User Tag List

12311 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 236

  1. #1
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default The Varieties of Truth

    Welcome!

    The purpose of this thread is to survey the various conceptions of truth that are ingrained in your minds. In order to participate and win a rabbit, please go by the following steps:

    1. Look into yourself.
    2. Feel, think about, grasp at the idea of truth that you find in there.
    3. Ponder the best way to put it into words.
    4. Put it into words.
    5. Submit it.

    It is neither necessary nor requested that you think about how truth should be, could be, or is defined by others. It is all about you.

    I hope your answer will in itself answer the following question; if it does not, however, please answer: According to your conception of truth, what is required for statement 'x'* to be true?

    * 'x' could be anything, for instance, 'Yeshua of Nazareth died on the cross'.

  2. #2
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,480

    Default

    Truth, I guess is a way of saying something is valid. And the concept doesn't mean a lot to me without knowing the framework you're using it in. To say a couch is "Blue" is true for maybe when talking to your friend, but maybe not with an interior designer. 'Jesus died on the cross' is not true to a historian (the Romans didn't even really use crossess) , but it has a definite validity and meaning to a Christian.

    I personally think of Truth as identifying what the 'scope' of an idea is, and everything has some sort of reality to nestle into and call home.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    I personally think of Truth as identifying what the 'scope' of an idea is, and everything has some sort of reality to nestle into and call home.
    There is an interesting word popping up at the end. What role does reality play for you in determining truth?

    If we have a christian and a historian, one claiming that Jesus died on the cross, the other that he did not, who is right?

  4. #4
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Nico, wow -- mentally provocative thread.
    I'm still thinking about what my criteria for truth is.

    I think, though, the first realization I have about my criteria for truth is that, for certain types of conclusions, the standards cannot be met.

    I accept that units of quantifiable measurement (in the empirical sense) do provide what seems to be accurate feedback about the environment, which I find to be reliably true. I will get in a car or plane, I will take certain medications, I will do a number of things each day that show that I am relying on certain empirical data being "true." Still, my understanding of the data, while "reliably true," might not be 100% accurate -- the difference between Newton's view of the universe vs Einstein's for example. But it's still reliable enough to live by.

    More abstract truth, to me, is far less quantifiable and thus I cannot say that it is certainly "true." I can merely say that I believe it to be true enough that I am choosing to live by it.

    Maybe that's my standard of "truth," then. It's either reliable enough to live by, or it's not worth depending on. And my decision-making involves both quantifiable measures as well as preferential ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    If we have a christian and a historian, one claiming that Jesus died on the cross, the other that he did not, who is right?
    Since you mentioned this example in the OP, for me, part of that answer would be some sort of actual, non-arguable physical evidence that a person named Jesus died on a cross at the time and location specified. However, to answer the unspoken part of the question, I would need further evidence to accept that he is "God's son" and everything that has been claimed about him for centuries. That evidence is far more vague, so there are personal preferences mixed in on what level of evidence would be acceptable.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #5
    Listening Oaky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    6,168

    Default

    A degree of faith in the trust that you give to whatever information you accumulate. Even direct sensation.

  6. #6
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,932

    Default

    Something that can be tangibly verified through the five senses. Once the information is second handed it ceases to be a genuine truth. How do I make sure Napoleon existed? Can't be done. But hey, 99,99% is more than enough to call it a truth for everyday purposes. Oh, and even when the info can be verified through the five senses, there is still the possibility that we are trapped in some kind of virtual reality(see matrix), which would make all truths only valid within that environment. Far fetched? Hell yeah, but tell me, how would we know?
    And if you just ''feel it'', is not a truth, it's just a dogma that may or not be a truth.
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


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

  7. #7
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    There is an interesting word popping up at the end. What role does reality play for you in determining truth?

    (keep in mind that anyhing I'm saying are things that I've discovered for myself, or stole from other sources, like a magpie and possibly took it out of it's original, academic, philosphical, or technical context and repurposed)

    If we have a christian and a historian, one claiming that Jesus died on the cross, the other that he did not, who is right?
    I probably should've used an archeologist as an example, because they're a better counterpoint, they try to identify things that objectively happened. Historians are actually a bit squishier as they are trying to take those things and try to make some sort of sense of them, create a narrative.

    As far as reality, well, I guess I would call a reality some sort of domain in which something is capable of affecting other things within that domain. People invariably live in several domains. One is a type of 'story' world in which we have an understanding of how we relate to the world and to other people. I contend that this place is even more real to us as individuals than the world of matter. From our finely and later developed objective side, this place usually seems like a bunch of nonsense, but it does exist. This place is where Jesus Christ lives, and is true to everybody in some degree, but by different conceptions, some not anthromorphised or mythologized.

    I think everybody is very mistakenly trying to use this idea of the 'really real'. The 'really real' is just facts sans value sans narrative. They're free radicals, they don't stay free naturally for long. Facts are only good as fuel to agendas, which are never objective.

  8. #8
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Beautiful thread, Nico.

    For me, truth will often have a blend of both facts and faith within. I don't feel or think that I need to have 100% evidence compiled for me to define something as being a truth. This, admittedly, provides many mistakes which might make it sound like a faulty system. However, it provides me with an ability to sift through more ideas to find truth within them. When I have made a mistake it allows me an opportunity to learn and grow from it. I find that I cannot think my way out of living, as much as I strive for that.

    And in experiencing these mistakes I am better able to be more discerning and knowledgeable in the future.

  9. #9
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oakysage View Post
    A degree of faith in the trust that you give to whatever information you accumulate. Even direct sensation.
    Seems like there may be two kinds of truth. The one above is "subjective". An "objective" truth would be one that is based on solid facts and evidence.

    So, if someone were to believe the world was flat in the 1600s, that would be a subjective truth. The objective truth, which is verified by facts or evidence is that the world is round. People didn't know enough back then though.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  10. #10
    Listening Oaky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    6,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Seems like there may be two kinds of truth. The one above is "subjective". An "objective" truth would be one that is based on solid facts and evidence.

    So, if someone were to believe the world was flat in the 1600s, that would be a subjective truth. The objective truth, which is verified by facts or evidence is that the world is round. People didn't know enough back then though.
    I'm also speaking of objective truths. The belief of facts in itself bears faith in that the facts themselves are true. We put faith in what scientists find, what they theorise, what explorers explored and told... and our depictions of what we see as facts. But really, all we ever have is information perceived and how much faith we put in it. What we see as a solid fact is simply an abstract categorisation of that information.

Similar Threads

  1. alex jones and the case of the lizard people: the truth will be found out!
    By jcloudz in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-12-2016, 11:07 AM
  2. The Truth is in Here: The Return of X-Files
    By Totenkindly in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-26-2015, 08:34 AM
  3. The Opposite of Truth
    By Salomé in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: 09-16-2010, 09:14 PM
  4. [MBTItm] The merit of stuffed animals
    By nightning in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 09-29-2007, 10:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO