personal truth

[Lacewing]

People think things that may or may not be true, so what they think they KNOW as "truth" may be false.

We agree on that. But so what?

See below.

You seem to think that truth is somehow independent from human perspective and thought?

Yes, I do. But I don't merely "think" it, it's manifestly true. As I say, if somebody jumps off a cliff, it's of no value whatsoever that she does not believe in gravity. She will die, all the same. That's truth. That's reality. What somebody "knows" or "thinks she knows" about it will not change one thing about reality.

I see what you're saying, however you seem to be focusing on a certain slant that misses/distorts what I'm pointing to.

Here's another angle on what I'm referring to, as presented by Walker:

A human body cannot see the whole elephant and can touch even less than it sees.

...the part of the elephant that can be touched is the “personal truth.”

One's idea/thought of truth is based on what they can see and understand. If their thoughts are false, then their idea of "truth" is false. And there is always more than what they can see and understand. I'm not talking about ignoring obvious physical laws/effects via some great pretense of a personal truth.

Some (rightly) acknowledge that their beliefs might only be true to/for them.

A belief that only one person believes may turn out to be true, or may turn out to be false. But it is reality that will make the difference. Her opinion will make nothing true that is not already objectively true.

I'm not talking about one person's "truth" ignoring all else. I'm talking about "truth" being more than any one person's view.

You have often spoken about what you see as truths, and you are adamant about it. You dismiss challenges or other considerations, without looking more broadly.

You're mistaking my belief in truth for some sort of assertion that I have the absolute truth about everything.

No, it's that you claim you know the absolute truth about what you claim to know as truth (which is typically and clearly limited and unverifiable). Whether you're talking about a god or atheists, or whatever appears to elevate/glorify your position/self/opinion. You dismiss reasonable responses and questions as "irrelevant" -- not because they are, but because they don't fit your model/agenda. That demonstrates self-serving and closed-minded characteristics... and that's not an ad hominem, it's an observation about your methodology.

my beliefs will only be true if reality conforms to what those beliefs are. If reality does not, then my beliefs will be false...just as anyone's will be.

Agreed.

Doesn't it seem odd to be so adamant about beliefs/claims that reality has not confirmed to be true, and may not until you're dead?

[Lacewing]

no you are trying to say its not truth unless you know it

No, I'm not saying that at all.

I don't know how you came up with that.

yea you're right i was out there, it could be from another discussion we had.

No, it's not from another discussion we had because I simply don't think that way.

[Lacewing]

Yes. I think they want to attach the dignity of a solid, objective truth to a mere opinion. And in this case, it's an opinion that others find reason to doubt...because otherwise, why call it a "personal truth," instead of just "truth"?

The "personal" part is supposed to shield the claim and give it immunity from inspection for its actual truth value. It's supposed to lift the claim above criticism...but does nothing to prove it's actually true, even if the person speaking it genuinely believes it.

preach it brother

Let's look at these statements...

> I think they want to attach the dignity of a solid, objective truth to a mere opinion.

Do you both think your beliefs are beyond mere opinion, and that calling them "truth" attaches the dignity of a solid, objective truth?

> it's an opinion that others find reason to doubt...because otherwise, why call it a "personal truth," instead of just "truth"?

Do you think your opinions are beyond doubt...otherwise, you wouldn't insist they are the truth?

There is nothing wrong with the terminology and the concept, despite your arrogant efforts to distort it... as if your ideas of truth are greater.

> The "personal" part is supposed to shield the claim and give it immunity from inspection for its actual truth value.

Your "truth" claims are supposed to shield your claims and give them immunity from inspection for actual truth value.

> It's supposed to lift the claim above criticism...but does nothing to prove it's actually true, even if the person speaking it genuinely believes it.

This applies to your own claims.

Both of you are being ridiculous not to notice how this applies to you.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm talking about "truth" being more than any one person's view.

Then we're agreeing. One person's view is not "truth." So "personal truth" is an oxymoron.

...you know the absolute truth...

I have not made this claim. If you think I have, perhaps you can show me where.

Doesn't it seem odd to be so adamant about beliefs/claims that reality has not confirmed to be true, and may not until you're dead?

Well, one thing for sure: we're all going to die. So it's not like you and I have the luxury of sitting out a decision about what that means; we're both going to face it. So, as a starter, you're going to have to decide whether you believe death ends all, or not. And your answer to that is going to make a huge difference.

There's no avoiding that decision, since you and I are inevitably going there. So what are you going to use as a source of information to help you make that decision? Or are you going to leave it to chance? Either way, you're not going to escape it...that much we know for sure.

[Skepdick]

Yes. I think they want to attach the dignity of a solid, objective truth to a mere opinion. And in this case, it's an opinion that others find reason to doubt...because otherwise, why call it a "personal truth," instead of just "truth"?

Personal truth. Truth.

Same thing. Interpretation.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes. I think they want to attach the dignity of a solid, objective truth to a mere opinion. And in this case, it's an opinion that others find reason to doubt...because otherwise, why call it a "personal truth," instead of just "truth"?

Personal truth. Truth.

Same thing. Interpretation.

Well, "gravity attracts things," "Caesar crossed the Rubicon," or "cyanide can kill you" are not interpretations. They're just plain truths.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes. I think they want to attach the dignity of a solid, objective truth to a mere opinion. And in this case, it's an opinion that others find reason to doubt...because otherwise, why call it a "personal truth," instead of just "truth"?

Personal truth. Truth.

Same thing. Interpretation.

Well, "gravity attracts things," "Caesar crossed the Rubicon," or "cyanide can kill you" are not interpretations. They're just plain truths.

The states of affairs aren't interpretations, but for reasons that I noted above, it's not usually states of affairs that we say are true, because then what's false? There's not something akin to states of affairs that somehow obtain but that are false.

[Immanuel Can]

The states of affairs aren't interpretations, but for reasons that I noted above, it's not usually states of affairs that we say are true, because then what's false? There's not something akin to states of affairs that somehow obtain but that are false.

Well, we can certainly say that "Cyanide cannot kill you" and "Caesar never crossed the Rubicon" are false.

I guess the question becomes, "What is a 'state of affairs'?"

And at what point does a thing stop being a "state of affairs," and start being an "opinion"?

[Lacewing]

Well, one thing for sure: we're all going to die. So it's not like you and I have the luxury of sitting out a decision about what that means; we're both going to face it. So, as a starter, you're going to have to decide whether you believe death ends all, or not.

How would a human decision matter in regard to that?

And your answer to that is going to make a huge difference.

How? When?

There's no avoiding that decision, since you and I are inevitably going there.

Is this some more absolute truth that you claim you don't claim?

So what are you going to use as a source of information to help you make that decision? Or are you going to leave it to chance?

WHAT exactly, and how much, do you think you can affect beyond your life? You can tell yourself stories about it, but why would you think that changes anything?

Either way, you're not going to escape it...that much we know for sure.

This body dying? Or are you talking about something else?

What absolute truth do you think you know that exists beyond death?

[Skepdick]

Well, "gravity attracts things", "Caesar crossed the Rubicon," or "cyanide can kill you" are not interpretations. They're just plain truths.

What do you mean by "truth" and "true"? I mean "Logical truth"

True in all interpretations

[Immanuel Can]

Well, one thing for sure: we're all going to die. So it's not like you and I have the luxury of sitting out a decision about what that means; we're both going to face it. So, as a starter, you're going to have to decide whether you believe death ends all, or not.

How would a human decision matter in regard to that?

"No decision" IS a decision, in that case. It's a decision to do nothing in view of death, and "let the chips fall where they may."

And your answer to that is going to make a huge difference.

How? When?

At death, obviously. Now, if there's nothing after death, neither you nor I will know it. And what we do right now makes no difference at all.

But what if there is...?

There's no avoiding that decision, since you and I are inevitably going there.

Is this some more absolute truth that you claim you don't claim?

It's a truth you know.

So what are you going to use as a source of information to help you make that decision? Or are you going to leave it to chance?

WHAT exactly, and how much, do you think you can affect beyond your life? [/quote]
Well, if this life is just an accident in the middle of an indifferent cosmos, then nothing. But if this world is what I think it is, the stage upon which human free will is demonstrated and validated by God, then what you do here and now makes all the difference...not just now, but forever.

Either way, you're not going to escape it...that much we know for sure.

This body dying?

Do you believe there's anything more than "the body"?

What absolute truth do you think you know that exists beyond death?

I have no special access...but if God desires to tell us what's coming, why couldn't He?

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean by "truth" and "true"? I mean "Logical truth"

I mean "accurate to reality, regardless of one's interpretation." So one can be logical and wrong.

[Skepdick]

I mean "accurate to reality, regardless of one's interpretation." So one can be logical and wrong.

So who interprets the "accuracy" and "wrongness" of statements ?

[Immanuel Can]

I mean "accurate to reality, regardless of one's interpretation." So one can be logical and wrong.

So who interprets the "accuracy" and "wrongness" of statements ?

Reality decided, and humans interpret. But their interpretations are only any good if they conform to reality already.

So, for instance, if one thinks "cyanide can't kill" is "not accurate," what difference does it make? If a person happens not to know whether or not Caesar crossed the Rubicon, does it mean he can't have done it until we believe he did? And when we do believe it, will our change of heart pull Caesar across the Rubicon? Of course not.

That's the idea.

[Terrapin Station]

The states of affairs aren't interpretations, but for reasons that I noted above, it's not usually states of affairs that we say are true, because then what's false? There's not something akin to states of affairs that somehow obtain but that are false.

Well, we can certainly say that "Cyanide cannot kill you" and "Caesar never crossed the Rubicon" are false.

I guess the question becomes, "What is a 'state of affairs'?"

And at what point does a thing stop being a "state of affairs," and start being an "opinion"?

A state of affairs is some set of dynamic relations of matter.

"Cyanide can not kill you" is false, right, but what that amounts to is that the proposition in question (that is, the meaning of the sentence "Cyanide can not kill you") doesn't match (on correspondence theory, otherwise it's not useful for on pragmatic theory, and so on for different truth theories) states of affairs that obtain, per a judgment about the relationship of the meaning to observations of states of affairs (or to assessments of usefulness on pragmatic theory, and so on).

Thus if we say that truth amounts to simply saying that some state of affairs is the state of affairs that it is, we wind up having to say that falsehood is a completely different sort of thing ontologically, which doesn't make sense given that we're talking about a modal distinction (truth versus falsehood).