Actually, I've followed this discussion up from another thread, but given it an own one, since I find it worth to turn about from some angles...
So, a bit rudly I'll quote and follow up here...
| The Philosopher Princes wrote: |
| Truth does not depend on its being revealed (whether clearly or not clearly). In other words, if something is true, then its true whether or not someone is aware of it being true. |
The question might aswell be if truth is objective or subjective, or if it's abstract. I rather lean on the phrase that one persons truth is anothers lie, but also have to admit that it propablly isn't as simple as that in general. Still, I claim that there isn't any truth at all, only different notions of reality. Perhaps some physicians would like to slap my fingers for that, but still, is there such a thing as undisputed answers?
Is there truth??? I try to think of truth in terms of facts. Is it true that I am typing on a black keyboard? Yes it is there are no two ways about it. It's a fact. Therefore its true. even if you're colour blind. But then its not always that simple. Truth is also very much subjective. you have to decide what it true and what isn't. Someone might tell you something and you have decide whether or not its true. Those intangible truths and falses are more complicated. "I love you", for example. How do you know someone is telling the truth when they say that to you? As opposed to, "my car is white."
So is there truth? i think its a spectrum with black on one side and white on the other and a huge grey area.
but what more important, truth or faith?
Truth=Fact
Fact=Something that can be proven. For arguements sake lets say with tests.
Tests=Can be twisted to give the desired results.
Results=Fact
Fact=Truth
And where did that get us?
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
<-- Subjectivist
Yes, there is truth. I believe there is an objective truth, regardless of our limited knowledge and perception of it.
Some statements cannot be denied and are simply true. "I exist" is certainly a true statement.
Some statements are true by definition. Mathematics is one such system. If you assume the axioms and read the definitions then other statements follow logically. An example of this type of truth is "Ice is a solid", or "1+1=2".
Some statements need to be tested to see if they are correct. Science falls into that category. "Ice floats in water" and "The keyboard is black" are examples of this type of truth.
Any observer does not have complete information (and hence has a subjective point of view) but that does not mean that truth doesn't exist. For example, I exist if you know it or not.
| Idoru wrote: |
Actually, I've followed this discussion up from another thread, but given it an own one, since I find it worth to turn about from some angles...
So, a bit rudly I'll quote and follow up here...
| The Philosopher Princes wrote: | | Truth does not depend on its being revealed (whether clearly or not clearly). In other words, if something is true, then its true whether or not someone is aware of it being true. |
<snip>
Is there truth??? |
I am reminded of the quantum claim that e.g. particles don't have a unique position, velocity etc until we measure them. How does this stand in relation the PP's statement quoted above - is there an idea of quantum truth too? That something might be both true and not true, because it is undecided until it is revealed (i.e. measured?) when this superposition of states collapses...
Just a thought... | make_life_better wrote: |
I am reminded of the quantum claim that e.g. particles don't have a unique position, velocity etc until we measure them. How does this stand in relation the PP's statement quoted above - is there an idea of quantum truth too? That something might be both true and not true, because it is undecided until it is revealed (i.e. measured?) when this superposition of states collapses...
Just a thought... |
Hm... In a way then, what is free can not be bound to truth, for what is bound to truth looses it's freedom?God is the source of ALL truth. No, I'm not a religious whack-job that wants to force God upon everyone, but I speak the TRUTH. Jesus even says this, "I am the way, the truth, and the life"
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Trinity, God and Jesus are two persons in one. (The Holy Spirit makes the third part of the Trinity, the third person in one).
| Soulfire wrote: |
| God is the source of ALL truth. No, I'm not a religious whack-job that wants to force God upon everyone, but I speak the TRUTH. Jesus even says this, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" |
He didn't say he was all truth. He just said that he was the truth in question, ie the only true way to get to God (and/or Heaven). Or, perhaps, the true prophet of God (as opposed to the other "prophets" springing up in those days). He didn't mean that he was also the truth about ice floating on water or 1 + 1 being 2.
I mean, you won't argue that Jesus was all ways, too, would you? Including the way to Hell? Obviously not.Test may be able to be corrupted, hoever true scientific experiements can not. This is why the Randi Foundation set up the $1,000,000 challenge.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
Anyone who can prove paranormal abilities in a scientific experiment gets $1,000,000. Truth is pretty much subjective.
| make_life_better wrote: |
| I am reminded of the quantum claim that e.g. particles don't have a unique position, velocity etc until we measure them. How does this stand in relation the PP's statement quoted above - is there an idea of quantum truth too? That something might be both true and not true, because it is undecided until it is revealed (i.e. measured?) when this superposition of states collapses... |
I speak not on behalf of the Princess, but here is my view anyway...
Truth is truth, and solely objective truth. While attempting to define subjective truth, everyone else in this thread has but defined the generally accepted definition of "belief". Belief is generally based either on perception or faith, and both of these are subjective. However, truth is not. There must be only one truth, but a billion ways of looking (or not looking) at it. And these ways represent your alternate scenarios or subjectivities.
Is there a single, solitary, solid truth? Yes, I definitely believe so.
| Soulfire wrote: |
God is the source of ALL truth. No, I'm not a religious whack-job that wants to force God upon everyone, but I speak the TRUTH. Jesus even says this, "I am the way, the truth, and the life"
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Trinity, God and Jesus are two persons in one. (The Holy Spirit makes the third part of the Trinity, the third person in one). |
Sadly, my dear friend, with posts like those, you cannot expect anyone with a logical brain to not expect you to be a religious whack-job. From this post (and some others that I happened to read) of yours, I can conclude that you not only blindly refuse to accept any other picture of God except Jesus, thereby condemning the rest of us non-Christians to Hell, but also are pushing your ideals and religion on the rest of us.
| Marston wrote: |
| Truth is pretty much subjective. |
I beg to differ. I have stated my reasons. Truth is objective. Perception is not. Unless you accept perception to be truth, you logically cannot accept truth to NOT be objective. | Quote: |
| I am reminded of the quantum claim that e.g. particles don't have a unique position, velocity etc until we measure them. How does this stand in relation the PP's statement quoted above - is there an idea of quantum truth too? That something might be both true and not true, because it is undecided until it is revealed (i.e. measured?) when this superposition of states collapses... |
That's a facinating question, and one close to my heart. It is certainly true that the outcome of certain measurements are undecided before the measurement is made, although we can predict the probabilities with certainty.
There is a whole question of if the wavefunction is "real" or not, or if it is only a convenient mathematical device for predicting the outcome of experiments. Like many questions in quantum information at the moment, I don't think anyone really knows the answer. There is a lot of facinating writing at the moment coming out about whether quantum mechanics describes a state of knowlegde or something really there (ontological or epistemic). Things like wavefunction collapse (what happens when you measure a superposition) certainly appear to have a lot of similarities with a state of knowledge.
You might be interested to read:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0401052
Where they make a toy model, which has definite states, despite the fact that you never learn exactly what that state is. Things like wavefunction collapse come about because you don't have complete knowledge of the system. It's by no means conclusive (it leaves out Bell's inequalities for example) but it's really interesting. | Quote: |
The question might aswell be if truth is objective or subjective, or if it's abstract. I rather lean on the phrase that one persons truth is anothers lie, but also have to admit that it propablly isn't as simple as that in general. Still, I claim that there isn't any truth at all, only different notions of reality. Perhaps some physicians would like to slap my fingers for that, but still, is there such a thing as undisputed answers?
Is there truth??? |
A word's meaning depends on its context. What do you mean by truth - and in what contexts (physics, politics, etc.)? | simpleHalakhah wrote: |
| A word's meaning depends on its context. What do you mean by truth - and in what contexts (physics, politics, etc.)? |
I foremost wish to look on it in a philosophical perspective, but also from other views. Actually, for one self ones truths are obvious, since we hopefully live after them every day, but still, to explain them, and where they come from is not as obvious.
I wonder if we get our morals from truth? Is it from where we judge one an other, if we do that? Is it something we extract our personal goals in life out of?
Personally I belive that the answer to many of those questions is yes, but that it still isn't clear to us. More often it's based on instinct through personal experiences, thus one persons truth can be another ones lie 
We dearly talk about our insights as undisputed truth, since they are obvious to our selves, but actually we seldom see to that we stand on common ground when sharing them 
| Soulfire wrote: |
| No, I'm not a religious whack-job that wants to force God upon everyone, but I speak the TRUTH. |
Arrogant fool. You ARE a religious whack job. The fact that you think you are not one is par for the course. You are a victim of brainwashing. Half of me feels sorry for you. The other half just thinks, "get the hell out of my face, you nutter".
As for whether or not there is truth, let's put it this way: the statement "There is no truth" cannot be true. It contradicts itself. | Quote: |
...
I wonder if we get our morals from truth? Is it from where we judge one an other, if we do that? Is it something we extract our personal goals in life out of?
Personally I belive that the answer to many of those questions is yes, but that it still isn't clear to us. More often it's based on instinct through personal experiences, thus one persons truth can be another ones lie
We dearly talk about our insights as undisputed truth, since they are obvious to our selves, but actually we seldom see to that we stand on common ground when sharing them |
Why not simply acknowledge that our moral certainties are partial truths? They are true because they reflect some human needs, but are only partial because other needs lead to other moral positions. The end result, however, need not be relativism - it can be an empathetic truth, a larger truth that incorporates the other truths in the best proportion. (For an extreme example: a psychopath's need to kill is not as great as other people's need to survive, but the best scenario would sublimate [or correct] the psychopath's need.)
