Philosophy Now Forum

TSBU wrote:

What is truth?

This thread has gone too far.

creativesoul wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
...'Use logic and prove for all of us to see, anything that is a fact yet not the truth, and anything that is the truth yet not a fact. You can't! Because it's impossible, because in the end, after all procedures are met, they are one in the same, requiring the same elements of thought to ensure their certainty.'

It's a fact that the Earth revolves around the sun;
It's true that the Earth revolves around the sun;
It's real that the Earth revolves around the sun.

It's a fact that there's a particular tree on a particular hill;
It's true that there's a particular tree on a particular hill;
It's real that there's a particular tree on a particular hill.

Must I go on? Show me otherwise. It's impossible!

It's not impossible.

What sorts of things are capable of being true, and exactly what makes them so?

raw_thought wrote:It is true that the earth revolves around the sun. My pet is a dog. However, that does not mean that " pet" is another word for " dog". I also own a cat. Similarly , "truth" is not another word for " earth revolves around the sun."

Terrapin Station wrote:What's real and descriptions of what's real are two different things.
Obviously, yet the description of what is real, changes not that which is real. It can only change the ability to share what is real, as much as our language can represent what is real, with another.

Unless you believe something akin to "Only descriptions exist."

raw_thought wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

henry quirk wrote:
Truth is what is true...

What makes those things true?

Exactly!!! that is henry's and Sphere's tautological definition of truth. Their "definition" does not help us identify truth and so as a definition is useless.

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:
Conflating confirmation of belief with truth. A statement can comply with your view and be false. Truth cannot be false. Therefore...

It would only be false to you, not me. It would be true regardless of the material facts of the universe. And therein lies the problem of 'truth'.
Truth is almost always false, from a different POV.
Trump considers that immigrants are criminal rapists being parasitic on US society.
Others could say that immigrants have founded the US and have in all cases made the US what it is today.
Both statements are true.

There is no such thing as false for me and true for you... A statement is true(or not) regardless of whether or not it agrees with your(or my) belief. In your example both statements are true because some immigrants are rapists, and some are founders. There's no issue with both being true, for they do not conflict with one another. They are poorly constructed, but most common talk is.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
It would only be false to you, not me. It would be true regardless of the material facts of the universe. And therein lies the problem of 'truth'.
Truth is almost always false, from a different POV.
Trump considers that immigrants are criminal rapists being parasitic on US society.
Others could say that immigrants have founded the US and have in all cases made the US what it is today.
Both statements are true.

There is no such thing as false for me and true for you... A statement is true(or not) regardless of whether or not it agrees with your(or my) belief. In your example both statements are true because some immigrants are rapists, and some are founders. There's no issue with both being true, for they do not conflict with one another. They are poorly constructed, but most common talk is.

You are so obviously wrong, for all matters of value and judgement.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:How can you know objective stuff, since all you know is gained by mental phenomena?

Say you're looking at a tree. Well, you know that objective thing by looking at it. There's absolutely no coherent reason to assume that you're not actually seeing the tree and that what you're seeing is mental phenomena instead. It wouldn't even be clear what the heck mental phenomena versus anything else would be if you assume something like that. And if that's not clear, then what would we even be claiming?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:How can you know objective stuff, since all you know is gained by mental phenomena?

Say you're looking at a tree. Well, you know that objective thing by looking at it. There's absolutely no coherent reason to assume that you're not actually seeing the tree and that what you're seeing is mental phenomena instead. It wouldn't even be clear what the heck mental phenomena versus anything else would be if you assume something like that. And if that's not clear, then what would we even be claiming?

I am only ever perceiving.
Which is born of the universe!

Perception is mental.
Which is born of the universe!

I have no reason to think that my perception exhausts all that the tree could be.
Nor that it doesn't! Which is born of the universe!

In fact I know that my perception of it is very partial, both literally and figuratively.
But it doesn't change the parts you can sense. Which is born of the universe!

The fact, the objective fact of the tree is wholly derived from the fact that I it is the subject of my perceptual apparatus.
All of, Which is born of the universe!

I have every reason to know that "seeing the tree" is mental.
So is the feeling which supports the seeing. Which is born of the universe!

Without other people I can never establish the objectivity of the tree, and I suggest that all things taken as objective rely on intercourse with other subjects with whom I can agree about the tree's characteristics, and properties.
Only correct if your observed characteristics differ once your intercourse is concluded. but please remember: Which is born of the universe!

Though I can never see exactly the same tree having a different POV to another person, we can come to based our joint observations and offer an objective account.
If all people take in all POV's then there is no such thing as a different pov. Which is born of the universe!

so whilst there are objects 'out there', the truth is not.
Incorrect, all are born of the universe!

creativesoul wrote:Hobbes' is conflating belief and truth.

Terrapin Station wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: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?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: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.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: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.

He don't know what the fuck a Coke bottle is having never seen one before. The object might be the same thing, but you see a "Coke Bottle" and he sees a gift from the gods.
In the movie he saw it as a gift from the gods because it fell from the sky, not because he had no idea what it was. And of course if he had ever seen glass, and a container then of course he had an idea what it could be used for. And of course he could describe it to others such that they might know what it was. Most peoples can draw a pretty accurate representation of simply shaped objects. But it seems that instead you're saying that the more ignorant someone is, the less they are equipped at observing and then conveying what it was they observed. Sure, I could show you, HC, a piece of metal, and you might call it steel, when in fact is was either Stellite or Inconel, not knowing that either existed, so what? Surely you could draw a crude picture of it's shape, and know it was some sort of metal, of course with you as the observer we're stretching the observers abilities a bit. So sure, knowledge of a great many things would allow one to be a more complete observer such that they may know more of the objects particulars. So in that way we're bound to subjectivity, but there are many millions of aspects of somethings truth, that one knows not all of them doesn't diminish those they know.

I think you must either be a really dull person or are being deliberately obstructive.
Looking in the mirror again I see.

Terrapin Station wrote:Me: 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.