Philosophy Now Forum

"I am." Did it in philosophy.

As did, "God is dead".

I'm guessing but that America Indian was probably talking about his interactions with the white American.

.



Seek truth in the small things and you may find truth in the big things.
~~~ Bill Wiltrack ~~~















.............................................








.

You need an actual proposition about something to have a truth or not. Your thoughts reify a concept and then try to say if its true or not, i.e. you're trying to ask if 'truth' is true or not. Hence you're getting nowhere fast.

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: P.S. In your first clean message with apology, please include a reiteration of your primary concern with my truth.

chaz wyman wrote:I simply refer you to the questions I asked some time ago.

Because of your response, I now see that I only have one option, and that is to disprove your hypothesis, and I quote:

"All truth is within, a one person's truth is another's untruth." and
"That's my truth. You can agree or disagree. That is what truth is." and
"The truth is conceived in a way that complies variously with that which corresponds to our views and desires." and
"Truth is relative." and
"when you think you know what is true, you think you have tapped into the universal motherload of truth - you have not."

No need to edit, as I've taken a screen capture and saved the pages as HTML documents.

So, do you stand by these assertions you've made?



This one's just an extremely funny one:
"You lose."

It's so funny, it is true!!! [/quote]

Chaz, apparently the "true" humor of it has escaped you. You see, to say I loose, eludes to your winning, neither of which is possible, as your relative position, precludes either one from being true. Live by relativity, die by relativity!

Those that adopt a relative position in argument, often do so as a safe harbor, hiding from defeat, usually without seeing it's counterpart. This then is a testament to their megalomania as they are blinded by their self!

You see the difference between you and I is that you require calling people names as a means to try and ensure your win, where all I have to do is merely point out the facts in "truth," at which time you'll either squirm in your seat, dumbfounded, and try and orchestrate a clever evasive maneuver, assuming your perceived opponent is just as blind, or calmly admit that either one could be correct, seated in the true relative position. I hope that as you've read this, you've kept in mind who initially engaged who. You see I don't believe being here is about winning or loosing but rather sharing. I just wish I hadn't allowed you to suck me into your black hole of anger.

I experienced a server error, this was a dupe so I removed it!

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You see the difference between you and I is that you[/color] require calling people names as a means to try and ensure your win, where all I have to do is merely point out the facts in "truth," at which time you'll either squirm in your seat, dumbfounded, and try and orchestrate a clever evasive maneuver, assuming your perceived opponent is just as blind, or calmly admit that either one could be correct, seated in the true relative position. I hope that as you've read this, you've kept in mind who initially engaged who. You see I don't believe being here is about winning or loosing but rather sharing. I just wish I hadn't allowed you to suck me into your black hole of anger.

It's pointless unless you are going to address the issue.
Once again you fail to see the irony of your own position.
All the time, people disagree about the nature of things, and about the nature of truth.
Nothing you have offered can account for that.
Please support your thesis that truth exists outside the realm of human understanding.
And it is quite amusing seeing you get so angry, but I'd rather understand how you have come to the conclusions you hold so dear.
Why don't you tell me how you think this is true?
I'm not being evasive. I don't see how I can be more direct.

chaz wyman wrote:All the time, people disagree about the nature of things, and about the nature of truth. Nothing you have offered can account for that.

It's simply that none of us know, yet all of us want to know, and on the course of knowing we all purpose our vision of possibility (our beliefs).

chaz wyman wrote:Please support your thesis that truth exists outside the realm of human understanding.

chaz wyman wrote:...I'd rather understand how you have come to the conclusions you hold so dear. Why don't you tell me how you think this is true?

I think that the difference between you and I, is merely a matter of definition.

I understand that initially "Truth" was a concept used to attest to the real nature of anything, (that..., as it actually exists). Our attempts have "always" failed due to our limited ability to isolate truth from our human emotional bias, whether neurotic, psychotic or otherwise, and our physical sensing limitations; such that while the concept is sound, we've never actually realized it, to date. As an example: to relate the complete "truth" of a pin dropping, it would take an encyclopedia set worth of language to fully detail, and as yet the human animal is incapable of doing so. So we put it in concise familiar human terms, which have absolutely nothing to do with the actual truth, so that we can move on to the next topic of discussion. Humans prefer to believe that they're full of a plethora of purpose, but in fact they're mere distractions, which are designed to obscure our acknowledgment of our fears, including primarily, our ultimate demise.

Earlier I referenced the American courtroom oath. Actually, for it to incorporate any truth within itself, it would have to include, "as much as humanly possible," so that it would read: "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 'as much as humanly possible,' so help you god?" Because in truth that's all we're capable of relating. Humans, for one reason or another, are incapable of relating any truth from a universal standpoint, so far!

Of course I would say that the truths pertaining to the emotional human animal are as accurate as they can be as stated by an emotional human animal. I could only imagine what a Vulcan would say with respect to humans.
Yes, there is where our minds must journey (devoid of emotion, full of logic), along with some physiological evolution if we are to finally "start" to get a grip on "Truth."

The existence of Truth was initially a great concept, designed to erase ambiguity, but we underestimated it's scope, (that it had a life of it's own), such that it's continually being refined, because we now realize that it's truly beyond our comprehension. The fact that we still seek truths clarity, indicates that it exists without us! If it was truly ours, there would be no debate. Why else would it continually evade us, such that we have several theories designed to specify the criterion of truth? If we continue to survive and grow, we shall forever seek its illumination by attempting to remove our limitations from the equation, as we now understand that its the ultimate perspective of certainty from which to view everything. The question is not whether it's out there or not, but rather, when if ever we'll evolve to the point, of being capable, of realizing it.

That's the best I can do at this time. I do not have the time nor do I feel inclined to outline everything. To further illustrate to your satisfaction, I would have to use your jargon or you'd have to understand mine, or you could ask specific questions and/or raise specific opposing arguments. This is a primary problem with communication. I've found that often people can be referring to the same idea, but are unable to sense it because of their particular method of articulation. We all have varying ideas of what is, and what is not, self evident, that's based purely upon our own life experiences.

Seeing as how we are all trying to come to terms with truth, there is no room for winning or loosing, warring, slander, etc as it can only serve to derail us from the pursuit of the subject at hand. Their inclusion, in fact, cannot be said with much confidence without further investigation. In a true relative world, such a declaration would only indicate a proposition of possibility and not that of fact.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:All the time, people disagree about the nature of things, and about the nature of truth. Nothing you have offered can account for that.

It's simply that none of us know, yet all of us want to know, and on the course of knowing we all purpose our vision of possibility (our beliefs).

chaz wyman wrote:Please support your thesis that truth exists outside the realm of human understanding.

chaz wyman wrote:...I'd rather understand how you have come to the conclusions you hold so dear. Why don't you tell me how you think this is true?

I think that the difference between you and I, is merely a matter of definition.

I understand that initially "Truth" was a concept used to attest to the real nature of anything, (that..., as it actually exists). Our attempts have "always" failed due to our limited ability to isolate truth from our human emotional bias, whether neurotic, psychotic or otherwise, and our physical sensing limitations; such that while the concept is sound, we've never actually realized it, to date. As an example: to relate the complete "truth" of a pin dropping, it would take an encyclopedia set worth of language to fully detail, and as yet the human animal is incapable of doing so. So we put it in concise familiar human terms, which have absolutely nothing to do with the actual truth, so that we can move on to the next topic of discussion. Humans prefer to believe that they're full of a plethora of purpose, but in fact they're mere distractions, which are designed to obscure our acknowledgment of our fears, including primarily, our ultimate demise.

Earlier I referenced the American courtroom oath. Actually, for it to incorporate any truth within itself, it would have to include, "as much as humanly possible," so that it would read: "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 'as much as humanly possible,' so help you god?" Because in truth that's all we're capable of relating. Humans, for one reason or another, are incapable of relating any truth from a universal standpoint, so far!

Of course I would say that the truths pertaining to the emotional human animal are as accurate as they can be as stated by an emotional human animal. I could only imagine what a Vulcan would say with respect to humans.
Yes, there is where our minds must journey (devoid of emotion, full of logic), along with some physiological evolution if we are to finally "start" to get a grip on "Truth."

The existence of Truth was initially a great concept, designed to erase ambiguity, but we underestimated it's scope, (that it had a life of it's own), such that it's continually being refined, because we now realize that it's truly beyond our comprehension. The fact that we still seek truths clarity, indicates that it exists without us! If it was truly ours, there would be no debate. Why else would it continually evade us, such that we have several theories designed to specify the criterion of truth? If we continue to survive and grow, we shall forever seek its illumination by attempting to remove our limitations from the equation, as we now understand that its the ultimate perspective of certainty from which to view everything. The question is not whether it's out there or not, but rather, when if ever we'll evolve to the point, of being capable, of realizing it.

That's the best I can do at this time. I do not have the time nor do I feel inclined to outline everything. To further illustrate to your satisfaction, I would have to use your jargon or you'd have to understand mine, or you could ask specific questions and/or raise specific opposing arguments. This is a primary problem with communication. I've found that often people can be referring to the same idea, but are unable to sense it because of their particular method of articulation. We all have varying ideas of what is, and what is not, self evident, that's based purely upon our own life experiences.

Seeing as how we are all trying to come to terms with truth, there is no room for winning or loosing, warring, slander, etc as it can only serve to derail us from the pursuit of the subject at hand. Their inclusion, in fact, cannot be said with much confidence without further investigation. In a true relative world, such a declaration would only indicate a proposition of possibility and not that of fact.

It clear enough that we both conceive of the truth in practical terms exactly the same.
Nothing you have said, though goes towards your idea that truth exists beyond the human conception of it. In fact every thing you say supports my argument that truth is truly a human category and not a category of nature. I can think of no expression, outside of the bare facts of science (though even they are subject to revision), where a statement of truth is not defined, conceived, and confined to human interest and bias. The court oath stands without need of revision. When a person is honest and wishes to tell his story as he understands it, he is be telling the truth, even though it is not the same as another witness to the same events whose story differs. They are both telling their truth.

There are plenty of examples on this website where, asked to comment on the same thing, two people can tell the truth, and say different things and both be telling the truth. There is no "what really happened", though the events happened in a certain and unyieldingly factual way. The facts do not tell the truth, they are merely a recording of a state of affairs that relate a series of causal steps of necessity. Three is no truth contained in an apple falling from a tree until a human tries to work out how and why it did so.

You would think that such a banal fact would not engender any argument - but for Newton gravity was an example of God impressing his will on objects , using his power to continue to make the world work. That was his truth. Only a few scientists content that that is still true. But even Einstein might have agreed, even though he was essentially an atheist: he defined God in the Spinozan way, as that which is equivalent to nature. So rather than agreeing with Newton, he could say the same thing, but mean something else by it. Other scientists taking a more absolute materialism, would talk about causal necessity some emphasising nuclear bonds as the explanation of gravitic attraction, others postulating a gravity particle. Whilst we can all agree that we have seen the apple separate from the tree, some say it is attracted to the ground other say that the apple and the tree move towards each other, other say what goes up must come down. All true- all different. Nature abides and does not care.

how about:
"I am ignorant, but together we will one day find the truth"

or,

"the truth is manifest; I am just figuring out how to put it into words"

-how about those?

Oh wait, how about one of the most self-contradictory statements there is:
"Truth is relative."

lancek4 wrote:how about:
"I am ignorant, but together we will one day find the truth"

or,

"the truth is manifest; I am just figuring out how to put it into words"

-how about those?

Neither - I think we all tend to generate our own truths, and when we are in the position that our truths co-incide will can that agreement and understanding

lancek4 wrote:Oh wait, how about one of the most self-contradictory statements there is:
"Truth is relative."

This statement is not at all contradictory nor is it incompatible with my last statement to you. ("we generate our own truths but can agree").

Truths can be relatively in agreement. In fact no truth is meaningful unless it relates to something.

When we understand one another our truths agree. In this case our truths relate to one another.
"Relative" is not a contradiction.

"Truth is relative." is actually self justifying as soon as one person things it is false.

ANY statement "Truth is..." demands a relationship.

chaz wyman wrote:<snip>
Nothing you have said, though goes towards your idea that truth exists beyond the human conception of it. In fact every thing you say supports my argument that truth is truly a human category and not a category of nature.
<snip>

Not at all. The chain of truths (events) that have given way, from the beginning of time, to our current state of existence have existed despite our ability to comprehend them. This then clearly indicates that truth exists without us. If the sequence of events failed at the last moment to give way to us then all those from that time back would be exactly the same as those that did. And we would never have existed in order to debate these truths, but they would have been just as true. Truth you see, is a word that we've assigned to that which is not subject to our interpretation (our conceptualization). It just IS. If we're lucky, in time we shall mature enough to realize their existence. At this time we merely hypothesize what these truths are and call them theories. These are merely beliefs, though educated, and do not necessarily, as of yet, indicate truth. Truth is simply the "state of being" accurate, such that our understanding is in fact knowledge.

Truth is absolute, it is not relative!
Belief is relative, it is not necessarily absolute!

What the serious minded humans think they know, is belief. What the serious minded humans want to know, is the truth. It definitely exists or we wouldn't be here, but can we pick up the scent.

lancek4 wrote:how about:
"I am ignorant, but together we will one day find the truth"

or,

"the truth is manifest; I am just figuring out how to put it into words"

-how about those?

Here, let me correct your errors:

"We are ignorant, but together we may one day find the truth"

or,

"the truth is not manifest; We are just attempting to figure it out and how to put it into words"

There, now your assertions are based in truth!

lancek4 wrote:Oh wait, how about one of the most self-contradictory statements there is:
"Truth is relative."

Exactly, because it is in fact absolute!

Oh I forgot to mention that Sarcasm is usually a self stroking, self defense mechanism designed to assure ones self esteem! Wow the number of "selfs" in that one is mind boggling!

You know it's funny how some humans believe that an idea, that appears to oppose theirs, warrants an attack of it's bearer, regardless of the fact that it wasn't directed at them, such that they launch a preemptive attack.

I wonder if that's how all wars start. Not to worry, I've worked with live nukes in my past, and as such, I'm all to aware of the implications of "mutually assured destruction."