What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

I believe, SOB, that one of the problems of your position, is that you do not provide an adaquiate (sp) description of that 'ground referent' by which you know what you know. It is an empty argument to just say "well, i firmlybelieve that it is so".
How can it be, me, a human being among human beings, might come upon a truth that someone else does not know?
Experience. that is the only way. So, when I am making an argument about an absolute truth, I cannot say "I believe". To do so elicits from the other a truism, a tautology. And so what if the universe is always true?? We get nowhere from this.
I might suggest you read Plato's "Protagoras" for one angle on how it is a misnomer to say that someone who is really telling the truth is really lying by virtue of the fact that they dont know the "whole" or "real" truth.

So, but you asked me to indentify particular aspects of you 'rant':

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.

I disagree, it does not. They do not speak truth but merely a succinct human version of what actually happened in truth, because most people don't know what actually happened and just impart a flawed approximation. (see above: Protagoras)

To speak truth would take forever and thus would negate a speedy trial.
I am not sure if this below is a mere example of something, or if this is you being true as an example -
It would start something like: From my perspective which takes into account my vision of _____ as reported by doctor ______ , etc, etc, and my hearing blah , blah, blah ; i may be allowing my bigotry to influence my conclusion because the defendant is "that other race;" at a distance of blah my vision may have been obscured blah blah; I believe the car was ____ due to the fact that colors are just the reflection of specific frequencies of the naturally occurring electromagnetic energy emitted by various natural, etc, etc, etc, etc,etc, AD INFINITUM. To say anything less is not that of truth. And the reason I say that humans are incapable of stating truth is because it would eventually lead to the origins if the universe which NO ONE KNOWS!

No one speaks truth, just a infinitesimally brief approximation steeped in infinite assumption and ambiguity!!!!!!!!!

That's the truth of the human animal, my friend! Human civilization is a human construct much like the matrix, that was built upon the human animals insatiable selfishness!!!!!! It's full of lies and deceit, death and destruction and in the end it's own annihilation. Life on planet earth is full of illusion my friend! If in truth they exist, I would trust an extra-terrestrial over a human any day! Beam me up Scottie there's no intelligent life forms on planet earth except plants and all animals other than homo sapiens's. Global warming, warring(killing innocent babies for the powering of your latest electronic toy), feeding the machines and not the people, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on! Selfish, selfish, selfish, selfish!!!! But only for those privileged few at the top. If that Texas sized asteroid came today I'd just smile and think, well, you had you chance, poetic justice, you rich dinosaur!
OK - this is a clear example to me of the futility of human existance. An attitude of might as well give up, the giving up which is apathy.

Sure it's a rant, but no less true! Most fear looking in the mirror objectively. not I! And there's no need to get your panties in a bunch, because I'll be damned if I'll join them! Because the old saying "if you can't beat them join them" is false! If you beat them, you join them, because beating is all they understand. It's best to find a few like minded and leave them. Sure one day you'll see the mushroom on the horizon, but it's surly better than being one of them!

This then is the real reason I've come here, I've always looked to philosophy to help answer the question of meaning. And it's obviously not here! No one here is even close to understanding the human animal such as myself. I'm looking for a reason to hope as I'm surely killing myself everyday with my sedentary lifestyle. Psychosomatic Cancer is just around the corner for me if I fail to find the light at the end of the tunnel of despair born of the understanding of the flawed human animal and his seemingly never ending contradictory nature. her is another example of futility
And no I don't believe that we are subject to human nature, that's just a cop-out. Human nature can be changed through intellect because it's merely a string of choices piled on top of one another, dating back to our origin. And while it shall require going back to an earlier point and changing direction, it's the only way we'll ever become an intergalactic species, as the current course will be met with our demise. this indicates to me activism.

TRUTH is ABSOLUTE!!
HUMANS do not deal in TRUTH, they deal in BELIEF and spout it as truth! Which is why we're so screwed up!

The probelm which is salient with your assertion of an absolute truth stems from the ability to know. If I am human, I have a human ability to know. Intelligence is not an indicator of how one can know something; it may be an indicator of what one can know, such as what term relates to what other in such a way. How I may know something (as I use it here against 'what') is analogous to 'how' one may use a saw. It only works as a saw in one way. I cannot say how to use a saw and then tell someone how to write. I can only use the saw in the way the saw works as a saw. Such it is that I say that humans have the same ability to know; there is nothing outside this ability, there is not 'more' of an ability, there is only what or in what way we use this ability that we say "I have more of an ability for knowledge".

Every human being is thus knowing in that same way that I know in that we have the same ability for knowing, but we are using this ability differently. One will say that I know what reality really is, and another will say I know how the Dow Industrial Average links in and effects interest rates in credit unions.

And this has nothing to do with brain power. It has to do with the totality of experience. there is no human being who experiences only a 'part' of a world. Every human being experiences exactly the totality that is their world. Only in reference to 'what or in what way' we use this ability can we say "one experiences only part of the world".

So, when you say there is an absolute Truth, you have nothing to support it except to assert your belief about that matter, that you have used your ability in a particular way, situated knowledge in a particular way, such that you see 'lacks' in how others have situated thiers, and thus proclaim that there is a 'greater truth' than the truth of those who seem to not know what you know. And, it seems, that you propose this knowledge in the same vein as how I do not know what the economist knows, that surely the economist would come upon me and say that I do not know this and this of economics. But the primary and significant issue is: i dont give a shit about economics, and what forces of economics might influence my reality, I already know, because: reality is just that way for me.

We cannot speak about these types of relations without implimenting conflict ideology (effective ethics) or subjectivism. It has been well proven that niether of these methods get us anywhere towards Truth.
And this is because:
The end result of this kind of assertion is the inevitability of a transcedant or otherwise effective force or entity 'outside' our reality which has access to or contains the Truth of our reality, and, here is the clincher: this outside force or entity has chocen you to bestow this knowledge upon.

Thus we come full circle in the irony: because everyone has this experience, everyone has this experience of somehow having a position by which to argue as if from a position of 'truth', and we have to return to the begginnig of my little speech here, and read it again. Then we might see that there cannot be such a possibility 'in truth', and that the 'effect' of our behaving in such a way, as if there is an absolute truth, is really: to justify what we are doing in the world; to justify our being.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm beginning to think you are clinically insane.

Truth is ipso facto a concept generated by human experience.
There is really nothing more to say on the matter.
You have never answered my initial objections.
All you do is repeat again, and again the same unfounded assertions.

I really think you are wasting my time.

Again evidence of your megalomania. You believe that you're the cats meow, don't you? You judge every one from your twisted sense of self importance. You're nobody my friend and you'll die, rot and be forgotten just like all the rest of us, so get over yourself already!

The audacity of an arrogant child to decide to invest their time in someone and then hold the object of their decision responsible. You are one seriously deluded individual! If anyone is wasting your time it's you!

You wouldn't know what equality was if it bit you on the arse, I bet you're a bigot as well, or at least your arrogance would seem to indicate as much. Just walk away SON! You're apparently too immature to carry on an adult conversation where you refrain from shite'n on everyone. You're living proof that shite is emitted from the oral orifice on some deranged individuals!

ipso facto, your head is up your arse!

A wise man knows that kindness goes a long way my friend! GROWUP! As my wife would say, "You shall catch more bees with nectar than with vinegar!" If ever you were a fine wine, you're varnish at this point! 'Your bedside manner's in the gutter, your love's in the sink!'

P.S. You do know what they say about insanity and genius right? So Thank You!

[chaz wyman]

I'm beginning to think you are clinically insane.

Truth is ipso facto a concept generated by human experience.
There is really nothing more to say on the matter.
You have never answered my initial objections.
All you do is repeat again, and again the same unfounded assertions.

I really think you are wasting my time.

Again evidence of your megalomania. You believe that you're the cats meow, don't you? You judge every one from your twisted sense of self importance. You're nobody my friend and you'll die, rot and be forgotten just like all the rest of us, so get over yourself already!

The audacity of an arrogant child to decide to invest their time in someone and then hold the object of their decision responsible. You are one seriously deluded individual! If anyone is wasting your time it's you!

You wouldn't know what equality was if it bit you on the arse, I bet you're a bigot as well, or at least your arrogance would seem to indicate as much. Just walk away SON! You're apparently too immature to carry on an adult conversation where you refrain from shite'n on everyone. You're living proof that shite is emitted from the oral orifice on some deranged individuals!

ipso facto, your head is up your arse!

A wise man knows that kindness goes a long way my friend! GROWUP! As my wife would say, "You shall catch more bees with nectar than with vinegar!" If ever you were a fine wine, you're varnish at this point! 'Your bedside manner's in the gutter, your love's in the sink!'

P.S. You do know what they say about insanity and genius right? So Thank You!

I can only respond with amusement, as you rant and rave, but do not say anything of worth.
I'm puzzled why you think it is so important for you to get me to agree with you.
Your insults make you argument weaker.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I can only respond with amusement, as you rant and rave, but do not say anything of worth.

So I ask you would my worth or lack there of, be a function of my inability to provide or your inability to recognize? Before you respond, know that your inability to recognize would negate your ability to judge which of the two it was.

I'm puzzled why you think it is so important for you to get me to agree with you.

That's funny, because I'm puzzled as to why you think I want you to, that is, in light of the fact that it was you that initially spoke to me. Wait a minute I'm not puzzled that's a classic sign of a megalomaniac. The delusion that somehow you're at the center of everything.

Your insults make you argument weaker.

This is true, I agree! Someone that acts like this shows their inability to look past another's previous transgressions as just so much incapability. To be a bigger man!

I really think you are wasting my time.

This bit of yours is priceless as it shows two things A) that you are indeed a megalomaniac and B) that your logic is flawed.

Chaz, just as well as I haven't proven to you, you haven't proven to me our respective versions of truth.

To prove, I would ask if you believed that our star existed prior to life on our planet. If you said no then I'd know you were just trying to be difficult, because almost everyone on the planet would agree that it was. If you said yes I would say see, the truth of our star existing has absolutely nothing to do with a human concept, where truth indicates the actual state of a matter.

Some so called philosophers believe that all they have to do to give credence to their arguments is to surround them with double talk. And most don't actually know what it is that their words indicate, They're just posers.

For instance, you keep saying that truth is a human concept and thus cannot be universal. Then you say that Truth is relative ('that one persons truth is another's untruth'), and then insist that your version of truth is accurate. Then it goes without saying that your version cannot possibly be true, because your version would be relative to another's truth making your untrue.

and then you say I'm wasting your time

Flawed logic indeed!!!!!

Truth is merely the actual state of a matter; The state of being. Our star existed prior to life on planet earth is absolutely true. Where's the conceptual ambiguity? Outline it with certainty if you can.

[chaz wyman]

I can only respond with amusement, as you rant and rave, but do not say anything of worth.

So I ask you would my worth or lack there of, be a function of my inability to provide or your inability to recognize? Before you respond, know that your inability to recognize would negate your ability to judge which of the two it was.

I'm puzzled why you think it is so important for you to get me to agree with you.

That's funny, because I'm puzzled as to why you think I want you to, that is, in light of the fact that it was you that initially spoke to me. Wait a minute I'm not puzzled that's a classic sign of a megalomaniac. The delusion that somehow you're at the center of everything.

Your insults make you argument weaker.

This is true, I agree! Someone that acts like this shows their inability to look past another's previous transgressions as just so much incapability. To be a bigger man!

I really think you are wasting my time.

This bit of yours is priceless as it shows two things A) that you are indeed a megalomaniac and B) that your logic is flawed.

Chaz, just as well as I haven't proven to you, you haven't proven to me our respective versions of truth.

To prove, I would ask if you believed that our star existed prior to life on our planet. If you said no then I'd know you were just trying to be difficult, because almost everyone on the planet would agree that it was. If you said yes I would say see, the truth of our star existing has absolutely nothing to do with a human concept, where truth indicates the actual state of a matter.

Some so called philosophers believe that all they have to do to give credence to their arguments is to surround them with double talk. And most don't actually know what it is that their words indicate, They're just posers.

For instance, you keep saying that truth is a human concept and thus cannot be universal. Then you say that Truth is relative ('that one persons truth is another's untruth'), and then insist that your version of truth is accurate. Then it goes without saying that your version cannot possibly be true, because your version would be relative to another's truth making your untrue.

and then you say I'm wasting your time

Flawed logic indeed!!!!!

Truth is merely the actual state of a matter; The state of being. Our star existed prior to life on planet earth is absolutely true. Where's the conceptual ambiguity? Outline it with certainty if you can.

There is nothing for me to prove.
All my evidence is prima facie, and a posteriori.
Your claim is one that cannot be demonstrated, like God.
You are making impossible claims.

Of course it is true that our planet existed before us. But it was not "true" until we were able to conceive of it.

As the Universe is not an intentional being, then there is no case for the existence of "truth", before humans provided the relationship to conceive a correspondence.

You stil have not addressed your weaknesses.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I can only respond with amusement, as you rant and rave, but do not say anything of worth.

So I ask you would my worth or lack there of, be a function of my inability to provide or your inability to recognize? Before you respond, know that your inability to recognize would negate your ability to judge which of the two it was.

I'm puzzled why you think it is so important for you to get me to agree with you.

That's funny, because I'm puzzled as to why you think I want you to, that is, in light of the fact that it was you that initially spoke to me. Wait a minute I'm not puzzled that's a classic sign of a megalomaniac. The delusion that somehow you're at the center of everything.

Your insults make you argument weaker.

This is true, I agree! Someone that acts like this shows their inability to look past another's previous transgressions as just so much incapability. To be a bigger man!

I really think you are wasting my time.

This bit of yours is priceless as it shows two things A) that you are indeed a megalomaniac and B) that your logic is flawed.

Chaz, just as well as I haven't proven to you, you haven't proven to me our respective versions of truth.

To prove, I would ask if you believed that our star existed prior to life on our planet. If you said no then I'd know you were just trying to be difficult, because almost everyone on the planet would agree that it was. If you said yes I would say see, the truth of our star existing has absolutely nothing to do with a human concept, where truth indicates the actual state of a matter.

Some so called philosophers believe that all they have to do to give credence to their arguments is to surround them with double talk. And most don't actually know what it is that their words indicate, They're just posers.

For instance, you keep saying that truth is a human concept and thus cannot be universal. Then you say that Truth is relative ('that one persons truth is another's untruth'), and then insist that your version of truth is accurate. Then it goes without saying that your version cannot possibly be true, because your version would be relative to another's truth making your untrue.

and then you say I'm wasting your time

Flawed logic indeed!!!!!

Truth is merely the actual state of a matter; The state of being. Our star existed prior to life on planet earth is absolutely true. Where's the conceptual ambiguity? Outline it with certainty if you can.

Interjection:
BRAVO! One of your MOST adult responses to date. There may be hope for you yet. You do realize that previously I was thinking that I'd never listen to you no matter what you said or how you put it because there are some things more important than all that reality makes possible. And that my friend is how we treat each other. At 54, as the focus on the final curtain becomes ever so clearer it's becoming ever increasingly important to make a positive mark on humanity and it starts with kindness. It's not about facts and figures, who's right and who's wrong, It's about understanding the human animal and truly elevating it "well" beyond it's emotionally twisted state. Like we've both said, to act as we both have detracts from our arguments potency. If in truth, to the best of your ability, you make your argument, it will always stand on it's own merit, and requires no lowly tactics of insurance.

That being said...

There is nothing for me to prove.
All my evidence is prima facie, and a posteriori.

Here I disagree, To reduce this line of thinking down to it's most fundamental truth you're merely saying that you have aligned yourself with a huge mob that believes it's capable of forcing me to see it your(their) way. You're seeking refuge in the framework of others as a testament to the potency of your(their) argument. This is a falsehood. First it's not yours; second it's volume of acceptance does not necessarily indicate truth; and third it's lazy. "Well, I'm right because they said so," is shallow and potentially reduces one down to that of a parrot!

Your claim is one that cannot be demonstrated, like God.
You are making impossible claims.
I would argue that neither of us can in fact prove our version in truth, because both versions are born of flawed humans and that all claims laid upon this table may in truth be touted as improbable but not impossible. In fact "nothing" is impossible! Not even GOD!

Of course it is true that our planet existed before us. But it was not "true" until we were able to conceive of it.
To which definition are you referring?
con•ceive [kuh n-seev]
verb, -ceived, -ceiv•ing.
1. to form (a notion, opinion, purpose, etc.): He conceived the project while he was on vacation.
2. to form a notion or idea of; imagine.
3. to hold as an opinion; think; believe: I can't conceive that it would be of any use.
4. to experience or form (a feeling): to conceive a great love for music.
5. to express, as in words.
6. to become pregnant with.
7. to beget.
8. to begin, originate, or found (something) in a particular way (usually used in the passive): a new nation conceived in liberty.
9. Archaic . to understand; comprehend.
verb (used without object)
10. to form an idea; think (usually followed by of ).
11. to become pregnant.

Because I can see no evidence that conception negates actuality. I see conception as the preamble to the alignment of reality and belief (knowing) not that which contradicts the alignment of reality and belief (knowing). One can conceive of a falsehood, but one can also conceive of a truth. If one conceives of a falsehood then it never existed. If one conceives of a truth then it's always existed. Conception is merely the first step on the bridge of understanding and does not negate the truth in the understanding; it's part of the process towards understanding.

As the Universe is not an intentional being, then there is no case for the existence of "truth", before humans provided the relationship to conceive a correspondence.
NO ONE knows that this is true!!!!! Have you been there? When's the last time you did a space walk? Have you traveled to the point of the big bang? Have you navigated a black hole? Have you put your hand out and scooped up some dark matter? You would have to know ALL about the universe to make this assertion in truth. I've previously told you that Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist, the Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics in the City College of New York, of City University of New York, the co-founder of string field theory, said on national television that their (meaning physicists and cosmologists) theories of everything have recently been turned upside down such that they're considering creationism. You're saying that the universe is not knowing which may or may not be true! The TRUTH is that YOU have ABSOLUTELY no way of KNOWING! PERIOD!!!!! Talk about making unsubstantiated claims, that's a doozie. And to be honest with you is yet another indicator of your megalomaniacal behavior. Only a GOD could claim such things!!!!

You stil have not addressed your weaknesses.
Not to your acknowledgment, but you can't argue that I haven't been addressing yours!

[chaz wyman]

I can only respond with amusement, as you rant and rave, but do not say anything of worth.

So I ask you would my worth or lack there of, be a function of my inability to provide or your inability to recognize? Before you respond, know that your inability to recognize would negate your ability to judge which of the two it was.

I'm puzzled why you think it is so important for you to get me to agree with you.

That's funny, because I'm puzzled as to why you think I want you to, that is, in light of the fact that it was you that initially spoke to me. Wait a minute I'm not puzzled that's a classic sign of a megalomaniac. The delusion that somehow you're at the center of everything.

Your insults make you argument weaker.

This is true, I agree! Someone that acts like this shows their inability to look past another's previous transgressions as just so much incapability. To be a bigger man!

I really think you are wasting my time.

This bit of yours is priceless as it shows two things A) that you are indeed a megalomaniac and B) that your logic is flawed.

Chaz, just as well as I haven't proven to you, you haven't proven to me our respective versions of truth.

To prove, I would ask if you believed that our star existed prior to life on our planet. If you said no then I'd know you were just trying to be difficult, because almost everyone on the planet would agree that it was. If you said yes I would say see, the truth of our star existing has absolutely nothing to do with a human concept, where truth indicates the actual state of a matter.

Some so called philosophers believe that all they have to do to give credence to their arguments is to surround them with double talk. And most don't actually know what it is that their words indicate, They're just posers.

For instance, you keep saying that truth is a human concept and thus cannot be universal. Then you say that Truth is relative ('that one persons truth is another's untruth'), and then insist that your version of truth is accurate. Then it goes without saying that your version cannot possibly be true, because your version would be relative to another's truth making your untrue.

and then you say I'm wasting your time

Flawed logic indeed!!!!!

Truth is merely the actual state of a matter; The state of being. Our star existed prior to life on planet earth is absolutely true. Where's the conceptual ambiguity? Outline it with certainty if you can.

Interjection:
BRAVO! One of your MOST adult responses to date. There may be hope for you yet. You do realize that previously I was thinking that I'd never listen to you no matter what you said or how you put it because there are some things more important than all that reality makes possible. And that my friend is how we treat each other. At 54, as the focus on the final curtain becomes ever so clearer it's becoming ever increasingly important to make a positive mark on humanity and it starts with kindness. It's not about facts and figures, who's right and who's wrong, It's about understanding the human animal and truly elevating it "well" beyond it's emotionally twisted state. Like we've both said, to act as we both have detracts from our arguments potency. If in truth, to the best of your ability, you make your argument, it will always stand on it's own merit, and requires no lowly tactics of insurance.

That being said...

There is nothing for me to prove.
All my evidence is prima facie, and a posteriori.

Here I disagree, To reduce this line of thinking down to it's most fundamental truth you're merely saying that you have aligned yourself with a huge mob that believes it's capable of forcing me to see it your(their) way. You're seeking refuge in the framework of others as a testament to the potency of your(their) argument. This is a falsehood. First it's not yours; second it's volume of acceptance does not necessarily indicate truth; and third it's lazy. "Well, I'm right because they said so," is shallow and potentially reduces one down to that of a parrot!

Your claim is one that cannot be demonstrated, like God.
You are making impossible claims.
I would argue that neither of us can in fact prove our version in truth, because both versions are born of flawed humans and that all claims laid upon this table may in truth be touted as improbable but not impossible. In fact "nothing" is impossible! Not even GOD!

Of course it is true that our planet existed before us. But it was not "true" until we were able to conceive of it.
To which definition are you referring?
con•ceive [kuh n-seev]
verb, -ceived, -ceiv•ing.
1. to form (a notion, opinion, purpose, etc.): He conceived the project while he was on vacation.
2. to form a notion or idea of; imagine.
3. to hold as an opinion; think; believe: I can't conceive that it would be of any use.
4. to experience or form (a feeling): to conceive a great love for music.
5. to express, as in words.
6. to become pregnant with.
7. to beget.
8. to begin, originate, or found (something) in a particular way (usually used in the passive): a new nation conceived in liberty.
9. Archaic . to understand; comprehend.
verb (used without object)
10. to form an idea; think (usually followed by of ).
11. to become pregnant.

Because I can see no evidence that conception negates actuality. I see conception as the preamble to the alignment of reality and belief (knowing) not that which contradicts the alignment of reality and belief (knowing). One can conceive of a falsehood, but one can also conceive of a truth. If one conceives of a falsehood then it never existed. If one conceives of a truth then it's always existed. Conception is merely the first step on the bridge of understanding and does not negate the truth in the understanding; it's part of the process towards understanding.

As the Universe is not an intentional being, then there is no case for the existence of "truth", before humans provided the relationship to conceive a correspondence.
NO ONE knows that this is true!!!!! Have you been there? When's the last time you did a space walk? Have you traveled to the point of the big bang? Have you navigated a black hole? Have you put your hand out and scooped up some dark matter? You would have to know ALL about the universe to make this assertion in truth. I've previously told you that Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist, the Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics in the City College of New York, of City University of New York, the co-founder of string field theory, said on national television that their (meaning physicists and cosmologists) theories of everything have recently been turned upside down such that they're considering creationism. You're saying that the universe is not knowing which may or may not be true! The TRUTH is that YOU have ABSOLUTELY no way of KNOWING! PERIOD!!!!! Talk about making unsubstantiated claims, that's a doozie. And to be honest with you is yet another indicator of your megalomaniacal behavior. Only a GOD could claim such things!!!!

You stil have not addressed your weaknesses.
Not to your acknowledgment, but you can't argue that I haven't been addressing yours!

I refer you to the response I made previously.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I refer you to the response I made previously.

I've just argued your assertions in your previous, some of which I've effectively disproved, and this is all you can muster. Where's you point by point retort. As a matter of fact you do one heck of a lot of side stepping. It would seem that you fear going head to head with me. I would go so far as to say that it would seem that you're incapable of going head to head with me.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Of course it is true that our planet existed before us. But it was not "true" until we were able to conceive of it.

To which definition are you referring?
con•ceive [kuh n-seev]
verb, -ceived, -ceiv•ing.
1. to form (a notion, opinion, purpose, etc.): He conceived the project while he was on vacation.
2. to form a notion or idea of; imagine.
3. to hold as an opinion; think; believe: I can't conceive that it would be of any use.
4. to experience or form (a feeling): to conceive a great love for music.
5. to express, as in words.
6. to become pregnant with.
7. to beget.
8. to begin, originate, or found (something) in a particular way (usually used in the passive): a new nation conceived in liberty.
9. Archaic . to understand; comprehend.
verb (used without object)
10. to form an idea; think (usually followed by of ).
11. to become pregnant.

Because I can see no evidence that conception negates actuality. I see conception as the preamble to the alignment of reality and belief (knowing) not that which contradicts the alignment of reality and belief (knowing). One can conceive of a falsehood, but one can also conceive of a truth. If one conceives of a falsehood then it never existed. If one conceives of a truth then it's always existed. Conception is merely the first step on the bridge of understanding and does not negate the truth in the understanding; it's part of the process towards understanding.

Here let me make it easier for you to understand. We'll be using the definitions outlined above.

Once, the people of the west (Europe), believed that the earth was in fact flat in truth. Then along came an individual that...

...formed the notion;
formed an idea;
formed an opinion;
thought;
believed;
had a feeling;
expressed in words;
conceived...

...that the earth was round (spherical).

In truth he was in fact correct! he also...

...formed the notion;
formed an idea;
formed an opinion;
thought;
believed;
had a feeling;
expressed in words;
conceived...

...that it was a shortcut to the east (or was that west) indies.

In truth he was in fact incorrect.

There you go, two conceptions, one was found to be in TRUTH and always had been prior to any human conception.

And the other one was a falsehood, and always had been, prior to any human conception.

It would seem that you were incorrect. "Truth," regardless of it being conceived by a human, could have existed prior to the human conception of it, just as easily as it couldn't have.

What do you have to say about that?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I believe, SOB, that one of the problems of your position, is that you do not provide an adaquiate (sp) description of that 'ground referent' by which you know what you know. It is an empty argument to just say "well, i firmlybelieve that it is so".
How can it be, me, a human being among human beings, might come upon a truth that someone else does not know?
Experience. that is the only way. So, when I am making an argument about an absolute truth, I cannot say "I believe". To do so elicits from the other a truism, a tautology. And so what if the universe is always true?? We get nowhere from this.
I might suggest you read Plato's "Protagoras" for one angle on how it is a misnomer to say that someone who is really telling the truth is really lying by virtue of the fact that they dont know the "whole" or "real" truth.

So, but you asked me to indentify particular aspects of you 'rant':

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.

I disagree, it does not. They do not speak truth but merely a succinct human version of what actually happened in truth, because most people don't know what actually happened and just impart a flawed approximation. (see above: Protagoras)

To speak truth would take forever and thus would negate a speedy trial.
I am not sure if this below is a mere example of something, or if this is you being true as an example -
It would start something like: From my perspective which takes into account my vision of _____ as reported by doctor ______ , etc, etc, and my hearing blah , blah, blah ; i may be allowing my bigotry to influence my conclusion because the defendant is "that other race;" at a distance of blah my vision may have been obscured blah blah; I believe the car was ____ due to the fact that colors are just the reflection of specific frequencies of the naturally occurring electromagnetic energy emitted by various natural, etc, etc, etc, etc,etc, AD INFINITUM. To say anything less is not that of truth. And the reason I say that humans are incapable of stating truth is because it would eventually lead to the origins if the universe which NO ONE KNOWS!

No one speaks truth, just a infinitesimally brief approximation steeped in infinite assumption and ambiguity!!!!!!!!!

That's the truth of the human animal, my friend! Human civilization is a human construct much like the matrix, that was built upon the human animals insatiable selfishness!!!!!! It's full of lies and deceit, death and destruction and in the end it's own annihilation. Life on planet earth is full of illusion my friend! If in truth they exist, I would trust an extra-terrestrial over a human any day! Beam me up Scottie there's no intelligent life forms on planet earth except plants and all animals other than homo sapiens's. Global warming, warring(killing innocent babies for the powering of your latest electronic toy), feeding the machines and not the people, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on! Selfish, selfish, selfish, selfish!!!! But only for those privileged few at the top. If that Texas sized asteroid came today I'd just smile and think, well, you had you chance, poetic justice, you rich dinosaur!
OK - this is a clear example to me of the futility of human existance. An attitude of might as well give up, the giving up which is apathy.

Sure it's a rant, but no less true! Most fear looking in the mirror objectively. not I! And there's no need to get your panties in a bunch, because I'll be damned if I'll join them! Because the old saying "if you can't beat them join them" is false! If you beat them, you join them, because beating is all they understand. It's best to find a few like minded and leave them. Sure one day you'll see the mushroom on the horizon, but it's surly better than being one of them!

This then is the real reason I've come here, I've always looked to philosophy to help answer the question of meaning. And it's obviously not here! No one here is even close to understanding the human animal such as myself. I'm looking for a reason to hope as I'm surely killing myself everyday with my sedentary lifestyle. Psychosomatic Cancer is just around the corner for me if I fail to find the light at the end of the tunnel of despair born of the understanding of the flawed human animal and his seemingly never ending contradictory nature. her is another example of futility
And no I don't believe that we are subject to human nature, that's just a cop-out. Human nature can be changed through intellect because it's merely a string of choices piled on top of one another, dating back to our origin. And while it shall require going back to an earlier point and changing direction, it's the only way we'll ever become an intergalactic species, as the current course will be met with our demise. this indicates to me activism.

TRUTH is ABSOLUTE!!
HUMANS do not deal in TRUTH, they deal in BELIEF and spout it as truth! Which is why we're so screwed up!

The probelm which is salient with your assertion of an absolute truth stems from the ability to know. If I am human, I have a human ability to know. Intelligence is not an indicator of how one can know something; it may be an indicator of what one can know, such as what term relates to what other in such a way. How I may know something (as I use it here against 'what') is analogous to 'how' one may use a saw. It only works as a saw in one way. I cannot say how to use a saw and then tell someone how to write. I can only use the saw in the way the saw works as a saw. Such it is that I say that humans have the same ability to know; there is nothing outside this ability, there is not 'more' of an ability, there is only what or in what way we use this ability that we say "I have more of an ability for knowledge".

Every human being is thus knowing in that same way that I know in that we have the same ability for knowing, but we are using this ability differently. One will say that I know what reality really is, and another will say I know how the Dow Industrial Average links in and effects interest rates in credit unions.

And this has nothing to do with brain power. It has to do with the totality of experience. there is no human being who experiences only a 'part' of a world. Every human being experiences exactly the totality that is their world. Only in reference to 'what or in what way' we use this ability can we say "one experiences only part of the world".

So, when you say there is an absolute Truth, you have nothing to support it except to assert your belief about that matter, that you have used your ability in a particular way, situated knowledge in a particular way, such that you see 'lacks' in how others have situated thiers, and thus proclaim that there is a 'greater truth' than the truth of those who seem to not know what you know. And, it seems, that you propose this knowledge in the same vein as how I do not know what the economist knows, that surely the economist would come upon me and say that I do not know this and this of economics. But the primary and significant issue is: i dont give a shit about economics, and what forces of economics might influence my reality, I already know, because: reality is just that way for me.

We cannot speak about these types of relations without implimenting conflict ideology (effective ethics) or subjectivism. It has been well proven that niether of these methods get us anywhere towards Truth.
And this is because:
The end result of this kind of assertion is the inevitability of a transcedant or otherwise effective force or entity 'outside' our reality which has access to or contains the Truth of our reality, and, here is the clincher: this outside force or entity has chocen you to bestow this knowledge upon.

Thus we come full circle in the irony: because everyone has this experience, everyone has this experience of somehow having a position by which to argue as if from a position of 'truth', and we have to return to the begginnig of my little speech here, and read it again. Then we might see that there cannot be such a possibility 'in truth', and that the 'effect' of our behaving in such a way, as if there is an absolute truth, is really: to justify what we are doing in the world; to justify our being.

Hey lancek4, I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner. It's just that I've been dealing with chaz and haven't found the time. Actually since your last was so long it's taking me a while to respond. I actually have quite a bit complete. It's going to be a big one. I just wanted to say that I respect your giving me your time in response and shall return the favor in the next couple days. Also your demeanor is great. It's good to see someone deal in mutual respect, I hope I'll do yours justice.

Later my friend!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Of course it is true that our planet existed before us. But it was not "true" until we were able to conceive of it.

To which definition are you referring?
con•ceive [kuh n-seev]
verb, -ceived, -ceiv•ing.
1. to form (a notion, opinion, purpose, etc.): He conceived the project while he was on vacation.
2. to form a notion or idea of; imagine.
3. to hold as an opinion; think; believe: I can't conceive that it would be of any use.
4. to experience or form (a feeling): to conceive a great love for music.
5. to express, as in words.
6. to become pregnant with.
7. to beget.
8. to begin, originate, or found (something) in a particular way (usually used in the passive): a new nation conceived in liberty.
9. Archaic . to understand; comprehend.
verb (used without object)
10. to form an idea; think (usually followed by of ).
11. to become pregnant.

Because I can see no evidence that conception negates actuality. I see conception as the preamble to the alignment of reality and belief (knowing) not that which contradicts the alignment of reality and belief (knowing). One can conceive of a falsehood, but one can also conceive of a truth. If one conceives of a falsehood then it never existed. If one conceives of a truth then it's always existed. Conception is merely the first step on the bridge of understanding and does not negate the truth in the understanding; it's part of the process towards understanding.

Here let me make it easier for you to understand. We'll be using the definitions outlined above.

Once, the people of the west (Europe), believed that the earth was in fact flat in truth. Then along came an individual that...

...formed the notion;
formed an idea;
formed an opinion;
thought;
believed;
had a feeling;
expressed in words;
conceived...

...that the earth was round (spherical).

In truth he was in fact correct! he also...

...formed the notion;
formed an idea;
formed an opinion;
thought;
believed;
had a feeling;
expressed in words;
conceived...

...that it was a shortcut to the east (or was that west) indies.

In truth he was in fact incorrect.

There you go, two conceptions, one was found to be in TRUTH and always had been prior to any human conception.

And the other one was a falsehood, and always had been, prior to any human conception.

It would seem that you were incorrect. "Truth," regardless of it being conceived by a human, could have existed prior to the human conception of it, just as easily as it couldn't have.

What do you have to say about that?

Before you go there, I know that you'll probably say, something like: the earth being round is a concrete human concept, and that truth is an abstract human concept. I would say that it doesn't matter, because...

The concept of truth was only required because humans lie, they misrepresent, distort, cheat, etc! So human kind had to have an opposing term so as to get past the lies. So in this respect the term truth is only human, because the universe does not lie, so there is no need for an opposite. But you're forgetting one important thing and that's the definition of truth. which is:

Truth [trooth]
noun, plural truths  Show Spelled[trooth z, trooths]
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. ( often initial capital letter ) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic . fidelity or constancy.
Idiom
12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.

From the definition one can clearly see that you can apply the term truth, to the universe in terms of accuracy, actual state, reality, fact and existence.

With respect to a term like truth, what's more important, the ability for humans to be capable of talking about it (the term itself) or it's existence in reality (that which gives way to the definition)?

I submit to you that by definition the only thing that has ever existed in the universe is truth because the universe does not lie. Before humans there was no "need" to falsely represent anything. In fact (please look up to the red text) Before humans, the accuracy of the universe's actual state of existence is in fact the real truth, before humans were able to lie about it thus requiring them to acknowledge that which already existed before (without) them, that they had distorted.

Truth has always existed, and it would be the only thing that existed, if humans didn't lie! If humans didn't lie, universal truth would go without saying!

Without the universal state of truth, humans could never lie, because there would be no truth (opposite) to compare it to. I should think it obvious to you by now, that truth came first, like WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY FIRST!

So what do you say now?

[chaz wyman]

Of course it is true that our planet existed before us. But it was not "true" until we were able to conceive of it.

To which definition are you referring?
con•ceive [kuh n-seev]
verb, -ceived, -ceiv•ing.
1. to form (a notion, opinion, purpose, etc.): He conceived the project while he was on vacation.
2. to form a notion or idea of; imagine.
3. to hold as an opinion; think; believe: I can't conceive that it would be of any use.
4. to experience or form (a feeling): to conceive a great love for music.
5. to express, as in words.
6. to become pregnant with.
7. to beget.
8. to begin, originate, or found (something) in a particular way (usually used in the passive): a new nation conceived in liberty.
9. Archaic . to understand; comprehend.
verb (used without object)
10. to form an idea; think (usually followed by of ).
11. to become pregnant.

Because I can see no evidence that conception negates actuality. I see conception as the preamble to the alignment of reality and belief (knowing) not that which contradicts the alignment of reality and belief (knowing). One can conceive of a falsehood, but one can also conceive of a truth. If one conceives of a falsehood then it never existed. If one conceives of a truth then it's always existed. Conception is merely the first step on the bridge of understanding and does not negate the truth in the understanding; it's part of the process towards understanding.

Here let me make it easier for you to understand. We'll be using the definitions outlined above.

Once, the people of the west (Europe), believed that the earth was in fact flat in truth. Then along came an individual that...

...formed the notion;
formed an idea;
formed an opinion;
thought;
believed;
had a feeling;
expressed in words;
conceived...

...that the earth was round (spherical).

In truth he was in fact correct! he also...

...formed the notion;
formed an idea;
formed an opinion;
thought;
believed;
had a feeling;
expressed in words;
conceived...

...that it was a shortcut to the east (or was that west) indies.

In truth he was in fact incorrect.

There you go, two conceptions, one was found to be in TRUTH and always had been prior to any human conception.

And the other one was a falsehood, and always had been, prior to any human conception.

It would seem that you were incorrect. "Truth," regardless of it being conceived by a human, could have existed prior to the human conception of it, just as easily as it couldn't have.

What do you have to say about that?

Before you go there, I know that you'll probably say, something like: the earth being round is a concrete human concept, and that truth is an abstract human concept. I would say that it doesn't matter, because...

The concept of truth was only required because humans lie, they misrepresent, distort, cheat, etc! So human kind had to have an opposing term so as to get past the lies. So in this respect the term truth is only human, because the universe does not lie, so there is no need for an opposite. But you're forgetting one important thing and that's the definition of truth. which is:

Truth [trooth]
noun, plural truths  Show Spelled[trooth z, trooths]
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. ( often initial capital letter ) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic . fidelity or constancy.
Idiom
12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.

From the definition one can clearly see that you can apply the term truth, to the universe in terms of accuracy, actual state, reality, fact and existence.

With respect to a term like truth, what's more important, the ability for humans to be capable of talking about it (the term itself) or it's existence in reality (that which gives way to the definition)?

I submit to you that by definition the only thing that has ever existed in the universe is truth because the universe does not lie. Before humans there was no "need" to falsely represent anything. In fact (please look up to the red text) Before humans, the accuracy of the universe's actual state of existence is in fact the real truth, before humans were able to lie about it thus requiring them to acknowledge that which already existed before (without) them, that they had distorted.

Truth has always existed, and it would be the only thing that existed, if humans didn't lie! If humans didn't lie, universal truth would go without saying!

Without the universal state of truth, humans could never lie, because there would be no truth (opposite) to compare it to. I should think it obvious to you by now, that truth came first, like WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY FIRST!

So what do you say now?

I refer you to the response I made previously.

It was once thought "TRUE" the the earth was the centre of the Universe.
Then Aristarchus came along and said it might be otherwise. It was not until Galileo and Kepler re-vamped Copernicus' model that the truth of the matter existed, and was widely accepted as such.
Hindsight is easy. But it is incoherent to state that facts were true before there were humans to conceive them. Truth is always interested.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Of course it is true that our planet existed before us. But it was not "true" until we were able to conceive of it.

To which definition are you referring?
con•ceive [kuh n-seev]
verb, -ceived, -ceiv•ing.
1. to form (a notion, opinion, purpose, etc.): He conceived the project while he was on vacation.
2. to form a notion or idea of; imagine.
3. to hold as an opinion; think; believe: I can't conceive that it would be of any use.
4. to experience or form (a feeling): to conceive a great love for music.
5. to express, as in words.
6. to become pregnant with.
7. to beget.
8. to begin, originate, or found (something) in a particular way (usually used in the passive): a new nation conceived in liberty.
9. Archaic . to understand; comprehend.
verb (used without object)
10. to form an idea; think (usually followed by of ).
11. to become pregnant.

Because I can see no evidence that conception negates actuality. I see conception as the preamble to the alignment of reality and belief (knowing) not that which contradicts the alignment of reality and belief (knowing). One can conceive of a falsehood, but one can also conceive of a truth. If one conceives of a falsehood then it never existed. If one conceives of a truth then it's always existed. Conception is merely the first step on the bridge of understanding and does not negate the truth in the understanding; it's part of the process towards understanding.

Here let me make it easier for you to understand. We'll be using the definitions outlined above.

Once, the people of the west (Europe), believed that the earth was in fact flat in truth. Then along came an individual that...

...formed the notion;
formed an idea;
formed an opinion;
thought;
believed;
had a feeling;
expressed in words;
conceived...

...that the earth was round (spherical).

In truth he was in fact correct! he also...

...formed the notion;
formed an idea;
formed an opinion;
thought;
believed;
had a feeling;
expressed in words;
conceived...

...that it was a shortcut to the east (or was that west) indies.

In truth he was in fact incorrect.

There you go, two conceptions, one was found to be in TRUTH and always had been prior to any human conception.

And the other one was a falsehood, and always had been, prior to any human conception.

It would seem that you were incorrect. "Truth," regardless of it being conceived by a human, could have existed prior to the human conception of it, just as easily as it couldn't have.

What do you have to say about that?

Before you go there, I know that you'll probably say, something like: the earth being round is a concrete human concept, and that truth is an abstract human concept. I would say that it doesn't matter, because...

The concept of truth was only required because humans lie, they misrepresent, distort, cheat, etc! So human kind had to have an opposing term so as to get past the lies. So in this respect the term truth is only human, because the universe does not lie, so there is no need for an opposite. But you're forgetting one important thing and that's the definition of truth. which is:

Truth [trooth]
noun, plural truths  Show Spelled[trooth z, trooths]
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. ( often initial capital letter ) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic . fidelity or constancy.
Idiom
12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.

From the definition one can clearly see that you can apply the term truth, to the universe in terms of accuracy, actual state, reality, fact and existence.

With respect to a term like truth, what's more important, the ability for humans to be capable of talking about it (the term itself) or it's existence in reality (that which gives way to the definition)?

I submit to you that by definition the only thing that has ever existed in the universe is truth because the universe does not lie. Before humans there was no "need" to falsely represent anything. In fact (please look up to the red text) Before humans, the accuracy of the universe's actual state of existence is in fact the real truth, before humans were able to lie about it thus requiring them to acknowledge that which already existed before (without) them, that they had distorted.

Truth has always existed, and it would be the only thing that existed, if humans didn't lie! If humans didn't lie, universal truth would go without saying!

Without the universal state of truth, humans could never lie, because there would be no truth (opposite) to compare it to. I should think it obvious to you by now, that truth came first, like WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY FIRST!

So what do you say now?

I refer you to the response I made previously.

It was once thought "TRUE" the the earth was the centre of the Universe.
Then Aristarchus came along and said it might be otherwise. It was not until Galileo and Kepler re-vamped Copernicus' model that the truth of the matter existed, and was widely accepted as such.
Hindsight is easy. But it is incoherent to state that facts were true before there were humans to conceive them. Truth is always interested.

Gibberish! Truth (before 900) is Fact's (1530–40) predecessor Fact and truth indicate the same idea.

Truth is a state of being, requiring no qualifier!

[chaz wyman]

Of course it is true that our planet existed before us. But it was not "true" until we were able to conceive of it.

To which definition are you referring?
!

A state of being???

I think we are done here.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Of course it is true that our planet existed before us. But it was not "true" until we were able to conceive of it.

To which definition are you referring?
!

A state of being???
Obviously, definitions: 1. the true or actual state of a matter, 2. conformity with fact or reality and 5. actuality or actual existence. Especially Definition 5! (STATE of BEING). That, 'our star actually existed prior to life on planet earth,' does not require a qualifier. No human or their concepts were required to make it so. By definition, truth existed prior to the human conception of it. If you're having a problem with actuality, look it up!

I think we are done here.
We never got started, because both of us would have had to have understood the meanings of the words we've used, I have!

Only LIARS are those incapable of grasping TRUTH!