What is the nature of "Truth"? [Archive]

Iluvatar

January 12th, 2004, 11:54 AM

Apokalupsis

January 12th, 2004, 12:05 PM

Ooo... This looks like fun...
I believe that Truth falls into two categories:
Personal truths: What people are refering to when they refer to wanting to know it. This is based the world, filtered through the observer's point of view. With this type of truth, the world was flat for thousands of years. This kind of truth varies from person to person, but it is completely knowable and understandable.
Well, the problem with this, at least in your example...is that the world was never flat. Some people may have THOUGHT it was...but the truth was (is and forever will be), that it is round. Thus, people were wrong. They believed a falsity. What they believed, did not correspond to reality. Truth is what corresponds to reality, or what is actual. A blind person not being able to see a pole does not mean that the truth of the matter is, the pole does not exist. It does, the blind man is just unable to see it. The blind man will have to discover it through other means. The pole is there, and is very real. Believing and/or perception, is not the same as holding truth.

And since it varies from person to person, it isn't truth, but perspective. We can have the right or wrong perspective about the truth. When our perspective corresponds correctly with the truth (reality), then we have truth.

The Truth: This is the inviolite and absolute truth, upon which personal beliefs and opinions have no bearing.
Agreed. It merely "is". This is reality. More of what I was suggesting above.

This kind is unkowable by a limited being(anything mortal.) God, if he exists, can know this, but we cannot.
However, I disagree here. While we may not know ALL truths, we can know SOME truths. Such as if I jump out of a plane at 35,000 above the Grand Canyon, AZ, in the nude, with no protective gear, and freefall to the ground...I will spatter myself on the ground and die. That is an absolute truth for all people, in all places, at all times.

Another absolute truth is that on Jan 12, 2004, George W Bush was the President of the United States of America. This is absolutely true for everyone in all places and times.

The goal of science is to get our personal truths closer to the Truth. Anyone disagree?
Hmmm...have to think about this one. I don't think I agree however. I think the purpose of science is truth discovery, but I don't know that it necessarily has to do anything with personal truths.

Iluvatar

January 12th, 2004, 12:49 PM

However, I disagree here. While we may not know ALL truths, we can know SOME truths. Such as if I jump out of a plane at 35,000 above the Grand Canyon, AZ, in the nude, with no protective gear, and freefall to the ground...I will spatter myself on the ground and die.
This is an example of where personal truth and Truth are very close. There is always some sliver doubt between the two, no matter how incredibly small. For example, say aliens swooped down and caught you before you hit the ground. Or perhaps the laws of inertia suddenly failed, and you drifted safely to the ground. Admittedly, these are unbelievably small chances, but they are chances, nonetheless. The personal truth here is that no matter what, you will splatter. the Truth, while unknowable, is probably the same, but we cannot know for sure.

You believe, with good reason, that falling out of a plane will kill you. This is supported by the fact that everyone else who has ever done it with your specified conditions has died. You believe completely that this is true.

A madman believes with utter certainty that his son (who in most people's personal truths is dead) is standing next to him, holding a conversation. He bases this conclusion on the fact that he hears this boys words in his head, and see's him in front of him. This is his personal truth: that his son is alive and talking to him. He believes completely that it is true.

That madman may very well be the only sane one in the world, and everyone else is insane, thinking that the boy is dead.

You may very well be diceved into thinking that the ground will kill you if you meet it too fast

Both of these are highly unlikely, but are possible, nonetheless. We cannot know for certain what is the Truth, and what is merely our personal truths. What is commonly refered to as "the truth" is merely the similarities between the majority's personal truths.

Apokalupsis

January 12th, 2004, 01:40 PM

This is an example of where personal truth and Truth are very close. There is always some sliver doubt between the two, no matter how incredibly small. For example, say aliens swooped down and caught you before you hit the ground. Or perhaps the laws of inertia suddenly failed, and you drifted safely to the ground.
Actually, the only way to have that "sliver", is to change the context of the scenerio. This is ignoring the "universe of discourse" (fancy term for context). That is, the correct statement to make your sliver of possibility to be true, would be: If I jump out of a plane at 35,000 above the Grand Canyon, AZ, in the nude, with no protective gear, and freefall to the ground...I will spatter myself on the ground and die unless a the forces of gravity fail the earth (in which we have a whole more to worry about :) ) or I am abducted by aliens in midfall. These statements are generally not made as they are not necessary. They are adding further variables to the "equation", or changing the scenerio. When we make a claim, it is always w/i the universe of discourse that we must examine what is claimed. By throwing in external variables, it changes the claim. And if this were acceptable, no claim could be made, as each could be changed to something other than what was originally claimed.

Admittedly, these are unbelievably small chances, but they are chances, nonetheless.
An absolute truth, means that it is applicable to all people, at all places, at all times. It does not mean that it has a 100% success rate, or that something is 100% known to the fullest. This in contrast, to relative truth, where truth is dependent upon the individual.

The personal truth here is that no matter what, you will splatter. the Truth, while unknowable, is probably the same, but we cannot know for sure.
The truth IS in fact, that if I jump out of a plane at 35,000 above the Grand Canyon, AZ, in the nude, with no protective gear, and freefall to the ground...I will spatter myself on the ground and die unless there are other circumstances (no matter how slim) that prevent my impact.

A madman believes with utter certainty that his son (who in most people's personal truths is dead) is standing next to him, holding a conversation. He bases this conclusion on the fact that he hears this boys words in his head, and see's him in front of him. This is his personal truth: that his son is alive and talking to him. He believes completely that it is true.

That madman may very well be the only sane one in the world, and everyone else is insane, thinking that the boy is dead.
In philosophy, we generally speak about things in the "reasonable". Is it reasonable that billions of people are insane, and only 1 is not? If it is not reasonable, it is unreasonable. Is it reasonable to hold onto unreasonable beliefs? :) Does reason, or unreason correspond to reality?

You may very well be diceved into thinking that the ground will kill you if you meet it too fast.
How is this possible?

Both of these are highly unlikely, but are possible, nonetheless. We cannot know for certain what is the Truth, and what is merely our personal truths. What is commonly refered to as "the truth" is merely the similarities between the majority's personal truths.
Do you agree or disagree with the other scenerios above re: Bush being President, and the blind man & the pole?

Iluvatar

January 12th, 2004, 01:58 PM

Do you agree or disagree with the other scenerios above re: Bush being President, and the blind man & the pole?
Forgive me for not responding to these in depth. My answer would be the same as in the plane example. I don't really want to waste our collective time with them.

By throwing in external variables, it changes the claim. And if this were acceptable, no claim could be made, as each could be changed to something other than what was originally claimed.
By ignoring the variables present in the situation, you are changing the claim :p .
If the situation such as you described it ever existed, you would be correct in concluding that the Truth is knowable. Unfortunatly, such a situation (one without any external variables) could ever exist. In real life, the aliens or the gravity would be possibilities(however small).
BTW, I have been told that I am so dense that I am exempt from the laws of gravity; I wouldn't have to worry about gravity switching :) .

In philosophy, we generally speak about things in the "reasonable". Is it reasonable that billions of people are insane, and only 1 is not? If it is not reasonable, it is unreasonable. Is it reasonable to hold onto unreasonable beliefs? Does reason, or unreason correspond to reality?
Normaly, I would agree. In this particular debate, however, reasonability is in question. For thousands of years, it was "reasonable" that the world was flat. I mean, isn't it obvious? The world can't go on forever, ya know. Unless your one of those wackos who think it's round! This was the common "personal truth". If you asked anyone back then, they would have said that it is the Truth, not knowing any better. Thier personal truths were different back then, while "The Truth" was the same as it is now.

PS, why must you make me think so hard on a Monday?

Apokalupsis

January 12th, 2004, 02:39 PM

BTW, I have been told that I am so dense that I am exempt from the laws of gravity; I wouldn't have to worry about gravity switching :) .
rofl!

Normaly, I would agree. In this particular debate, however, reasonability is in question. For thousands of years, it was "reasonable" that the world was flat. I mean, isn't it obvious? The world can't go on forever, ya know. Unless your one of those wackos who think it's round! This was the common "personal truth". If you asked anyone back then, they would have said that it is the Truth, not knowing any better. Thier personal truths were different back then, while "The Truth" was the same as it is now.

PS, why must you make me think so hard on a Monday?
Good point. I will come back to this thread later, and let us both have have a more enjoyable, "easy Monday" for now. :)

Apokalupsis

January 12th, 2004, 02:40 PM

BTW, I have been told that I am so dense that I am exempt from the laws of gravity; I wouldn't have to worry about gravity switching :) .
rofl!

Normaly, I would agree. In this particular debate, however, reasonability is in question. For thousands of years, it was "reasonable" that the world was flat. I mean, isn't it obvious? The world can't go on forever, ya know. Unless your one of those wackos who think it's round! This was the common "personal truth". If you asked anyone back then, they would have said that it is the Truth, not knowing any better. Thier personal truths were different back then, while "The Truth" was the same as it is now.

PS, why must you make me think so hard on a Monday?
Good points. I will come back to this thread later, and let us both have have a more enjoyable, "easy Monday" for now. :)

Apokalupsis

January 13th, 2004, 08:18 AM

OK, it's Terrible Tuesday...time to get back on the saddle...

Forgive me for not responding to these in depth. My answer would be the same as in the plane example. I don't really want to waste our collective time with them.
But they aren't the same. They are quite different. The pole is still there regardless of the blind man being able to see it or not. Bush being President at that specific time in history will never change for anyone. There are no possibilities of these changing. You argued previously for a remote chance for X to occur that would prevent the absolute truth from being absolute. In these other scenerioes, there are no remote chances possible. They are quite different.

Normaly, I would agree. In this particular debate, however, reasonability is in question. For thousands of years, it was "reasonable" that the world was flat. I mean, isn't it obvious?
The instances of what is "reasonable" are not analogous here. On one hand, we have "X is reasonable" (as support for a flat earth many years ago), on the other, we have "X is true unless unreasonable circumstances prevent X" (as support for a remote chance occurring).

Furthermore, in the first instance, what made it "reasonable"? General acceptance? That isn't reasonable, that is the fallacy of ad populem. What was it that made it "reasonable" exactly? And if there is no convincing evidence that it was reasonable, but merely incorrect, the attack against being reasonable falls flat, because those who adhered to the theory of the earth being flat, were not in fact, being "reasonable". The attack instead, lies with faulty evidence or false conclusions (false cause). This is not the same as being reasonable (which is merely correct thought, or being logical).

Iluvatar

January 13th, 2004, 10:50 AM

Sorry, Apok. I don't have time tonight to spend countering this, as I have thought it out, and know that to answer your various points would take a rather long post. If I can, i'll do it later.

ClearThinker

January 13th, 2004, 12:47 PM

I just want to jump in here and make a few points, if I may.

It sounds like Iluvatar keeps coming back to the absolute relativist view of the world. Basically, that nothing can be known. Broken down to it's most basic form, you can not rely on ANYTHING - not even you most basic perceptions of the world around you.

If I look at my hands typing this reply and feel the keys touch my fingertips, I'm relying on the nerves to carry an accurate message to my brain. How do I know that it is reliable? All evidence that I have ("Well, I know it's right because I can pick the keyboard up, throw it against the wall and watch it break") relies on those same, possibly flawed or altogether wrong, senses. Seems silly, I know, but a completely legitimate and thouroughly debated philosophical theory..

Is this possible? I contend that it is. Just like it is possible that their are tiny, invisible fairies flying around that no one can see or touch or sense in any way. Can I disprove it? No.

But then, I can't disprove anything. So I find the possibility as relevant as those flying fairies I can't see or hear or touch - that is, completely irrelevant.

So to speak to your example, Apokalupsis -- Well, actually let me change it a bit to make a clearer point. Instead of falling to earth let's just postulate this:

If someone completely incinerates my body, I will die.

Much simpler, and harder to alter ;) .

To my point (finally :p ): The above statement holds TRUE 100% of the time if left unaltered (and by unaltered I mean with out saying something like,"if I have a flame-retarding suit on". My statement clearly says that I actually incinerate - you can't change that.) unless you take into account some unknown possibility. But that possibility would be not just unknown, but completely hinge on that fact that it is not disprovable. And that makes the possibility as irrelevant as those tiny fairies flying around that we can't see or hear or touch.

January 15th, 2004, 07:48 AM

(para-phrasing, plagiarizing and just plain wishing I'd said it)........

"Let there be no scales to weigh truth unknown. Seek not the depths of your knowledge of the truth for the truth is a boundless sea and measureless. Say not "I have found the truth", but rather I have found A truth"....................

anyone know who I am ripping off, I'm sure he's spinning in his grave!.............:O)

Apokalupsis

January 15th, 2004, 09:33 AM

Hmmmm...I don't know...but I do know..."And there are those who talk, and without knowledge or forethought reveal a truth which they themselves do not understand."

;)

KG

Jadd

January 16th, 2004, 07:16 PM

Iluvator, answer me this, what if the blind man cannot see the pole, but can feel it. Has he two sets of personal truth!? Would you also say that if I am extremely drunk the little elephant that I see is actually there for me? ... in my personal truth? I fully agree that the truth is very hard to strain out, but I think we all agree there is only one truth, and that's the truth. Things would get awful messy if there were any more.

Iluvatar

January 17th, 2004, 08:49 AM

but I think we all agree there is only one truth, and that's the truth.

Definitely. What I'm saying is that that truth cannot be known. We all have our own personal truths, and most of us strive to as close to the real truth as possible.

Iluvator, answer me this, what if the blind man cannot see the pole, but can feel it. Has he two sets of personal truth!?

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

Would you also say that if I am extremely drunk the little elephant that I see is actually there for me? ... in my personal truth?

That would depend on how drunk you are :). If you are drunk enough to believe with certainty that that elephant exists, than in your personal truth, it is there. In the "true" truth, it probably isn't there, but then we can't know that for sure.

As another example, I found <a href="To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.">The Flat Earth Society</a>. They believe that the earth is flat, just as surly as I belive that the earth is round. This is why personal truths and true truths are seperate. Who's to say that they aren't correct? It sounds rediculous to me, but then again, my idea sounds rediculous to them too. The true truth may be either one, or peraphs the world is square! We do our best to try to find out, within a reasonable margin of error, what the true truth is, but we cannot know for sure.

Apokalupsis

January 17th, 2004, 09:30 AM

What I'm saying is that that truth cannot be known. Then how do you know this to be true? You have claimed that: It is true that nothing can be known [including this claim of truth]. It is a self-defeating statement, for at least you know "something" about truth, that is...it cannot be known. It is self-contradictory, so we know that this "theory" about truth, is a false one.

Welcome to metaphysics! ;)

Iluvatar

January 17th, 2004, 10:04 AM

Then how do you know this to be true? You have claimed that: It is true that nothing can be known [including this claim of truth]. It is a self-defeating statement, for at least you know "something" about truth, that is...it cannot be known. It is self-contradictory, so we know that this "theory" about truth, is a false one.
Not so!
My personal truth is expressed to you in my posts. If I knew the true Truth, there would be no need to debate with you here about it. I don't know the true truth, though. I know only my personal truth, which is exactly as I have thusfar presented it. I believe with certainty, that my view of truth is the correct one, but they may be totaly wrong.

If I stated with certainty that there is one truth, and that it is unkowable, i would be a fool, and a hypocrite, since that statement would be inherently false.
What I am stating, is that there are two sets of truths:Personal truths, which are knowable, and true truths, which we can get close to, but never know for sure. This statement is a personal truth, and therefore, non-contradictiory.

Jadd

January 17th, 2004, 07:43 PM

So what you're actually saying is that (basically) you would prefer to call your opinion a personal truth. You don't claim that it is true for you? I guess I can't really argue that, if you want to call opinions something else go right ahead.

Apokalupsis

January 17th, 2004, 08:29 PM

My personal truth is expressed to you in my posts. If I knew the true Truth, there would be no need to debate with you here about it. I don't know the true truth, though.We discover truth through many paths. Reason, discovery, discourse, experimentation, etc... Dialog or debate is a means to truth discovery. It is putting one truth claim against another to see which is more reasonable. In some cases, truths are self-evident (law of non-contradiction for example). Such truths, are in fact absolute, never changing for anyone under any circumstances.

The statement you made, was a truth claim. If you did not intend to make it one...then you add: I think truth is unknowable. A fine statement, but not really a truth claim that one needs to examine as it tells us nothing other than an opinion. It does not tell us anything about truth...only an opinion of truth.

I am arguing that we CAN and DO know truth. This does not mean that we know every possible truth that there is to know. Remember, we are discussing the "nature" of truth, not specific truths. One of the natures of truth, is that it is knowable. This may not be knowable by all people, or may be easily apparent...but this doesn't change the nature of it...what has changes are merely the those who are seeking it.

ie...the world is in fact round. We have confirmed this through many means. People thought it was flat (some goofballs still do :))...what they think of it matters not...it doesn't change the fact that it IS round.

"One truth"? I wouldn't necessarily claim such a thing. When one discusses the nature of truth, it is not a specific truth, it is not an assumed single, all-powerful truth...it is the nature of truth, nothing more. This nature extends to all truths.

Truths are discovered, not created.

You speak of personal truth and true truth. I don't believe these exist. It is either a truth or it isn't. How do you distinguish the 2? Can you further define them? How would you apply them?

Iluvatar

January 19th, 2004, 08:32 AM

In some cases, truths are self-evident (law of non-contradiction for example). Such truths, are in fact absolute, never changing for anyone under any circumstances.
Hmm... I had forgoton about logical truths (a=b,b=c, therfore a=c) :eek:. I had been thinking only of realworld truths. Give me some time to rethink my position :) .

Apokalupsis

January 19th, 2004, 09:34 AM

All truths are reduced to self-evident truths (first principles).

ie...

Ilvatar is not in NY and on Mars.

This is reducible to the law of non-contradiction. You cannot be at both places at the same time in the same sense. It is an absolute truth that corresponds with reality.

Iluvatar

January 20th, 2004, 03:23 PM

I didn't lose, I just rapidly switched my position. :D Now, I agree with apok, in that I see the flaws in my previous arguements.

phunman

January 28th, 2004, 11:29 AM

This is my first time on this site and I am already excited about the opinions and the basic philisophical reasoning I have seen. If I may I have some questions and comments of my own. The original question was Truth-Absolute-Relative. Great question. If I may enter ideas as prosaic as definitions I believe there are approximately 4 versions of "truth". One is an action or a "sincerity of action" if my memory serves correctly, and the other three can be summed up as "fact". To face both of these definitions is quite easy to see as the earlier debaters have opened all aspects. We have covered "personal truths". Which whether we believe is the ultimate truth or not does exist. This makes personal beliefs a truth or, if you'd rather, a form of truth because we all take actions based on our belief of truth thus making it a "sincerity of action" moving us toward what we "believe" to be the goal. But you ask is it absolute. Yes. There are absolutes in this world today just as there were absolutes in the world 1000 years ago. It is a civilizations enlightenment that allows us to obtain more information and reevaluate our ideas of what is fact. We at one point entered into the "can't be disproven" element of fact. As we all learned in Geometry something that can't be proven but can't be disproven is a theory. So although this is an effective debate method that works well in situations where absolute belief is required it does not add to knowledge and information that this particular discussion has been seeking. So let us focus on the can be proven. As a society becomes more enlightened its ideas of proof increase or change. Yes many scitentist in the 1300's "proved" that the Earth was flat. Proven to the point that it was fact. Looking back with our enlightened eyes we have changed that "fact/truth" because we have new ways of obtaining more accurate information. So was the Earth flat...no, but was it the truth then...yes. The only way to say that the truth is absolute is to admit that we will never know it. Enlightenment brings new information giving new fact/truths everyday. But truth by definition alone is absolute. My favorite quote is "One need not believe in the truth for it to be so." My second favorite is "One cannot believe in the absolute truth and believe that they know it." My belief is somewhere in the middle. Truth is absolute to our relative understanding.

Apokalupsis

January 28th, 2004, 02:34 PM

Good post. :) However, you may want to familiarize yourself with the formatting options of bbcode that this forum engine allows. It makes for an easier read. Or at least, perhaps simply the use of paragraphs. hehe

Now, on to a couple specific statements....

Yes many scitentist in the 1300's "proved" that the Earth was flat. Proven to the point that it was fact.No, they believed they proved it. They believed the earth was flat. However, this was not reality.

Truth corresponds to reality. If what we believe correspoends with what actually is (reality), then we have a truth. That is, our belief is true. If what we believe does not correspond to what is, or with reality if you will...then what we believe is false. It is untrue.

Many people back then, believed in a falsity. Their belief in it had no bearing on what is or is not. Their beliefs did not correspond to reality. They were wrong.

The TRUTH of the matter is, that the fact of the earth being round never changed, it always was round. The BELIEF in the earth (by us today) is what has changed. Belief and truth (what corresponds to reality) are not the synonymous.

Looking back with our enlightened eyes we have changed that "fact/truth" because we have new ways of obtaining more accurate information.Only the belief changed, not the truth of the shape of the earth. It never changed.

So was the Earth flat...no, but was it the truth then...yes.It was BELIEVED to be flat back then...but it wasn't. Therefore, what was believed was wrong. They did not hold the truth about the earth.

The only way to say that the truth is absolute is to admit that we will never know it. I disagree. And so do you. :) Let me explain. Your very statement is an absolute truth statement about the nature of truth. You have claimed categorically and absolutely, that "we can only say truth is absolute if we admit we will never know truth [which is absolute]."

If you admit that you do not know truth, then you cannot make the truth claim about truth. You have denied what you have affirmed. It is a self-defeating claim.

Furthermore, we know the Earth to be round, there is no getting around this...it cannot be flat, square, triangular, etc...It is the truth (not belief) that it is round. Our belief happens to correspond with what is, so we have the truth.

My favorite quote is "One need not believe in the truth for it to be so." I agree, and I like it. ;)

My second favorite is "One cannot believe in the absolute truth and believe that they know it." Of course, I must disagree. hehe An absolute claim about truth has been made that is self defeating. If one cannot know truth, how can you make an absolute truth claim about it? It is self defeating.

Our understanding of all things is severaly limited and lacking. We are wrong about a great deal of things. But, this doesn't change truth. Truth is waiting to be discovered. It is not created by man. We may observe, discover, or study truth, but we do not create it...it is not subjective to man's understanding. Our beliefs in it may be right or wrong...however, those beliefs have no influence on the nature of truth itself.

Bec9938

January 29th, 2004, 01:18 PM

You can take this topic into so many different directions. Well I beleive truth can be known but we have to seek it. We as human beings do not have truth because everything that we have done that was not in truth we could have prevented it if we had known the truth. Therefore if we had so many faults there is no possible way we could have known truth. When I analyzed human beings it showed that we will not allow ourselves to get into something that will bring us down. So lets say hypothetically we know truth, we will use it to the best of our ability not to get into chaos. We must first understand the real nature of truth before we can seek it. How do you find something if you don't know what you're looking for. So truth can be discovered if we truly want to find it.

Apokalupsis

January 29th, 2004, 09:41 PM

We as human beings do not have truth because everything that we have done that was not in truth we could have prevented it if we had known the truth.We don't have truth because we error? I would say, that in instances that perhaps we make errors, that we may not have the truth...but not that we don't have "any" truth because we err.

Also, it's possible for someone to know the truth, but purposefully error (deceit, self-gain, crime, etc...).

Therefore if we had so many faults there is no possible way we could have known truth. We have faults true...but faults do not mean that truth is unnatainable. It means that we don't know ALL truths. We do know some.

This is about the nature of truth...not about how many truths we know or don't know. ;)

Apokalupsis

February 18th, 2004, 11:57 AM

Any other thoughts?

FruitandNut

March 25th, 2004, 01:17 PM

To my mind there are essentially two 'kinds' of truth, that which really is and that which we percieve. The fortunate philosophers among us get the two to coincide more often than not, the rest of us survive on our illusions.

In one respect the percieved truth is the more important as that is the one we act on.

Apokalupsis

April 12th, 2004, 09:20 AM

Either something is a "truth" or it is not. A perspective is a perspective...not a truth. When a perspective correctly corresponds to reality, then we have a truth.

Perspectives can be wrong...truths cannot.

It was the perspective of many at the time, that the Earth was flat. Their perspective did not match w/ reality...they did not have the truth. The truth always was...that it the Earth was (is) round.

Perceived truth is never more important than what really is. Larry perceives you to be a monster who is hell-bent on destroying humanity with your laser eyes and nasty 20' tentacles. To save humanity, Larry believes (it is his perspective), that he must destroy you. If he does...did he save humanity? Was his perspective correspondent to reality?

If perception is all that matters, then yes...Larry did what was right...and as such, cannot be held accountable. Larry then may go on to believe that he is the savior of mankind, and needs to save us from many more monsters that he perceives exists. Since his perception is most important, right, and superior to reality...it is w/i his right to carry on his cause.

Perception...is NOT truth. Perception is merely what we believe truth to be. If we have a perception that actually matches with reality...we have a truth. If we have a perception that does not correspond w/ reality...we have a falsity. And basing one's decision on falsities, is dangerous, irresponsible, and will result in less than desirable outcomes.

Symantix

April 13th, 2004, 04:24 PM

A building with two spaces is being rented by two Christian groups. One group is a Methodist organization, the other group is a Pentecostal organization. There is a wall with a door that separates the two groups, and there is only one bathroom that is shared by the two spaces, which is located on the Pentecostals' side.

On a wednesday evening, a worship service is being held by the two groups simutaneously. Attending the Methodist service is a girl who has a short haircut and is wearing pants. In the middle of the service, she has to use the restroom, so she goes through the door and discretely makes her way to the facility that the two churches must share. While she does so politely, she is still seen by many devout Pentecostals.

1) Short hair and pants on a girl are fine.
2) Short hair and pants on a girl are bad.

Which of these two statements are true?

*conceals sleeve from Apok's view* ;)

3rdPersonPlural

April 13th, 2004, 04:31 PM

Short hair and pants are fine for a girl.

Who on earth would disagree with that except a fetishist?

Granny underpants should qualify a girl for a vigorous stoning, though.

Symantix

April 13th, 2004, 04:42 PM

lol...I agree with you. But let's see what Apok says. ;)

Apokalupsis

April 13th, 2004, 05:26 PM

Both my wife and daughter are "short hair" kinda chicks. I dig "tomboyish" girls with short hair (thinks of Josie Bissett from old school Melrose Place, or Mary Stuart Masterson from "Some Kind of Wonderful"). Perhaps I have a fetish? ;)

Also, proper dress attire is determined by what is appropriate in worship, not sittin' on the "john" reading the Sunday Times.

Lastly, granny-panties make me go blind for a period of no less than 48 hrs. They are not allowed in my household.

While amusing...I do not see the relevancy of this query to the thread's topic.

Symantix

April 13th, 2004, 05:36 PM

Well, its relevancy might be debatable to some, but since you and I both believe that the Bible is innerrant, I thought it would be a cool experience for you and I, and no doubt amusing even for those who would disagree with the premise that the Bible is innerrant, to consider this passage:

1 Corinthians 8:4-13

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall. This passage draws upon the same type of scenario which I have created prior.

1) Eating food sacrificed to idols is fine.
2) Eating food sacrificed to idols is wrong.

Which statement is true?

Apokalupsis

April 13th, 2004, 09:53 PM

Are we talking steak here? Or is like more of a tofu sort of dish? This makes a huge difference....er...spiritually of course...

;)

Symantix

April 14th, 2004, 05:34 AM

FruitandNut

April 14th, 2004, 06:31 AM

Apok: In the absence of definitive absolute and irrefutable truths, we can either sit contemplating our navels, or act upon that which we 'percieve' to be true.

We 'see' truth through our own subjective cognitive apparatus and processes.

Truth is 'out' there, but in the meantime Theories/truths decay and are replaced by modified or new concepts and discovery. 'We', perhaps hold a few Truths, but the rest of what may seem 'self evident' is not necessarily so forever.

symantix: In regard to your True or False - which statement is true? Hows about 'both', but not necessarily at the same time!!!! There may be a definitive answer, but in the meantime it is down to what we may believe or 'know' to be so.

in the words of Anais Nin, 'We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.'

Symantix

April 14th, 2004, 06:55 AM

symantix: In regard to your True or False - which statement is true? Hows about 'both', but not necessarily at the same time!!!! There may be a definitive answer, but in the meantime it is down to what we may believe or 'know' to be so.
On the contrary, I believe there is a definitive answer that is known, and that you, to some extent, have stated that answer. I was simply giving an example of a truth which is relative to context.

Apokalupsis

April 14th, 2004, 07:26 AM

Probably steak.

But I am making a real point here. I submit to you that some truth can be relative, and that there are grey areas. I believe these are governed by absolute truths, but they exist nonetheless.
Perceptions are relative, truths are not. Give me a "truth" that you believe is relative...I'll show you how Aristotelian logic reduces it down to an absolute. ;) Gimme a truth statement.

Apokalupsis

April 14th, 2004, 07:29 AM

Apok: In the absence of definitive absolute and irrefutable truths, we can either sit contemplating our navels, or act upon that which we 'percieve' to be true.

We 'see' truth through our own subjective cognitive apparatus and processes.

Truth is 'out' there, but in the meantime Theories/truths decay and are replaced by modified or new concepts and discovery. 'We', perhaps hold a few Truths, but the rest of what may seem 'self evident' is not necessarily so forever.
What is so "unknown" about truth? We are discussing the nature of truth...not knowing all truths possible. Not a "magical" truth. But a philosophical truth. All truth, is indeed absolute. I give you the same challenge I gave to symantix above.

As far as us "seeing" truth from our own subjectivness, is merely our perception of truth. This is not the same as truth itself. I explained the difference and discussed "correspondence" in post #29 above.

Symantix

April 14th, 2004, 07:37 AM

Perceptions are relative, truths are not. Give me a "truth" that you believe is relative...I'll show you how Aristotelian logic reduces it down to an absolute. ;) Gimme a truth statement.LOL...I'm not walking into that one. Truth statements do not deal with anything except absolutes...that's the point.

But here we have a passage in the Bible where Paul is basically saying that if a man believes that it's sinful to eat meat sacrificed to idols, then for him it is sin, even though it is not a sin for Paul himself to eat. He also says that, while it's not a sin for Paul to eat the meat, if he ate it in front of this weak brother, it would become sin.

The relative truths are:

1) Eating meat sacrificed to idols is fine

and

2) Eating meat sacrificed to idols is bad.

The governing absolute truths are:

1) Doing anything that causes your brother to stumble in his faith is wrong.
2) Doing anything that goes against the faith and knowledge that you presently possess is unhealthy and causes you to sin in your own mind.

The relative truth is determined by the context; the absolute is what defines that context.

Apokalupsis

April 14th, 2004, 07:47 AM

LOL...I'm not walking into that one. Truth statements do not deal with anything except absolutes...that's the point.

But here we have a passage in the Bible where Paul is basically saying that if a man believes that it's sinful to eat meat sacrificed to idols, then for him it is sin, even though it is not a sin for Paul himself to eat. He also says that, while it's not a sin for Paul to eat the meat, if he ate it in front of this weak brother, it would become sin.

The relative truths are:

1) Eating meat sacrificed to idols is fine

and

2) Eating meat sacrificed to idols is bad.

And this would just be incorrect my friend. ;) It ignores what is called, the "universe of discourse". The statements are correctly stated as:

1) Eating meat sacrificed to idols is fine when it does not cause a weaker brother to stumble.

2) Eating meat sacrificed to idols is a sin when it causes a weaker brother to stumble.

It is necessary to properly state the truth statement. You were inferring the above in your explanation, but you were not properly forming the propositions of the explanation.

The governing absolute truths are:

1) Doing anything that causes your brother to stumble in his faith is wrong.
2) Doing anything that goes against the faith and knowledge that you presently possess is unhealthy and causes you to sin in your own mind.

The statements are correct. And I believe we actually believe the same thing about this issue...but IMHO (and I believe that Aristotle would agree here ;)), you have mistated the earlier propositions and labled them as "relative statements". And logically, this is simply incorrect.

Symantix

April 14th, 2004, 07:54 AM

ROFL...okay, okay. Actually, I do agree with you. I never really thought truth was relative. I just wanted to see if I could mess with you. ;)

Withnail

April 14th, 2004, 08:28 AM

Excellent discourse gentlemen.

Can I call "reality" truth? Or would I have to say a "truthful" reality?

Apokalupsis

April 14th, 2004, 08:48 AM

Depends upon what you are wanting to refer to. ;)

Reality is true, yes (but not necessarily "truth"). Reality doesn't necessarily have to be truthful (I say this loosely). Example: you could be in reality, a liar. eg That which you state is untrue. So we need to determine which you would refer to here.

The statements you make are untruthful in reality...they are real statements, but untruthful. But on the other hand, you being a liar (assuming for this scenerio you are) is a reality, so it is truthful to state that you are one.

To brush the wordplay away...always keep in mind 1 thing about the nature of truth: it is what corresponds to reality. When it correctly corresponds to reality...you have a truth. When it does not...you have a falsity.

Withnail

April 14th, 2004, 09:03 AM

To brush the wordplay away...always keep in mind 1 thing about the nature of truth: it is what corresponds to reality. When it correctly corresponds to reality...you have a truth. When it does not...you have a falsity.

I'm just trying to simplify defintions here. In terms of "absolutes".
Can we simplify this? I would think that "absolute truth" would be the same thing as "absolute reality", and that the terms here could be interchangeable.

Hint: I'm trying to toss "supernatural" into the mix.

Apokalupsis

April 14th, 2004, 09:08 AM

Absolute truth is correspondent to reality. Reality is true. There are many "truths", there is no such 1 "truth". You can say that reality is a truth...but I do not agree that reality is the truth. It implies there is 1 and only 1 truth. There are many truths. But this may not be what you are getting at...so....

As far as terms being interchangeable, what do you mean? Can you give an example? Be specific?

Withnail

April 14th, 2004, 09:23 AM

You seem to be interchanging the terms yourself.

If there are many truths, could they contradict each other?

Could you say that "absolute truth" as a concept would be the totality of all "truths" such as they do not contradict each other?

Symantix

April 14th, 2004, 09:29 AM

Could you say that "absolute truth" as a concept would be the totality of all "truths" such as they do not contradict each other?I think one could say that. Again, we are playing with words, but with a goal of better understanding, so that's cool.

You could accurately equate absolute truth with "order", i.e. the order of reality. Non-truth, by its very nature, is "disorder" or "chaos". Therefore, absolute truth never contradicts itself, because that is the nature of order. Disorder, by its very nature, constantly contradicts itself; that is why non-truth can never stand when contrasted with truth.

Apokalupsis

April 14th, 2004, 09:58 AM

You seem to be interchanging the terms yourself.
How so? And what terms are we referring to here?

If there are many truths, could they contradict each other?
No. Give me an example, I'll show you how this is a logical impossibility.

Could you say that "absolute truth" as a concept would be the totality of all "truths" such as they do not contradict each other?
No. This still tries to reduce all truths, down under 1 giant truth. Absolute truth is a truism for all people, in all places, in all times.

A single truth, is a belief, perception, claim, statement, etc...that corresponds to reality...or what "really is". As such, we have: 1) incorrect beliefs, 2) correct beliefs, 3) unproveable beliefs (in respect to reality correspondence).

Withnail

April 14th, 2004, 08:56 PM

A single truth, is a belief, perception, claim, statement, etc...that corresponds to reality...or what "really is". As such, we have: 1) incorrect beliefs, 2) correct beliefs, 3) unproveable beliefs (in respect to reality correspondence).

Understood. This just reminded me of an old Robin Williams album I used to love called "Reality, what a concept!"

Let me know if this is another thread, or on another thread.

If something is "supernatural" it exists beyond what is understood to be "reality" by definition. If something does not correspond with reality it can not be truth. How then can something agreed to be "supernatural" be truth?

FruitandNut

April 14th, 2004, 10:34 PM

Okay, We frail and 'relatively' ignorant humans exist with some sort of grasp what is asolute. But we cannot escape from living a 'percieved' existence, because it is through our 'irrational' mind's eye that we 'see' or 'percieve' our world.

Some people 'know' they have 'percieved' an absolute, others, myself included, 'hope' we spot one now and then.

I am a Popperian in thought, that for the most, it is theory that will eventually decay, only to be replaced by new theories. (Theories are 'percieved' as right and appear to work, and have hijacked the word 'truth', whether absolutists like it or not) - (Much like all vucuum cleaners may be called Hoovers) - (Or the the way you Americans spell flavour/ flavor). If language itself is 'fluid' and we 'percieve' through language, need I say more?

Then there are hypotheses that may linger longer because they do not have to be dissected on the lab. bench before being 'accepted' as part of personal comprehension of meaning.

The absolute truth is that we find the absolute truth contentious to define. It 'appears' as a beast with many heads. 'Our heads'.