Philosophy Now Forum

I became interested in philosophy a few years ago and made a casual acquaintance with some of the characters who have played a part in its progression since Socrates wandered about the market places of ancient Greece, annoying the locals. I can’t say I am any wiser because of it. I thought that learning about philosophy might help facilitate my getting to the truth of things. If it has taught me anything at all, it is that there isn’t a truth of things.

Perhaps a better way of putting that would be to say that the word “truth” stands for something different every time we use it, but it always seems to involve distilling or isolating something from something bigger. What we end up with is very often something that has to be separated from any wider context in order to satisfy our desire for a binary* outcome.

Philosophy isn’t really about getting to the truth, it’s more about getting to what isn’t the truth, and for that alone, it’s worth pursuing.



* I would have said “black and white” at one time.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:14 pm I became interested in philosophy a few years ago and made a casual acquaintance with some of the characters who have played a part in its progression since Socrates wandered about the market places of ancient Greece, annoying the locals. I can’t say I am any wiser because of it. I thought that learning about philosophy might help facilitate my getting to the truth of things. If it has taught me anything at all, it is that there isn’t a truth of things.

Perhaps a better way of putting that would be to say that the word “truth” stands for something different every time we use it, but it always seems to involve distilling or isolating something from something bigger. What we end up with is very often something that has to be separated from any wider context in order to satisfy our desire for a binary* outcome.

Philosophy isn’t really about getting to the truth, it’s more about getting to what isn’t the truth, and for that alone, it’s worth pursuing.



* I would have said “black and white” at one time.

One thing I have learnt is that truth is a label and not a destination.

All that humans can do is look for the simplest and most likely metaphysical guess. And hope that it's more or less the truth, but we will never be able to tell.

Great post, and well said, Harbal.

For me, too, truth is represented rather loosely within a given moment, and is based on continually-evolving and flickering perspectives. Although I will fight vigorously over it at times.

I've seen people, including myself, be SO SURE of the truth...only to realize that's not what happened. We re-write reality a lot. It's both amazing and terrifying how good we are at it, and how convincing it is!

I see any philosophical platform as something that needs to be questioned from every angle -- because any platform is essentially static by nature, rejecting broader "truths" that are beyond its scope. I like the approach you mentioned: Philosophy is more about getting to what ISN'T the truth -- valuable because "truth" is perhaps the greatest illusion.

if one is not able to get to the truth, how would they be able to get to what isn't the truth?

that makes no sense.

let's be perfectly clear, all the arguments in philosophy used to denounce the existence of God and other hot button 'truth' issues can also be turned around and used to defend his existence or argue just as reasonably other opposing positions, and that is due to the nature of the arguments, which is no hard evidence either way.

just because you can't find the answer or truth in philosophy doesn't mean there isn't one; your unrealistic poorly guided expectations led you to that conclusion

of course you won't find the truth about anything wholesale in philosophy because philosophy doesn't solidly prove anything, it's merely one part of the puzzle

and then there is the question of what kind of truth exactly you are looking for. that there are different conceptions of truth doesn't mean it doesn't exist or can't be known; sometimes the truth, including what kind of truth is important, is arrived at indirectly, by combining philosophical reasoning with science, your own experience and observations, etc.

and that it can't be proven or shown due to accessibility issues does not mean it doesn't exist; currently inaccessible does not mean does not exist!

understanding what truth means, what it intends, and then being patient is what philosophy is about. the final word has not been said on anything. moreover, other avenues of knowledge are chugging along, things deemed inaccessible 50 years ago are now 'common knowledge'.

and even if you think 'it's all a dream or could be so how do we know' and yada yada philosophical mumbo jumbo it's understanding what truth is, what it means, or what it intends in relation to all that which is important.

it's the idea of truth. truth is a concept. and it's important because of its implications. saying truth is part of something bigger is vague and definitely short-selling the concept. truth itself is bigger than that.

in practical terms, if something is the truth then it affects everyone who encounters it or whatever it represents. philosophy is simply an extrapolation of truth-seeking as occurs in other avenues like science or any sort of investigation to more abstract subject matters, that's it. within other avenues truth has a distinct, discipline specific criteria that is accepted and which is in line with the goals of those disciplines, why wouldn't it be the same for philosophy?

it's because subject matters of philosophy aren't not deemed important, or may even be threatening, to our world, so instead of tailoring a criteria for truth suitable to philosophy, in line with its goals, we're going to denounce the notion of truth in philosophy entirely which effectively denounces the entire discipline?

why don't we denounce truth within science while we're at it, that way you can cross the road without looking and you won't get hit by a car. fuck what physics has to say, you'll live no matter what, every time, it's a matter of perspective. the car doesn't really exist

sounds silly doesn't it?

so why do we allow this reasoning when it comes to philosophy?

how about instead we fashion a criteria for truth unique to philosophy that reflects our intentions for the discipline, our desire to know or maybe just reach as far as we can so that we have something to act on, so that we are not living aimless, just like physics tells us the car going 100 mph will smash us, and that is acknowledged truth as per suitable criteria, philosophy can give us similar though at time less tangible answers.

and philosophy is about answers, and that is what truth is, an answer according to suitable criteria. if you do not think the subject matters of philosophy are important enough to warrant a treatment we give to all other truth-seeking disciplines than that is your deficiency, not philosophy's.

11011 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:27 am and that it can't be proven or shown due to accessibility issues does not mean it doesn't exist; currently inaccessible does not mean does not exist!

So, what are you supposed to do with that?

Is this some kind of logic/belief meant for claiming/supporting anything at all?

11011 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:27 amunderstanding what truth means, what it intends, and then being patient is what philosophy is about.

Hey, that nonsense sounds really snazzy.

It seems like you might be defending some belief, but you're not coming right out and saying what it is?

11011 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:27 amand even if you think 'it's all a dream or could be so how do we know' and yada yada philosophical mumbo jumbo

But that's what YOU'RE doing by saying: Even if it can't be proven or shown, yada yada mumbo mumbo.

Ideas of "truth" are definitely necessary for the lives we live. Yet, there are so MANY "truths" that change based on perspective. So, what might that mean? Is "truth" something more than what we actually make of it OR perceive at any given time?

Even long-held truths have shown to be inaccurate or incomplete when our perspectives expanded or shifted.

11011 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:27 amwithin other avenues truth has a distinct, discipline specific criteria that is accepted and which is in line with the goals of those disciplines, why wouldn't it be the same for philosophy?

Because, like all of our ideas, it's limited to what we understand and believe... and it varies widely... and it's limited to habit and patterns. Like religion, people fall into line on a certain platform, and quote age old ideas as if it is definitive and complete wisdom. Even if it were one TYPE (or tiny fraction) of supposed "truth" -- how truthful is that?

11011 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:27 aminstead of tailoring a criteria for truth suitable to philosophy, in line with its goals, we're going to denounce the notion of truth in philosophy entirely which effectively denounces the entire discipline?

Well, I've always loved philosophical discussions, but yes, I question and explore and try to expand on pretty much everything. The red flags to me are platforms that put forth any limitations, separations, or claims of absolute truth. That spurs me to ask things like: what's the driving force/agenda behind such a set of ideas, why would any path be rigid and non-evolving, and what else is there that is being ignored/denied? Those seem like reasonable questions to me.

11011 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:27 amwhy don't we denounce truth within science while we're at it, that way you can cross the road without looking and you won't get hit by a car. fuck what physics has to say, you'll live no matter what, every time, it's a matter of perspective. the car doesn't really exist. sounds silly doesn't it?

That's not the same thing. We are in a physical reality, and a car is a physical thing that can squash a physical body. "Truth" is an idea. And ideas are infinitely variable. So, saying that truth is not a static, solid thing, seems reasonably truthful... in this context at the moment.

11011 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:27 am so why do we allow this reasoning when it comes to philosophy?

Why not? It seems perfectly reasonable for philosophical discussion.

11011 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:27 amhow about instead we fashion a criteria for truth unique to philosophy that reflects our intentions for the discipline, our desire to know or maybe just reach as far as we can so that we have something to act on, so that we are not living aimless

Because people have vastly different abilities in awareness and understanding. There is no single language or understanding that suits everyone.

11011 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:27 am and philosophy is about answers

Which are made up based on what we think at any given time. It's just another word for what we think of as "truth". And it changes. So what is it really?

Questioning these things does not result in an aimless life (as you say). It can actually free up a person to move in more directions. When a person has a sense that these ideas are all tools rather than idols, the dynamics change. I think we become explorers rather than followers. I think it improves our creative potential when we stop seeking anything specific, and adjust our vision to a wider field (so to speak). More things come into view.

truth does not preclude exploration, and you are portraying truth-seeking in philosophy as if it's ironclad religion.

truth in philosophy should be tentative, the 'best answer' given philosophy's criteria.

my issue is with people who reject coming up with any criteria at all and thus the very idea or goal of truth in philosophy.

philosophy is NOT life, it's a discipline, separate from life, to be practiced according to its own rules and criteria, it need not stop people from approaching life in any other fashion, but when doing philosophy, which is a truth-seeking endeavor like science, like other investigative disciplines, you follow the criteria which are outlined based on goals which keep it moving in a productive direction.

ultimately your rejection of truth in philosophy is little more than a value judgement that it's not useful to you or how you want to live, ok, but that doesn't mean truth doesn't exist or isn't valid in philosophy.

philosophy is not an approach to life, it's a discipline, and its truths are meant to be informative and applied with discretion, not ironclad rules like some oppressive religion.

11011 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:40 am truth in philosophy should be tentative, the 'best answer' given philosophy's criteria.

Philosophy has criteria? Interesting.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:12 amI've seen people, including myself, be SO SURE of the truth...only to realize that's not what happened.

At a "training course" I was on yesterday. The instructor showed a diagram of three vehicles involved in a traffic accident that was developing. He asked the class which vehicle was at fault. A couple of them gave him a definite answer, everyone else didn't seem as sure but still felt obliged to make a choice, which they all did. I thought it was a case of all three vehicles contributing to the accident, but even then I was making some assumptions about the situation. The instructor said it was the first time he'd used this particular slide show and didn't have the notes for it, so he didn't actually know what the answer was.

It was a good example of how people feel they have to come to a conclusion even when they don't have enough information to justify one. Brexit would be another example of a car crash with numerous versions of the truth; as would the "training course" if anyone were to claim it was of any educational merit.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:04 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:12 amI've seen people, including myself, be SO SURE of the truth...only to realize that's not what happened.

At a "training course" I was on yesterday. The instructor showed a diagram of three vehicles involved in a traffic accident that was developing. He asked the class which vehicle was at fault. A couple of them gave him a definite answer, everyone else didn't seem as sure but still felt obliged to make a choice, which they all did. I thought it was a case of all three vehicles contributing to the accident, but even then I was making some assumptions about the situation. The instructor said it was the first time he'd used this particular slide show and didn't have the notes for it, so he didn't actually know what the answer was.

It was a good example of how people feel they have to come to a conclusion even when they don't have enough information to justify one. Brexit would be another example of a car crash with numerous versions of the truth; as would the "training course" if anyone were to claim it was of any educational merit.

You HAVE TO come to a conclusion without HAVING all particulars to arrive at that conclusion. The lacking of all pertinent information can't be changed; the absolute need to come to a conclusion can't be relaxed.

Something has to give, don't it. I think humans do the right thing by coming to conclusions when forced to do so.

-1- wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:09 pm I think humans do the right thing by coming to conclusions when forced to do so.

Your acquaintance with humans must have been a very different experience to mine.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:14 pm I became interested in philosophy a few years ago and made a casual acquaintance with some of the characters who have played a part in its progression since Socrates wandered about the market places of ancient Greece, annoying the locals. I can’t say I am any wiser because of it. I thought that learning about philosophy might help facilitate my getting to the truth of things. If it has taught me anything at all, it is that there isn’t a truth of things.

Perhaps a better way of putting that would be to say that the word “truth” stands for something different every time we use it, but it always seems to involve distilling or isolating something from something bigger. What we end up with is very often something that has to be separated from any wider context in order to satisfy our desire for a binary* outcome.

Philosophy isn’t really about getting to the truth, it’s more about getting to what isn’t the truth, and for that alone, it’s worth pursuing.



* I would have said “black and white” at one time.

I think for a lot of philosophers philosophy is proving that you are closer to the truth the preceding guys and gals who have given their two-cents worth on the soap box.

The beauty of philosophy is that you can't get at the truth. Once you do, because you do do one time or another, the quest for that particular truth ceases to be philosophy, it becomes knowledge.

This happened to many physical philosophical questions. For instance, since the force of gravity has been discovered, nobody asks "what holds the centre".

This happened to many psychological philosophical questions. For instance, many aspects of "what is human nature" has been definitively answered.

This happened to ethics. Evolutionary social psychology has a perfectly clear, useful, and applicable answer to "what is right and what is wrong".

This happened to religion. Nietzsche's "God is dead" is philosophy; but the discovery of a seventy-foot tall giant, with long, billowing, white hair and beard, dressed in a toga, found in a pool of his own blood in an anthropological dig in the desert of south Sudan AND in the taiga of northern Siberia AT THE SAME TIME answered the question definitively.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:16 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:09 pm I think humans do the right thing by coming to conclusions when forced to do so.

Your acquaintance with humans must have been a very different experience to mine.

So your acquaintances refuse to make conclusions when forced to do so.

Fine. I can't argue with that. It's a fact you uttered, and I can't go against your word. This is what you experienced, and I am not privy to judge it for truth or falsehood.

------------------

Careful: I did not say in my previous post that people come to the CORRECT conclusion. That is not what I said at all. I said they do the right thing when they conclude something when they are forced to make a conclusion.

The two things are different.

re driving accident:

it would depend on who was in a faulty position preceding the accident. and it is possible, just as it is in law, for multiple people in a situation to be at fault, based on who put themselves in a position, knowingly, against the rules.

i get the sense you're asking 'who caused the accident' as in 'would the accident have happened if any one of these people were absent', but that's not the way to approach it because fault and cause are not the same thing and this is asking a different question.

fault is about rule breaking and rules are made up prior and then imposed on situations, cause is about event occurrence. for example, what if the accident happened because a tree blew over onto the road, not because anyone was breaking rules under normal conditions? then none would be at fault yet all cars involved and the tree were necessary to cause it.

i could be cheeky and say the tree was at fault but instead i'll use this aspect to illustrate the idea further: the tree can't break rules, rules known prior and imposed on situations. so that's how it works.

well, at least that's what i think lol

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:04 pm a good example of how people feel they have to come to a conclusion even when they don't have enough information to justify one.

Yes indeed!