Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:44 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:50 pm
stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:39 am I understand that you don't claim to be true ...
If that's what you think, then you don't understand.

There being no truth as you say you can't claim to be true what you are claiming.

Posted: **Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:06 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:12 am Your 'true assertions' are empty and meaningless.

What is truth is conformance to reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Reality is all-there-is which comprised humans and all other things.
All humans are programmed to survive till the inevitable.
To survive effectively, humans need to know the truth of reality.
But reality is subject to infinite regression.
To survive within infinite regression, humans seek patterns within reality.
To grasp patterns within reality, humans established various Framework and System of knowledge [FSK] to seek conformance with reality i.e. truths.

Being conditioned by humans [diversified & fallible] efforts, there will be degrees of veracity of the truths from the different FSK.
The degrees of the veracity of truth will depend on the credibility of the FSK.
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338
At present the scientific truths of the scientific FSK is the most credible to justify their utilities to the survival of the individuals and of humanity.
All other FSKs and their truths are relative and lower in degrees of credibility to the Scientific FSK.

For example, if Scientific truths are rated at 95/100, then theistic truths [criteria assessed] would be rated, say, 10/100 or less.

Therefore 'truth' is conformance to reality - having degrees relative to the credibility of its specific FSK - and is generated for its utilities and ultimately geared toward the survival of the individuals and humanity.
Well absolutely none of that is true.

What are you trying to put over?

Unfortunately you are so bankrupt of knowledge. Your misleading articles are a disservice to humanity.

I spoke of scientific truths, you don't agree they exists and are useful?

Scientific truth
Louis A. Girifalco

Scientific truth is based on facts.
Philosophy, religion, feelings, and prejudice have nothing to do with science.
Only facts matter.
Verified, reproducible facts are the bedrock of scientific truth.
The facts are used to construct theories which describe the detailed relations among large numbers of facts and their origin from common roots. Each element of a theory corresponds to some part of nature and, in this sense, scientific theories describe nature.

Posted: **Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:51 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:06 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:12 am Your 'true assertions' are empty and meaningless.

What is truth is conformance to reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Reality is all-there-is which comprised humans and all other things.
All humans are programmed to survive till the inevitable.
To survive effectively, humans need to know the truth of reality.
But reality is subject to infinite regression.
To survive within infinite regression, humans seek patterns within reality.
To grasp patterns within reality, humans established various Framework and System of knowledge [FSK] to seek conformance with reality i.e. truths.

Being conditioned by humans [diversified & fallible] efforts, there will be degrees of veracity of the truths from the different FSK.
The degrees of the veracity of truth will depend on the credibility of the FSK.
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338
At present the scientific truths of the scientific FSK is the most credible to justify their utilities to the survival of the individuals and of humanity.
All other FSKs and their truths are relative and lower in degrees of credibility to the Scientific FSK.

For example, if Scientific truths are rated at 95/100, then theistic truths [criteria assessed] would be rated, say, 10/100 or less.

Therefore 'truth' is conformance to reality - having degrees relative to the credibility of its specific FSK - and is generated for its utilities and ultimately geared toward the survival of the individuals and humanity.
Well absolutely none of that is true.

What are you trying to put over?
Unfortunately you are so bankrupt of knowledge. Your misleading articles are a disservice to humanity.

I spoke of scientific truths, you don't agree they exists and are useful?

Scientific truth
Louis A. Girifalco

Scientific truth is based on facts.
Philosophy, religion, feelings, and prejudice have nothing to do with science.
Only facts matter.
Verified, reproducible facts are the bedrock of scientific truth.
The facts are used to construct theories which describe the detailed relations among large numbers of facts and their origin from common roots. Each element of a theory corresponds to some part of nature and, in this sense, scientific theories describe nature.

Why do you keep quoting idiots and referring to philosophical and academic crackpots. The whole point of my post is to point out the obscene perversion of the meaning of truth by virtually every philosopher and so-called intellectual in history. Just for the hell of it, try thinking for yourself.

Posted: **Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:51 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:57 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:44 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:39 pm
How does an, "idea," match anything in the real world.? Don't things match when they have some common attribute or characteristic, like the same size, or shape, or color? I'm not disputing what you've said, just trying to understand what you mean. I don't see how any idea can have any attribute or characteristic that would match something, "in the real world."

Perhaps it's what you mean by, "idea." I'm thinking of, "idea," as a simple concept, like, "box," or, "empty," which, all by thenselves are is neither true or false. If you mean by, "idea," a proposition, like, "the box is empty," for example, that's exactly what I said. If the box, in reality, is empty, the proposition, "the box is empty," is true, but if there is something in the box, the proposition is not true.

If that's all you mean, I agree. What you are saying does sound like the, "correspondence," theory of truth, however, which I do not agree with.
Philosophers usually call it correspondence, conformity, congruence, agreement, accordance, signification, representation, or reference.
Truth theory is quite a big topic.
You might try Hospers.

Actually what you have already describes is much the same as correspondance.
The problem with the correspondance theory is how it's presented. If you study all the various versions (and there are several), they all end up reifying, "truth," into some kind of metaphysical thing, with language like, "truth bearing elements," as though it were some kind of independent existent that had any meaning separate from propositions. What I'm emphasizing is: truth has no meaning or existence at all independent of human conscious thought.

I do not think it does. Truth is the label used when facts meet belief. Those that are predisposed to think of truth like that can use words that support that, but even the link make it clear that truth is a relation.
It more about language and people's choices. A similar problem exists when people talk about evolution, so |I do sympathise. But the theory is okay.

Posted: **Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:52 pm**

simplicity wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:21 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:37 pm Truth is only a relationship.
It is when the idea of a thing matches the thing in the real world.
It is an expression and ackowledgement of that relationship.
Truth exists each and every moment ....

Bollocks

Posted: **Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:02 pm**

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:52 pm
simplicity wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:21 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:37 pm Truth is only a relationship.
It is when the idea of a thing matches the thing in the real world.
It is an expression and ackowledgement of that relationship.
Truth exists each and every moment ....
Bollocks

Truth is omnipresent. It's simply a matter of access [of which we have zero], although that idea does not preclude us from getting closer to the truth. And this is the key as the closer you can get to the truth, the more accurate your responses can potentially be.

Posted: **Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:31 pm**

simplicity wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:02 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:52 pm
simplicity wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:21 am
Truth exists each and every moment ....
Bollocks
Truth is omnipresent.

Posted: **Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:24 pm**

I understand your proposition, that truth is just a statement that attributes truth to something else.

Symmetry and contrast have a war with one another, due to the fact of mind and recording; people have thoughts, and then they have documentations.

Thought = 1

Record of thought = 2

1 and 2 = symmetry and contrast, or either symmetry or contrast

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:17 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 1:30 am There is no such thing as, "The Truth,"

Is that true?

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:57 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 1:30 am There is no such thing as, "The Truth,"
Is that true?

Ignoring context is ignorance. Evading context is a lie.

If you read the post, it's obvious it is true.

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:18 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:57 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 1:30 am There is no such thing as, "The Truth,"
Is that true?
If you read the post, it's obvious it is true.

It can't be. Remember, "there's not such thing as the truth."
But if it IS true, then what you said was false: there is an absolute truth, namely, that what you said is absolutely true.
You can't get both: you can't claim there's no truth, and then frame it as a true statement.

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:25 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:51 am Why do you keep quoting idiots and referring to philosophical and academic crackpots. The whole point of my post is to point out the obscene perversion of the meaning of truth by virtually every philosopher and so-called intellectual in history. Just for the hell of it, try thinking for yourself.

WHO ARE YOU! [show your credentials] to judge that virtually every philosopher and so-called intellectual in history are perverts re 'truth'.
What you have presented are merely dogmatic and bigoted views that you an intellectual 'God'.

It is a good thing to think for oneself in contrast to following ideas blindly.
In addition one has to be a good thinker before thinking for oneself, but on the contrary you are not a good thinker as evident with the messed-up ideas you have presented.

In general, the principle of all improvements [physical and mental] has always been conditioned to something prior. The obvious is displayed in evolution.

All positive contributions [mental and physical] by humans had been referenced to some past ideas.
Do you understand the phrase,
"Standing on the shoulders of giants"

The phrase Standing on the shoulders of giants
is a metaphor which means "Using the understanding gained by major thinkers who have gone before in order to make intellectual progress"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_ ... _of_giants

Like I say, it very stupid to adopt the ideas of others to the extreme of doing it blindly. What ideas of 'truth' from others, the ideas must nevertheless be verified using one's critical thinking abilities [as verified and proven] plus where the ideas must be justified and supported with its positive utilities.

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:41 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:18 am You can't get both: you can't claim there's no truth, and then frame it as a true statement.

Yes I can.

It's true that there is no truth. It is a perfectly meaningful claim.

If you are going to insist that I can't do what I have just done, go ahead and explain how I just did the impossible.

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:16 am**

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:37 pm Truth is only a relationship.
It is when the idea of a thing matches the thing in the real world.
It is an expression and ackowledgement of that relationship.

People also have feelings about truth. At the simplest level honesty is the basis of any society because a society runs on rails of people meaning what they say and keeping promises. Most people know this, even when society is fractured into sub groups some of them criminal sub groups.

At psychological level people's feelings about truth often amount to longings for or aimings-for more honesty , more truth, in social relationships.

Truth has been reified for the metaphysical level of feelings about truth.It may be the reification that you don't approve of.

Posted: **Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:21 am**

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:16 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:37 pm Truth is only a relationship.
It is when the idea of a thing matches the thing in the real world.
It is an expression and ackowledgement of that relationship.
People also have feelings about truth. At the simplest level honesty is the basis of any society because a society runs on rails of people meaning what they say and keeping promises. Most people know this, even when society is fractured into sub groups some of them criminal sub groups.

Sadly true. People who feel their petty beliefs are true is at the heart of all calumnies of the world.
But these are not "truth" but a pale fake truth.

At psychological level people's feelings about truth often amount to longings for or aimings-for more honesty , more truth, in social relationships.

Truth has been reified for the metaphysical level of feelings about truth.It may be the reification that you don't approve of.

Philosophy Now Forum

No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

Re: No Such Thing as, "The Truth"