is their such thing as truth ?

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I want to throw rocks at people that say objective reality doesn't exist.

 

[Evee]

I want to throw rocks at people that say objective reality doesn't exist.

Rocks do not depend on man's existence for their location and occurrence in the world, but reality, which is a mode of man's interpretation of the world, does depend on man's existence.

The same can be said for truth, and Being (to be).

 

[Myshkin14]

Rocks do not depend on man's existence for their location and occurrence in the world, but reality, which is a mode of man's interpretation of the world, does depend on man's existence.

The same can be said for truth, and Being (to be).

In reality, this is a very realistic and truthful example of how the reality of reality is confused with the reality of perception, even though this particular perception does not really square with reality.

 

[Evee]

In reality, this is a very realistic and truthful example of how the reality of reality is confused with the reality of perception, even though this particular perception does not really square with reality.

Matter is a representation which has both a perceptual and conceptual nature.

Who is doing the perceiving and conceiving? The answer is Man.

 

[tkae.]

You could be asking one of two questions:

Does truth exist?

Or

Is there a universal truth?

Those are two distinct questions. Truth exists for each every perspective of reality. A universal truth, however, does not exist, because reality is a perception and every different perception will have its own truth to that reality.

 

[Mane]

Truth is whether something - most likely viewed from a perspective within reality - corresponds to an objective reality outside of it, meaning that if there is no universal truth, then any subjective perception of truth has noting to correspond too, so it's universally true that they are all untruthful, including this very statement and thus that there is no universal truth.

 

[EcK]

As far as we re concerned. Not about stuff happening in the universe. If you re talking closed systems (and if we have all the relevant data) . Yes i guess.

In short knowledge about the universe- no absolute truth rather empirical evidence, statistiques and we build
Models that work to predict stuff but thats not the same thing as truth. Key issue: we are part of, and a very limited observer in this system.

Possible solution is: an observer bigger than the universe and part of it but then the universe is bigger than itself and the observer just messed up the observation being part of the system so: no absolute truth

Another way to look at it is: the more we know, the more we know we don't know. So the more we know the further away we get from the truth. (Because "truth" is as modern a concept as silex. Expecting to be getting closer to truth as our knowledge of the universe grows is akin to expecting to get closer to the flat-earth and earth centric solar system as physics advance)
Knowledge about simple/closed systems like 1+1=2. Sure its always true it equals to 2.

The idea of truth: kind of primitive frankly .. Except for simple stuff. Commonly used in everyday life to grossly simplify complex systems : "the weather is nice" (a whole lot goes unsaid and its all relative to the viewer s perspective), "you lied when u said u did ur home work" (what does that mean? Today? Yesterday? Define home work? Etc ad infinitum)

At the end of the day its just a mental tooo we use for "it work/correct within the system if we both use a similar enough set of assumptions). But i think it stopped being relevant after we went past the platonic realm of the forms. Truth was good back then, now we have a clearer understanding of things

I dom't know. I feel this is an old topic..?!

 

[EcK]

I mean i'm all for someone giving me an argument for "truth" as anything else than a dated mental tool with no bearing on "reality"(another fun term) that goes beyond the usual subtext :"Because i like it" "because god is truth" "because it makes me feel safe" which can all be summarized under "because i'm a child" or logic so flawed i don't even feel like going beyond the 3rd logical fallacy (ie end of 1st line)

 

[Beorn]

I mean i'm all for someone giving me an argument for "truth" that goes beyond the usual subtext :"Because i like it" "because god is truth" "because it makes me feel safe" which can all be summarized under "because i'm a child" or logic so flawed i don't even feel like going beyond the 3rd logical fallacy (ie end of 1st line)

Uh, absent truth what is the purpose of a logical fallacy?

 

[EcK]

Uh, absent truth what is the purpose of a logical fallacy?

When an engine stops working do u say its lying?
When a cpu computes something without errors is it saying the truth.

Any more questions?

And if you meant the etymology of fallacy I don't think etymology has much bearing on how words are used. Logical fallacy = your reasoning is not internally coherent. That has nothing to do with "truth"

 

[93JC]

 

[Beorn]

When an engine stops working do u say its lying?
When a cpu computes something without errors is it saying the truth.

Sure you have built in presumptions here about what "working" and "without errors" means. That's why in these cases you don't use truth.
However, in the end it is truth that allows you to evaluate the differences in the outcomes otherwise it's merely a matter of preference.

Logical fallacy = your reasoning is not internally coherent. That has nothing to do with "truth"

But it requires knowledge of truth to state that to be internally consistent is always better than being inconsistent. It's implicit in any criticism of someone being inconsistent.

 

[EcK]

Sure you have built in presumptions here about what "working" and "without errors" means. That's why in these cases you don't use truth.
However, in the end it is truth that allows you to evaluate the differences in the outcomes otherwise it's merely a matter of preference.




But it requires knowledge of truth to state that to be internally consistent is always better than being inconsistent. It's implicit in any criticism of someone being inconsistent.

Again, wrong.
An engine is not 'truer' because it works or not. It just works, independently from my preference. Then of course we can define 'work' and say what 'works' for you doesn't 'work' for me.

I'm merely saying that I can use the same framework to disprove your statement. It's like saying " i can beat you at game X or Y". But it's shorter to say' right / wrong'. that doesn't mean it's something people should take seriously.

we tend to think these things are 'obvious' because we keep making and sharing the same assumptions. It helps in simplifying communication. But when we start trying to apply absolutes to what at the end of the day is just a point of view that's simply hubris.

That's how wars start, and presidential elections are generally almost 50/50, because people confuse 'right and truth' with some kind of objective fact outside of themselves. It's not. Because frankly there's no such thing. The correct way to think of it is 'useful'. Ideas are tools that are useful, they are not platonic ideals existing outside of us. If all humans die, truth, chairs, puppies and dark die with us. In fact each and everyone of us has their own version of these terms, we just think it's all the same because we tend not to disagree. Then completly miss all the times in our lives it's made apparent these things are not that much more than figments of our imaginations (ie; disagreements between people)

One candidate is not 'righter' than the others. They're just two people presenting almost the same thing (generally) with different perspectives and a slight bias towards whoever votes for them. They put big words behind it to make it seem like their ideas are somewhat qualitatively different from the ideas of the next guy.

Same with philosophy, math, science etc. Truth is a term that encourages dogmatism. I take it as seriously as the ramblings of a child. It's cute. It's somewhat useful at some point in the future. But it's nothing more special than 'dog' or 'wire' or 'lamp'

 

[citizen cane]

there* 'Is there such a thing as truth?'

 

[Beorn]

Again, wrong.
An engine is not 'truer' because it works or not.

I didn't say it is.

It just works, independently from my preference. Then of course we can define 'work' and say what 'works' for you doesn't 'work' for me.

These two sentences contradict so I don't know what you're saying.

we tend to think these things are 'obvious' because we keep making and sharing the same assumptions.

That was my point.

It helps in simplifying communication.

Sure.

But when we start trying to apply absolutes to what at the end of the day is just a point of view that's simply hubris.

So it's true that absolutes lead to hubris?

That's how wars start, and presidential elections are generally almost 50/50, because people confuse 'right and truth' with some kind of objective fact outside of themselves. It's not.

Yeah, except that's also the reason why people sacrifice and suffer for those who are more needy or for the truth of an issue. MLK and my main man Wilberforce also believed in absolute truth and they accomplished great good because of it.

 

[EcK]

I didn't say it is.




These two sentences contradict so I don't know what you're saying.







That was my point.



Sure.


So it's true that absolutes lead to hubris?



Yeah, except that's also the reason why people sacrifice and suffer for those who are more needy or for the truth of an issue. MLK and my main man Wilberforce also believed in absolute truth and they accomplished great good because of it.

Well actually I don't really have these presumptions, they're used for the purpose of starting a discussion. Otherwise it'd be a tad difficult to communicate at all if all and every word had to be qualified, then the qualification qualified etc. It'd be 'hell'.

In short I just think these are 'tools' we use. But the issue with the term truth is that people give it a 'sanctity' and tend to take it too seriously.

So seriously they use it to back whatever preference they have.

Of course people achieved 'great things' through a given set of drives. Some of which can be called truth, 'what is right', morals etc.

But many people also accomplished 'horrible things' with the same concepts. Because we use a self referential term to refer to another self referential term etc. which makes it all highly questionable. And then apply a good old confirmation bias (seeing facts agreeing with our thoughts rather than things disagreeing with our opinions and other logical fallacies, or even, taking logical fallacies too seriously, common NT drawback according to NFs, btw)

We've all witnesses dogma in all aspects of our lives. The common root seems to be when people stop checking / questioning the layers of assumptions in each of their thoughts and statements and assume that whatever layer they are at is the 'root' when they're 10 steps of assumptions deep.

 

[Beorn]

So seriously they use it to back whatever preference they have.

Of course people achieved 'great things' through a given set of drives. Some of which can be called truth, 'what is right', morals etc.

But many people also accomplished 'horrible things' with the same concepts. Because we use a self referential term to refer to another self referential term etc. which makes it all highly questionable.

Yeah... this is why we would call one set truth seekers and the other set spreaders of falsehood. The fact that people do good or bad things in the name of truth has nothing to do with it's existence.

Moreover... YOU CAN'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THESE WITHOUT TRUTH.

Your critique is self-defeating. You want to make distinctions while stating that distinctions do not exist.

“A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.” - Roger Scruton

 

[Cellmold]

I want to throw rocks at people that say objective reality doesn't exist.

true.

 

[Poki]

A question comes in my mind. Is everything that I have heard seen or done is all a liee, then all I can say is that everything that we see and everyone is a dream ?

What came to my mind...is truth the same as true? In my mind Truth is reality, not perception. True is the answer to a logical question.

Yes reality exists, the world is not all perception. Just because we can't always see reality only perception doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If a tree falls in the forest it still makes a sound. Sound waves do not look for ears and just disappear when there are none.

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

When it comes to feeling, many truths exist.

When it comes to perception, many truths exist too.

So now, let's enjoy reality with different truths and tolerance