching an elephant. One feeling the tusks says its a spear. One feeling the trunk says its a snake. One feeling the leg says its a tree. One feeling the side of the elephant says its a wall. One feeling the ears says its a fan. And finally, one feeling the tail says its a rope. Obviously, they are all wrong. It is an elephant. So no matter how different each perspective is, truth is that it is an elephant.

However, Luddy's point is that we all perceive the truth through our individual perceptions. How can we be sure when we've found the truth if our perceptions or senses are all we have to perceive truth with? Are our perceptions so different from each other that we cannot come to a consensus? How do we reach a consensus on what is truth?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Truth can only be gotten at by using the methods of science and math.

 

[onefour1]

Is all science a true representation of things? Is math a perfect representation of things?

 

[PratchettFan]

Things as they are, things as they were, and things as they will be.

In other words, reality.

Who's reality? Your reality? My reality?

We don't have separate realities. We may perceive thingsndofferently. One or more of us may perceive things more incorrectly but that doesn't change what happens in reality.

A stone falls off a roof and crushes a man. One guy thinks he saw the roofer push it off. Another sees that the roofer somewhere else on the roof and no where near the falling stone. And one thinks the man underneath avoided the stone unscathed


Reality was it was an accident no matter.how sinister the one man thinks it was. Reality is also that the man was killed no matter how much the third man wants him to be safe.

Reality/ truth is what it is.

God is also truth. There is a reason He called Himself I Am. Because truth just is.

"We don't have separate realities. We may perceive thingsndofferently. One or more of us may perceive things more incorrectly but that doesn't change what happens in reality."


One's perception IS one's reality and therefore, it is also one's "truth".

One's perception is just their perception. It may or may not be accurate. Reality is not dependent upon perception. If it does, it is not real.

How many times do I need to write the same thing?

To each individual, reality is indeed dependent on that person's perception.
It is real to THAT person.
That makes it that person's truth.

Back to religion and/or believing in a god.

For the person who believes there is a god, that is that person's truth.

The individual is irrelevant. What you perceive means nothing. That which is is true, whether perceived or not. What you call a "person's truth" has as much relationship to truth as Kermit the Frog does to frogs.

 

[norwegen]

Is all science a true representation of things? Is math a perfect representation of things?

Consensus sure as heck isn't.

 

[onefour1]

I don't think consensus is truth itself. I believe as Avatar has said in his first post and what the Prophet Joseph Smith received in a revelation:

Doctrine and Covenants 93:24
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

If we can acquire a knowledge of things as they truly are, then we will have a clear perception of the truth. I believe that if there is a God who knows all things then he would be the source of all truth. If he can reveal those truths to us with a clear understanding, then we would be in possession of the truth.

I respect the sciences and math when it is the truth. But sometimes there is error is human reasoning. Science can also be motivated by money and politics. Math is not perfect either. For example, if you divide 100 by 3 you get 33.3333333333........ But when you add 33.3333333333...... three times, you don't get 100. you get 99.9999999..... This is not a perfect 100. Close enough in most cases but not a perfect number system.

 

[SwimExpert]

Things as they are, things as they were, and things as they will be.

In other words, reality.

Who's reality? Your reality? My reality?

Reality is now a property right?

If I want to purchase your reality, how much are you going to ask for it?

Does reality go by the square foot, or by the pound?

.

Nobody said anything about property rights.