What is truth?

[Terrapin Station]

We interpret things outside out mind, true. They are constructs; a negotiation between the mental and what you can infer is outside your mind. This is the essence of the subject/object dichotomy. For objective statements to be made it always requires comparison and reference to other's view points.
Until your construct is compared with members of your language community you have no objectivity.

You're just fleshing out your view more, though. You're not supporting it. There's a difference.

If I were to similarly flesh out my view in contradistinction, I'd say:

"We don't 'interpret' things outside of our minds, we can observe them, but personally and instrumentally. We of course have conceptual constructs about things, but objective things are not identical to our concepts of them. It's important not to conflate the two. The subject/object distinction is simply a distinction of phenomena that occur in brains when they're in mental states and phenomena that occur outside of brains in mental states. There are no objective statements in the sense of objectivity being a property of the statement (noting that meanings are necessary for something to be a statement), but statements can be about objective things. Objectivity has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing with other people."

So that's just the same issues from my viewpoint. What I had inquired about, however, was a support for your viewpoint being right and mine being wrong.

[Terrapin Station]

And on your view, where objectivity is obvious, I can know for sure that I do have eyes etc. And on examining them I find that they work by sending electrical signals along my nerves.

That's all fine (well, aside from the fact that it's not strictly just "electric signals," but the details of that aren't important in a conversation like this).

Therefore, I know the things I see like trees must be reconstructed in my brain from these electrical signals.

However, if you reach a conclusion that you can't actually observe trees, where you're observing something that's not just your own mind, then you have to realize that you royally fncked up somewhere in your conclusions, because if that's the case, you couldn't observe eyes and nerves in the first place to reach the conclusion.

Let's clear this part up first, then we'll move on with the rest.

[Hobbes' Choice]

We interpret things outside out mind, true. They are constructs; a negotiation between the mental and what you can infer is outside your mind. This is the essence of the subject/object dichotomy. For objective statements to be made it always requires comparison and reference to other's view points.
Until your construct is compared with members of your language community you have no objectivity.

You're just fleshing out your view more, though. You're not supporting it. There's a difference.

If I were to similarly flesh out my view in contradistinction, I'd say:

"We don't 'interpret' things outside of our minds, we can observe them, but personally and instrumentally..

That is saying the same thing. Observing personally and instrumentally is basically interpreting what use that thing is to you; how it fits with your life and narrative.
The bushman that observes a Coke bottle thrown from a passing aeroplane cannot observe the same thing you do, but interprets it as a gift from the gods.
If observation were obvious and simple we'd all see the same thing; we do not.

[Terrapin Station]

That is saying the same thing. Observing personally and instrumentally is basically interpreting what use that thing is to you; how it fits with your life and narrative.
The bushman that observes a Coke bottle thrown from a passing aeroplane cannot observe the same thing you do, but interprets it as a gift from the gods.
If observation were obvious and simple we'd all see the same thing; we do not.

That''s weird, I honestly don't have the slightest memory of typing "but personally and instrumentally." I must have had some idea that I didn't finish typing out completely, because I don't know what I meant. (I was trying to listen to someone talking while I was typing, which isn't generally a good idea, haha.)

Anyway, what's at issue is whether the bushman can observe a coke bottle. I say he can.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"For any statement to contain either truth or to speak of reality, both reality and truth must agree. "
Spheresofbalance
Agreed! So you agree that truth and reality are not two words for the same thing.
NOT AT ALL. YOU ARE SEVERELY CONFUSED! I'm saying that when people 'present' something as either true, real, or factual and it disagrees with one of the others, that you know is the case, then what they have presented can't be the case. Because in all cases all three are the exact same thing.

If someone presents a fact then you know it was both real and true.
If someone presents a truth then you know it was both real and a fact.
If someone presents something real then you know it was both a fact and true.
They are synonymous, it doesn't matter how RT or anyone else presents them.

They must agree! That implies that they are two different things.
No it implies that people either lie, or are mistaken.

To say that something agrees with itself is a tautology.
To say that truth = reality is like saying that all dogs are dogs.
Nope it's like saying that all dogs are Canidae's

That doesn't help us understand what a dog is.
Yes it does, it's like saying that Raw Thought is a human, they are synonymous.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"Truth is taken to be a property of propositions."
Terrapin Station
Agreed! Spheres is not using the terms properly.

Yes I am, you just want to split hairs as if there is difference where there is none. Humans have created a lot of redundant words to appease the masses.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"We say "2+5=23 is not the truth."
This second one is both the truth and the reality"
Spheresofbalance
Please explain how 2+5=23.

You changed the quote here is the original:
"We say "2+5=23 is not the truth."
It is true and the reality that "2+5=23 is not the truth."

[SpheresOfBalance]

"Truth can only ever agree with reality! "
Spheresofbalance
Agreed! A proposition must agree with reality for it to be truthful. However, that does not mean that a statement about reality and the actual reality are the same thing. The concept "dog" is different then an actual dog. The concept "dog" is an abstraction. An actual dog is a tangible reality.
Duh! Quit changing the subject, we're either talking about human language versus reality/truth/facts or
reality versus truth;
reality versus facts;
truth versus facts;
which are all synonymous.

What you are doing is self-aggrandizing hogwash.
No it's you that are guilty of self-aggrandizing hogwash, try and keep up.

Taking an obvious and accepted ( by the entire philosophical community, remember this is a philosophy site) definition of truth and trying to show your superiority by making it into a pseudo-spiritual quest. Yes, we get it reality is real!
That's not what I said! I said that truth, fact and reality are one in the same thing.

Which I find ironic because my current interest is Zen. The direct perception of reality without the intermediary of concepts and symbols.
That's impossible, unless you're an infant only just born! Once you've been taught language and symbols, too late!

However, I keep my spiritual interests separate from philosophy. Spirituality is experience based. Philosophy is concept based.
That's idiotic, as concepts can only ever be a product of experience.(PERIOD)

You must be very young or extremely naive for you to believe as you do. You're so confused it's unreal!

[SpheresOfBalance]

BTW, Truth has a specific definition. For example in logic truth does not = validity.
Here is a valid argument that lacks truth.
1. All Martians eat snakes.
2. Bob is a Martian.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Here is a true but invalid argument.
1. Carter was president.
2. Nixon was president.
3. therefore, W. Bush was president.

Good job, you're finally correct!

[SpheresOfBalance]

SoB,

I believe you (and me) are wasting time here. When 'philosophers' start pickin' at nits (futzin' around with details instead of addressin' the matter at hand), and 'lecturing', the conversation is over. I predict this thread can go on for another thirty or forty pages and not move one jot from where it is right now. Backnforth, backnforth, backnforth, and when the thread peters out, nuthin' will be decided, acknowledged, or conceded. You may have the time to piss away on such shenanigans, but I don't.

I hear you HQ. The way I see it, truth has, is and probably shall always be, picked apart because humans don't want to face it. Because of the want of selfish gains, they'd rather attempt to manipulate it, to serve their purpose. What better way in their minds than to question it relative to facts and reality. Truth, reality and facts are the actuality of things from the universal perspective, if people accept them, they can feel trapped and guilty, and they can't have that impeding the objectives of their selfish wants and desires. The good people of the earth crave to be honest with themselves concerning themselves and others, not fearful of recognizing their or others faults. Unfortunately there are many that are not quite that way, hence the argument about truth, fact and reality.

Ontology is all about defining things so we can speak as accurately as possible, here's a couple quotes I found on wikipedia that sums it up in my mind:

"Although ontology as a philosophical enterprise is highly theoretical..."

And as to this topic: "What is Truth?"

"The question of What is? is at least partially a topic in the philosophy of language, and is not entirely about ontology itself."

As you hint at, those involved here, are largely mashing words together that they don't fully understand, or should I say, they've gotten lost in the concepts, such that they often spout falsehoods without ever realizing it.

Of course to my mind, "truth is all that matters!"

[SpheresOfBalance]

UMMM Spheres was picking at nits. We simply were discussing "truth" ( um this is a philosophy site) and spheres got in a tizzy fit because he wanted to change the definitions of words.

No, I provided the definitions of words, as per the dictionary, which causes me to believe that you're delusional!

[SpheresOfBalance]

It's maybe not easy to understand this if you don't have (memory of) an adequate background in philosophy, but if you're interested in philosophy, and hopefully you would be if you're frequenting this board, it's worth taking the time to understand (and I'm happy to explain any of it in more detail to aid understanding). It wouldn't make any sense to me to not want to be educated about a field one is supposedly interested in.

Well put. Spheres and Henry are on a philosophy site and yet criticize people for talking philosophy!

Yet only fools believe that individuals committed to any particular subject of study are not infallible.

One of my professors said as much, he said that college not only teaches one what to believe, but also what not to believe.

You know what's funny? One of my philosophy professors actually used the, so called thought experiment, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?," so as to raise questions about observation and knowledge of reality. I just laughed inside, as it does no such thing. What he didn't realize was that I worked with sound for 16 years with the US DOD, before attending college, so taking the so called thought experiment verbatim, it was clear to me that it would only astound a few 18 year old's fresh out of high school. I saw it for the bullshit it was immediately. And that happened over and over again as I attended philosophy class's. I practically had a technical degree before I ever attended college, thanks to the US DOD training me to work in/on/around a squadron of multi-million dollar aircraft.

[Terrapin Station]

Yet only fools believe that individuals committed to any particular subject of study are not infallible.

Would you say then that people who are not fools believe that individuals committed to a particular subject of study are infallible?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Its funny how the debate went. First Spheres and henry try to redefine words and then when they are caught at it, they say that this debate about definitions is nit picking! Well, if you had not used unconventional definitions this nit picking would have never begun. When people can define a word any way they want it becomes meaningless.

You're obviously an idiot because I did no such thing. It's you that don't know the meanings of words, nor do you have the ability to think for yourself. The definitions were straight out of the dictionary, in fact, the truth is, the reality is, the actuality is that they were those definitions that pertained specifically to philosophy, you imbecile!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Its too bad that you and spheres have turned an interesting debate about truth into silly semantics. Even if your definition of truth is better then the conventional definition of truth, it still means that there cannot be any discussion as to how we can identify truth. If truth is not the relation of propositions to reality then there is no way to tell if a statement is true or false.

You are an idiot because the title of your thread asks, "What is Truth," not, 'How Can We Identify Truth?' They are two different things.