personal truth

[Lacewing]

I, myself, do not use the phrase/term personal truth. But I can see why other people might... very reasonably. Just like I can understand why some Christians might do what they do. Those of you who are being big baby dicks about it sure seem to think that anyone different from yourself must be wrong. WTF are you doing on a philosophy forum when you're too shallow to understand other viewpoints?

[Immanuel Can]

The negation of x is not-x, right?

Do you mean in mathematics, or in language?

In language, "negation" can mean things like "lack of," "absence of," or "denial of," or even "affirmation," if it's of a contradictory hypothesis. When we speak of a falsehood being a "negation" of a truth, we don't necessarily mean its exact opposite at all. What we mean, rather, is that it is one of the many things that could constitute a denial of the proposition in question.

So, for example, if the proposition is,
"Edison invented the light bulb,"
then a falsehood of that, a "negation," if you will, would be
"Edison did not invent the light bulb."
But
"Franklin invented the light bulb" would be another.
So would "The light bulb has not been invented,"
And so would be "Edison will invent the light bulb tomorrow."

So in language, "negation" does not entail one thing, that thing being the exact opposite of the thing being proposed. Falsehoods have many routes.

[Immanuel Can]

...in a non-God world it doesn't. In fact, nothing genuinely "matters," because even "mattering" is merely the contingent assessment by moribund creatures.

...Well, if this life is nothing...

It is interesting how you frame things in such dark terms, as if to suggest that, compared to your beliefs: a) there is no other reasonable or wonderfully natural potential,

I'm listening. What's the "wonderful, natural potential" of which you speak?

Either this life means something, or it means nothing. There's no middle state there. But if you mean, could I life "mean" different things?

Life can mean different things to different people.

You're mistaking the claim, "People want to give life a meaning," for the claim, "Life has its own, intrinsic meaning." As to the former, people can, and do, believe many things. But the truth will be only one thing, if life has its own, intrinsic meaning. And some of what people desire to think will necessarily be false, since mutually contradictory propositions cannot be simultaneously true.

So, one absolute truth you believe is that there is a god?

Certainly.

So, this is the imprint you place over everything as you deny the existence of any other potential or value. And any alternative suggestions or insights are dismissed and called irrelevant by you....

So you say. But I'm listening. Tell me what you think you know.

[Immanuel Can]

The issue is that you don't know whether it's cyanide or tea.

That doesn't actually change anything about reality. It might only change your choices. If you don't drink it, it will still be what it is. If you do drink it, it will still be what it is.

Tea will not poison you if you believe it's cyanide, and cyanide will not pass harmlessly through you if you believe it's tea.

[Skepdick]

That doesn't actually change anything about reality. It might only change your choices.

Uhhh, so it doesn't change anything about reality, except the things about reality that it changes? Ok then!

If you don't drink it, it will still be what it is. If you do drink it, it will still be what it is.

Everything is what it is. Everything isn't what it isn't.

That's no useful theory at all! It does no work for you. Yo could have not said that and we would've been none the poorer.

Tea will not poison you if you believe it's cyanide, and cyanide will not pass harmlessly through you if you believe it's tea.

Neither will do anything if I don't ingest them.

And so my choice remains: Do I drink this unidentified liquid?

[Terrapin Station]

The negation of x is not-x, right?

Do you mean in mathematics, or in language?

In general, it doesn't matter what we're talking about.

So, for example, if the proposition is,
"Edison invented the light bulb,"
then a falsehood of that, a "negation," if you will, would be
"Edison did not invent the light bulb."
But
"Franklin invented the light bulb" would be another.
So would "The light bulb has not been invented,"
And so would be "Edison will invent the light bulb tomorrow."

So in language, "negation" does not entail one thing, that thing being the exact opposite of the thing being proposed. Falsehoods have many routes.

Those would only count as negations because they imply not-"Edison invented the light bulb." Otherwise they wouldn't be negations at all.

So, the negation of x is not-x, right?

[Skepdick]

So, the negation of x is not-x, right?

It really depends on what you mean by negation.

When you are dealing with Booleans negation is a trivial computation: not(True) -> False. not(False) -> True.

When you are dealing with more complex constructs it's not trivial. What's not(Rabbit) ?

[Immanuel Can]

So, the negation of x is not-x, right?

I answered: in mathematics, yes. In language, no.

[Terrapin Station]

So, the negation of x is not-x, right?

I answered: in mathematics, yes. In language, no.

Okay. and re language, you're not commenting on, "Those would only count as negations because they imply not-'Edison invented the light bulb.'"

Are you disagreeing with that?

[Immanuel Can]

So, the negation of x is not-x, right?

I answered: in mathematics, yes. In language, no.

Okay. and re language, you're not commenting on, "Those would only count as negations because they imply not-'Edison invented the light bulb.'"

Are you disagreeing with that?

They're all denials of the claim that Edison invented the light bulb. Whether we want to call them "negations" or not depends on whether we're using a metaphor from mathematics or not. If we're not, we can call them "denials," or "falsehoods," or "contradictions," or whatever.

Unlike in a maths equation, they don't literally "negate" the claim that Edison invented the light bulb, reducing it to zero, because the fact remains that if Edison invented the light bulb, then Edison will have invented it no matter what those claims say. So, in that sense, they are not capable of "negating" that claim, because if the claim is true then it will be true regardless of the content of the contrary claims.

[Lacewing]

It is interesting how you frame things in such dark terms, as if to suggest that, compared to your beliefs: a) there is no other reasonable or wonderfully natural potential,

I'm listening. What's the "wonderful, natural potential" of which you speak?

When I look at nature and the amazing ongoing creative flow in this Universe, I do not imagine a god -- rather, it makes more sense to me that the entire vast interconnected system/whole is doing what can be seen on a smaller scale throughout nature. Such as... evolving, expanding/exploring, experiencing, interacting, sharing information, and its many parts working together. It does not make sense to me that it would be modeled on, or focused on, humans. Rather, we humans are just one manifestation of an energetic whole in constant motion, with our apparent physical parts that "live" and "die" and make up stories. It's fantastic.

I do not need reassurance that I will live again or have some kind of "afterlife" or reward. I am part of a whole, and I do not need to know "why" -- I simply play along and enjoy it. Nor do I need to be reassured that I am good or worthy -- I already see/feel it. So I am wary of human stories that make claims to the contrary. Egos are very controlling and distorting... to play the games they want to play. Such games are not my favorite activity to engage in... but they do seem to serve in expanding one's skills and insights in moving beyond them.

You're mistaking the claim, "People want to give life a meaning," for the claim, "Life has its own, intrinsic meaning."

You often accuse people of mistaking one thing for another... as if everything is defined by your own beliefs. Perhaps it is you who is mistaken because you can't see beyond your limits.

...people can, and do, believe many things. But the truth will be only one thing, if life has its own, intrinsic meaning.

IF. More of your "if" statements. Imagination-fueled stories based on "ifs".

So, this is the imprint you place over everything as you deny the existence of any other potential or value. And any alternative suggestions or insights are dismissed and called irrelevant by you....

So you say. But I'm listening. Tell me what you think you know.

I’m not claiming to know. I am telling you what makes sense to me based on what I’ve observed and experienced. The natural world seems more true than human stories. Human stories seem obviously geared to serve humans –- often elevating and dividing to position some humans above supposed “others”. That doesn’t make sense –- it seems very contracted and dense -- when there’s so much more to be observed and considered. This is clearly not the only potential/option for how humans can use their energy and/or how they can experience their part in the whole. So, I see no good reason to subscribe to such limitations.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm listening. What's the "wonderful, natural potential" of which you speak?

When I look at nature and the amazing ongoing creative flow in this Universe, I do not imagine a god -- rather, it makes more sense to me that the entire vast interconnected system/whole is doing what can be seen on a smaller scale throughout nature. Such as... evolving, expanding/exploring, experiencing, interacting, sharing information, and its many parts working together. It does not make sense to me that it would be modeled on, or focused on, humans. Rather, we humans are just one manifestation of an energetic whole in constant motion, with our apparent physical parts that "live" and "die" and make up stories. It's fantastic.

Thanks for sharing that. You make a winsome summary of it.

At the same time, it makes me pensive. It's always interesting to me how, in retellings like this, the ecstatic and teleological get mixed in with a set of suppositions that can only argue for the inherent meaninglessness of the universe. For if it is true that all there is is "nature," then terms like "creative," "exploring," "experiencing," "sharing" and "working together," to say nothing of such concepts as "being worthy" and "being good," are mere anthropomorphisms. An unintelligent and impersonal "nature" knows nothing of them, and does not have them inherent in it: it's not even capable of such rhapsodies.

So I cannot help but sense that there is some sort of projection going on in such descriptions. Human beings, who, (for some reason this "nature" narrative cannot help us understand) have a compulsion to see meaning where there is inherently none, are projecting this longing onto a universe that, in the "nature" narrative, has no interest whatsoever in it, and is not capable of being interested. The poetic language is apparently indeed a kind of attempt to "reassure" oneself that the abyss of "nature" is not so black and indifferent as might be expected, based on a merely Material universe, but is somehow magically purposive, directional, and even benevolent to human aspirations, in this telling of the story.

But can the suppositions warrant the optimism? Can the suppositions explain or justify the anthropomorphisms? It seems evident to me that there's no way they can. If all we are is Materials in a physical world, then our destiny is heat death, and all "meaning" is just a projection of human confusions on an inherently meaningless natural screen.

But I get it. Human beings need to have meaning, even when there's nothing in their worldview to warrant it. Living with the realization that nature is not loving or caring, and that it has no teleology, no reliable direction, no purpose and no meaning is just too cold for human beings, because they were created inherently for relationship with their Creator; absent that, they must project something to fill that gap. Perhaps, then, that's evidence of a longing for God, for truth and for meaning that is basic to human constitution and ultimately cannot be denied.

But as a compensating strategy, projecting meaning on indifferent matter seems to me that it's a formula for cognitive dissonance. One can only end up with a kind of schizophrenic desire to see meaning where, in fact, one knows there is and can be none. Even if such a thing is temporarily pacifying, it's not ultimately going to be satisfactory to logic or reason, if those come into play. At the bottom, one must know that no such qualities can belong in a merely material universe.

You're mistaking the claim, "People want to give life a meaning," for the claim, "Life has its own, intrinsic meaning."

Perhaps it is you who is mistaken because you can't see beyond your limits.

No; the two are actually different. Thing about those two concepts carefully, and you'll see.

...people can, and do, believe many things. But the truth will be only one thing, if life has its own, intrinsic meaning.

IF. More of your "if" statements. Imagination-fueled stories based on "ifs".

"If" is just a way of being kind to the other side. I could say "since," and I would say "since." But in the wording I chose, I wanted to acknowledge your right to hypothesize both ways.

I’m not claiming to know. I am telling you what makes sense to me based on what I’ve observed and experienced. The natural world seems more true than human stories. Human stories seem obviously geared to serve humans –- often elevating and dividing to position some humans above supposed “others”. That doesn’t make sense –- it seems very contracted and dense -- when there’s so much more to be observed and considered. This is clearly not the only potential/option for how humans can use their energy and/or how they can experience their part in the whole. So, I see no good reason to subscribe to such limitations.

Well, the story that nature is all there is, is also a "story." So now you're not avoiding "human stories," but rather selecting one among them to favour. And I don't suggest you don't favour one: for no matter how many "stories" human beings produce, it's quite possible that one among them is actually true. And I suggest that one of them is: but it may not be the one you happen to be choosing.

However, if you "see no good reason" to believe anything but the nature "story," then I wouldn't say you should believe otherwise. We should all opt to pick the "story" that seems most true, of course; and there's no actual value in a "belief" one doesn't actually "believe" is true.

I would only add this caveat: that there may well be reasons you have not yet encountered.

[DPMartin]

its seems to be fashionable now to redefine personal knowledge as personal truth. turning what i know or have experienced isn't what you know or have experience in to "truth is relative". and converting that into if it isn't known, then its not true.

Seems to me: what is true is that which is real. Don't know how what's real to one isn't real to everyone else.

A campfire, for example: Joe, who was burned badly as a child, fears fire as an adult, while Carol, taught by her parents that fire is a useful, powerful tool, has no such fear.

The fire is real, is true, for both, but their beliefs regarding fire differ.

Personal truth, then, seems, to me to a new agey, tree huggy, crystal rubby, way of talkin' about belief.

I believe fire is bad doesn't have the same umph as My personal truth is fire is bad.

We can question the first, but are ourselves bad if we question the second.

In other words: personal truth is horse manure.

correct-a-mundo

[DPMartin]

that's not really judgement though i can see how you see it that way, its acknowledgment. one can see or hear the truth and acknowledge or deny. one doesn't judge whether or not some thing is true or a fact, one acknowledges or denies the truth because the truth is the truth without judgement.

It's a judgment or assessment, and fairly vague at that, because meaning is not at all the same sort of thing as what we're assessing a "match" to. The cat being on the mat, and the observation of the same, isn't the same thing as the meaning of "The cat is on the mat," which is rather a unique sort of associative act that we perform.

why do you think that might be? for example, naming is a basic human function, that nothing else does. granted we might be able to teach some animals a limited scope but naming is needed function for mankind that animals can do without, and don't really seek to do.

[DPMartin]

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.

so you're saying that if I say, the ocean is water with things in it, then that's my opinion? or is it really water with things in it and that is simply the truth that i have convened to you via words.

facts perceived correctly is one thing, and perception do to personal experience can be another which is not the truth only a preconceived notion of a thing do to experience.

and basically what you have posted here is the reason "personal truth" is bogus because the truth really isn't personal at all. its much more likely that lies are personal.