| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Jacob Dunn
Apprentice
39 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 03 2004 : 12:53:37 PM
|
None of you really know me, or my background, and as we are all to some extent creations of our backgrounds, perhaps it would do well to explain myself:
When asked to answer a question, i like to answer as quickly as possable. Should the question be of math, (what is 7+2 I answer 9) the answer is short and sweet. However, in regards to Philosophy, seldom does an answer appear that can be short or sweet. In real life, answers are long and complicated, created out of variables and curcumstances beyond our control, it would only seem logical to assume answers should be in the same way.
In my English classes, long and clear answers were valued, wile short and sweet answers were given the old "Heev-Ho", likewise with my Psychology class, chemistry class, and the list goes on. Thus, my answers will take a long time to (for me) to write, and (for you) a long time to read. For that I apologize, and with that out of the way, we can get to work.
In regards to the concept of Philosophy, it seems aparent that we are searching for the truth through logic. The problem I am immediately confronted with, is what is Truth? I dont think it is commonly known what truth is, and if it is commonly known, they have done well hiding it from me. I dont believe I have ever heard a good definition of Truth, so from my experiances, i can only conclude it doesnt exist. Yet.
I have heard many differant ideas about truth, some claim to be correct wile others wrong, some claim to be partially correct with correctness still to be found in others, and some that claim everything is right. Others proclaim that truth is purely perceptual, and nobody therefor, has a say in it but you.
There is no general concensus on what Truth is, or even what Truth means. Is truth personal, or universal? Is it half way in between?
Thus, if a word has no denifate meaning, it is meaningless, and a meaningless word is obsolete. Worthless.
So now I propose to you, a new definition of the word TRUTH, one that I feel can withstand the tests of logic and reason, and one that can be accepted as a word.
TRUTH: "What is."
Now, this may seem like a cop-out answer to begin with, but test it. If it is, than it is true. If it is true, than it is. If is is not true, than is is not, if it is not, than it is not true. Sound logical enough??? Lets apply this to every day life: OJ Simpson. Did he kill his wife? The criminal court proved he did not, the civil court proved he did? Which is true?
If he did, it is true he did. If he did not, than it is true he did not. It is at this and similar arguments, that the superiority of Truth over Fact is established. We have two conflicting facts (documented, witnessed court cases, each proving opposite things) One must be true, and the other false (OJ either did, or did not kill his wife, and any attempt to compromise is folley).
As with two opposing beliefs, one must be false, it follows that our definitions of truth as listed prior to mine, have to be either true, or false, as they contradict each other.
If truth is a matter of perception alone, what happens when two people percieve two opposite things (ie Kobe Bryant case, some looked at the case and saw "Guilty" others, "Innocent")? Perceptual truth, cannot be "True" for just that reason, and if it is not true, there is no sense in keeping it around, discard it.
How about the Theory that Everybody is right? (Baha'i for example)The Christian religion, states that there is but one GOD, as a seperate entity from everything else, the creator of all. The Athiestic religion states that (among several theories this the the most prodominant) the Kosmos was created by an explosion that set everything in motion, that GOD was created by men, not the other way around. These two ideas/beliefs/faiths/ contradict eachother, how can they both be right? It is folley to think that something both exists and doesnt exist, or something can both happen and not happen at the same time, so it would follow that God does exist, or God doesnt exist, either the Big Bang happened, or did not happen. These two theories/belifs/faiths cannot both be true, ergo at least one must be false. If one is false, the idea that truth is ever-inclusive, that none are wrong, must also be wrong. If it is wrong, there is no sense in keeping it, discard it.
It is not my intention, to compair all faiths to eachother in attempts to descover truths about God, or expose false religions, or enter the relm of Theology for any more than is absolutely nessissary to put out my definition of Truth. Truth, belonging to Philosophy, I hope this is what is wanted for the online forum. If this is what is wanted, i hope to extend it later, if not, there would be no sense in keeping it, discard it. |
|
|
j.oxton
Apprentice
20 Posts |
Posted - Sep 03 2004 : 5:34:00 PM
|
I think that your proposed definition of truth is insufficient, only because you have not defined what you mean by "is". I know, it's the classic Clinton moment, 'it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is', but it's true. And in fact, many many people have looked into this idea of what “truth” means, and what “is” means. If you go to this page:
http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#t
and go down to “truth”, it gives a pretty good summary of some of the major truth theories.
~~~
Life is Study! |
 |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1374 Posts |
Posted - Sep 04 2004 : 11:24:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by j.oxton
I think that your proposed definition of truth is insufficient, only because you have not defined what you mean by "is". I know, it's the classic Clinton moment, 'it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is', but it's true. And in fact, many many people have looked into this idea of what “truth” means, and what “is” means. If you go to this page:
http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#t
and go down to “truth”, it gives a pretty good summary of some of the major truth theories.
~~~
Life is Study!
Jessica,
I wonder if there’s really a problem about what Jacob means by “is” in this context. It seems to me that he’s pretty clearly proposing a version of what’s called by some the deflationary theory of truth (e.g., the author of the article on that very theory in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which, I agree with you, contains a very nice discussion of the various theories).
Jacob writes, à propos of whether or not O.J. Simpson killed his wife: “If he did, it is true he did. If he did not, th[e]n it is true he did not,” which is equivalent to saying that it’s true that he killed his wife if and only if he did, and that’s exactly what the proponent of the deflationary theory would say:
quote:
From Daniel Stoljar’s “The Deflationary Theory of Truth” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’.
Of course, if this really is what Jacob is proposing, he puts the point more effectively in the passage I’ve quoted above than he does when he says “TRUTH: ‘What is.’” So my suggestion to him wouldn’t be that he clarify what he means by “is” here; I’d suggest, instead, that he put his point the other, clearer way: to say of some statement that it’s true is really just another way of making that statement. Thus to say “It's true that O.J. Simpson killed his wife” is just another way of saying that O.J. Simpson killed his wife.
Jacob, you should probably chime in here. Would you say I’ve understood your position correctly?
Tom
|
|
|
|
j.oxton
Apprentice
20 Posts |
Posted - Sep 04 2004 : 12:30:12 PM
|
Ah, yes. I see what you mean. I had misread part of the original post. Although, I would very much like a clarification of the problem with perceptual truth.
~~~
Life is Study! |
|
|
|
Jacob Dunn
Apprentice
39 Posts |
Posted - Sep 04 2004 : 6:28:45 PM
|
Tom i think you understood my meaning clearly for the most part, but perhaps i should clarify perceptual truth.
Lets look at the Kobe Bryant case. Some, looking at all the facts possable, would say he is innocent. Others, looking at the exact same facts, would say Guilty. Now, Kobe cannot both be guilty and innocent, so truth therefor cannot be perceptual. Now, this perceptual differance, may be based on descrimination either due to race ("a black man raped a white woman how dare he" or "the same thing happened in To Kill a MockingBird when will they give it a rest) gender (just another example of a man holding a woman down) wealth (so now that famous people can get away with rape, what about the rest of us) so perhaps Kobe isnt the best choice of example, yet i hope the point still stands, that perseptions differ from person to person, and it would be illogical to assume that reality would shift each time a person changed there mind.
Lets take another example. Right now, you are sitting at a computer, reading my forum. Describe the computer. "rather small, considering the ones you've seen before, somewhat smooth surface, and dully glowing. Now, taking that same computer you just described, how would an ant (the insect) describe it? "Monstrously large, Bumpy surface, complete with trenches and walls, Brightly glowing."
Logic would suggest, that something cannot be both Monstrously large, and rather small, smooth yet bumpy, brightly and simultaniously dully glowing. So, what can we conclude about perceptioin??? it is in contradiction almost continously, and as truth does not contradict itself (two things in opposition, one must be false) Perception cannot be used to describe truth. Does that help clear things up a bit??? I sure hope so, if not, it isnt worth keeping, discard it |
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1374 Posts |
Posted - Sep 04 2004 : 7:47:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by jacobdunn
... perhaps [I] should clarify perceptual truth.
Let[’]s look at the Kobe Bryant case. Some, looking at all the facts poss[i]ble, would say he is innocent. Others, looking at the exact same facts, would say [“g]uilty.” Now, Kobe cannot both be guilty and innocent, so truth...cannot be perceptual.
Jacob,
Why not just say that people’s beliefs can be mistaken—that believing a thing doesn’t make it so, or in other words, that it’s one thing for something to be believed and quite another for it to be true?
Tom |
|
|
|
Jacob Dunn
Apprentice
39 Posts |
Posted - Sep 05 2004 : 6:19:48 PM
|
| Tom that's exactly what i mean to say, however if you say something without explination, people get offended at my audacity to say such a thing. Plus, when talking about matters of belief, no matter how illogical/stupid/... they belive, people get offended if you disagree with them, and even more offended when you tell them they are wrong. they respond by saying something to the point of "Well, I have the right to believe whatever I want dont I?" And while it is true they can believe it if they so choose, the right to belive it, and there belief being true, are quite seperate matters. |
|
|
|
Jacob Dunn
Apprentice
39 Posts |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 11:21:08 PM
|
| So then, if our interpretations of what is can be misleading and therefore wrong, what can be truly said of what is? Can we then, not experience what is? Certainly not. Our senses, vision, hearing, smelling touching and tasting, while certainly possible of deceiving us (A color-blind person could be unable to tell the difference between a red light and a green light) generally do give us a fair idea of what is. A blue house is usually blue (it may not be, certain variables must be taken into consideration, i.e. sunglasses, visual impairments, ect…) In all actuality, it is logical to say that existence exists free of our senses (the world exists, even though the man in a coma is incapable of sensing it). Yet it would be illogical to state that our senses were not in some way, in tune with what is. Should that be the case, there would be no logic in having them, they would hold no value, and such a high price is put on performance, that would be impossible without the senses. No basketball star is blind; no diva is deaf (though when people hear Christina Aguilera, there is certainly room for debate). Quite in fact, people are so used to there senses being accurate, that they forget the senses can be wrong. When they forget this, they forget that the world [the whole of existence also] operates quite independently from humanity. The earth was around before mankind (so it must be, or else what would the first man eat/drink/stand on/sleep on ect…) so the earth is not dependant on mankind. This is a dangerous folly, which leads to a false sense of security. The theory of “I am in control of my own destiny”(if that were true, how could there be an AIDS epidemic, or natural disaster such as Hurricane Ivan, unless it was chosen by each individual, and who would [or could] choose such a thing) or what need would there be for an abortion clinic (I hear say, its an emotionally destroying event regardless, and who would choose such destruction upon themselves, if they could simply choose to put it down?). This is arrogance; it must be avoided to avoid folly. |
|
|
|
Caleb
Newcomer
2 Posts |
Posted - Oct 01 2004 : 7:53:57 PM
|
| I'm replying to what was posted on the 5th of Sep. In regards to the right to belive whatever you want. Now one has the right to belive whatever he wants that does not imply that he is justified in beliving it. Beliving somthing that is very false is ok in some instances. If you arived at that conclusion via good and logical reasoning that is much diffrent than if a huka smoking cattipillar told you. Just where if you belive somthing is true doesn't make you perfect if you think it is true just because someone told you it was. You are no better just being correct or false is not enough, you have to come to conclusions via logic and reason. |
|
|
|
Emily
Fledgling
9 Posts |
Posted - Oct 11 2004 : 2:14:18 PM
|
I'm also resonding to Jacob's remarks on the right to believe, and the statement that said belief may not be true. Who are you to decide what is true/not true in regards to someone's belief system? Let's take the ever controversial topic of religion - you were raised in a mostly Christian society, so most likely, you hold Christian beliefs (if not, I apologize now for my assumptions). So, you may think that the beliefs of other religions - even those similar to your own - are wrong. But who's to say they are? Other religions also think that your beliefs are "wrong" - and so the debate continues to go around and around (hence the jihad in the middle east that has gone on for centuries). If you think about it, all religions basically have the same god, we just call him different things. That, however, does not make the worship of him, or the beliefs about him "wrong." That is the problem with society today - everyone thinks that they're right in their own beliefs - and they therefore look down on anyone who doesn't share those beliefs. But it is not for you, or anyone else on earth, to decide what beliefs are wrong or right. That is the job of the higher powers - yes, i said powerS - should they deem it important; and people should not be disregarded for their beliefs. The point is, they HAVE faith. So what if their beliefs and practices are different from your (not you, specifically) own. Instead of fighting over who's right, we should be celebrating that other people believe - because the fact that they have faith is something great in itself. But NO ONE is wrong in their beliefs, because it comes from their heart - which i believe comes from the creator - in that sense, we are all the same.
Em |
|
|
|
tbails
Fledgling
7 Posts |
Posted - Oct 11 2004 : 8:00:01 PM
|
| In response to Emily, you have such a strong conviction that we should let the world think what they want to think and what they want to believe. So aren't you contradicting yourself when you are accusing Jacob of judging,thinking or "believing" that it is wrong for one to have such belief in something. While I understand your point in stating that it is not for us as individuals to judge but that of a higher being, be careful because it sounds in your conviction that you are accusing Jacob of the same that you are doing to him. One other question for you, why is it the job of the divine to judge? And lets say it is,one cannot stop themselves from judging I would even argue that judging one another, or judging items is an inherent quality. and people should not be disregarded for their beliefs. One last question if beliefs come from the heart your argument is that they cannot be wrong? Has your heart not decieved you before, is your heart in the very figurative sense the best guiding decider in your life. I think that the heart gives a lot of misinformation for which requires one to filter out and use their "mind" to relay the information and decide if it is the right thing to do to buy into something so powerful as a belief |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Truth, a Common Misconception
Forum Locked
