I believe that truth is eternally relative, and just for the purpose of the argument we assume that 'truth' means what it means literally so we all collectivly understand what we are talking about. In other words all things that are held as the definative truth is actually not so on principle, just no more that a belief that serves a role of maintaining our equillibrium.

But how can a 'belief' which is relative maintain our equilibrium?

By being relatively true, as a matter of context and the ongoing narrative, what is true today is false tomorrow, right here, wrong there.

Truth is a harlot. It sells to the highest bidder. Market forces apply to the economy of pain the same as to any other.

There is no absolute value to it, except as a means to serve whatever purpose.

They're not loosing sleep over any loss of equilibrium.
The ignorance of their bliss is what matters the most.

-- RH.

Belief is as much truth as we will ever need, therefore our equilibrium is maintained by anything that answers to either our expectations or what we choose to acsept as truth. There are many examples that show this, I propose that it not only lingers on the surfice of our everyday lives but goes right to the core of our understanding. Money, edicate, language, personal identity and even time.

Firstly I appologise for indeed quite obviously targeting you pilgrimshost as what i would call a "rambler" to put it politley. I have been reading through alot of forums in my time but,never came across such a mathmaticaly lost delusionist. Reading through alot of your what one would call mere theories I can see traits of one that would never accept any form "truth" if it was as true as solid matter. What one percieves as truth and what we know as actual facts are two diffrent things. I could believe whole heartedly,that we do not live on a planet but on mars ok in my head this would be "fact" as it is a "belief" as you love to toy with.But I dont as we have "facts" to prove otherwise. To have ones head in the clouds, and to wander from truths is not philosophy it is merely satisfiying ones own thoughts of what is reality and truth.Maybe putting it politly one (ie you) is lost in his own interpretation of any truth, and feels the need to disect and question the very fabric of time space and truth what we do know based on mathmatical fact.It must be a terrible burden indeed to be lost in a world where nothing is fact and nothing can be taken seriously. A rabbit with its head buried in the ground comes to mind, just before it gets slayed by the fox.It could not forsee its impending death as its reality at the time was looking down a hole for its next carrot its "belief" was it was safe but its "reality" was quite the opposite. maybe you will take on anything to satisfy your "theories" indeed you are lost youself secretly wishing you had truth to make you whole. to have no meaning must be a lonley place. cut2thepoint indeed are you human ???????????????

I would argue for a spectrum of judgments with a greater or lesser evaluative component to them.


"The other principle, of linguistic density within a given text, is essentially the phenomenon of meaningful ambiguity: the use of lexical and syntactical
indeterminacy as a device for saying several things at once."

--Kahn, Charles, "On Reading Heraclitus", Kahn, 1979, p. 91.

"the study of words is not and cannot be of any use at all in discovering the nature of things".

While "the study of names suggests that all things are in motion or in flux... in fact there must be fixed and immutable objects (namely, the Platonic Forms) if knowledge and discourse are to be possible at all" (p. 153).


As long as I do not say anything about them, they are a unity. But the unity and what I say about it have ceased to be a unity; what I say and the unity have ceased to be a unity......beginning and end are part of a single ring and no one can comprehend its principle. This is called Heaven the Equalizer, which is the same as the Heavenly Equality. "Imputed Words" p. 304 Watson.

-- the Pythagorean

Really?

How do you know a fact apart from your perception of it?

As a matter of fact, perception is relative, not absolute.


-- RH.

Hello to you Cut2thePoint, likewise. Or should that be Cut2theBone? A 'rambler' indeed, looks like we're kindred spirits after all. Ive been called many things but a 'mathmaticly lost delusionist' is quite original, I should add it to my CV. Yes, it is true what I presume to be the 'answer',as such, is a mere theory, for what else are hypothesise made of? Though your assumption of me as ''one that would never accept any form [of] ''truth'' if it was as true as solid matter'' is quite wrong indeed. I infact have a strong personal trait of being able to accept ''truths'' on all levels. This would range from scientific, historic, common and even bizzare. But I realised that this doesnt nessesarilly make it so even if it is solid matter! As previous 'ramblings' would have revealed, but at this point in time im a devout cynic and sceptic as all my previously held truths have all faded under the search light of questioning their so-called facts.

''What one precieves as truth and what we know as actual facts are two different things''

Really? I sence a contradiction here!

Excuse me, but I do feel that you are assuming a little too much about me when you claim I have my ''head in the cloads'', you probably think when I wake up in the morning I say to myself ''I wont walk to work today, I'll fly, because I question the 'truth' of gravity''!But I do question your understanding of philosophy, or atleast your application of it. As you say ''to wonder from truths is not philosophy''. Do you then know what these solid truths are, if you havent even yet questioned them at all?

And what do we really know as mathmatical fact? Ever heard of 'the complete theory of everything' which suppricingly turns up complete conflictions between all aspects of known mathmatics and science. It would seem that we are along way from understanding the truth of anything properly, meantime we have 'theories to cover the gaps- oh, you do know most scientific 'knowns' are just 'mere theories', dont you?

Fact is not perception. If I dont eat I die.of course there are facts that can be debated BUT WOULD YOU AGREE ON THIS FACT? IT IS NOT DOWN TO PERCEPTION IS IT PERPLEXITY!. BUT THEN OF COURSE YOU WILL QUESTION WHAT IS DEATH. OR YOU CAN ALWAYS TRY IT TO SEE IF IT IS A FACT OR NOT, then see where perception gets you after a long period of starvation.

If you browse previous postings this was already alluded to at some length.

It is not, of course possible to prove anything apart from the perception of the proof.

Evidence has to be evident, i.e. to somebody or something to agree to be evident to.

Without the perceiver to percieve it, nothing is evident, and according to some it would not be possible to perceive execpt for the Universe to be incredibly hospitable to the prospect.




Death has been tried before, believe it or not, and with regard to questioning the proof of life there's been a lot of talk around the internet recently about the Philosophical zombie.

What do I know? Perhaps you are one of those.

Would you trust somebody who is deaf, dumb, blind, and otherwise senseless to sign a death certificate?



Did you ever actually attempt a long period of starvation?

Fasting is remarkably enervating, especially with regard to perception.

It sharpens the senses wonderfully, the most effective cure that I know for chronic depression..

--- RH.

Hah... this thread is most amusing. Cut2thepoint, I would question what you believe to be a 'mathmaticaly' correct belief, as you spell it. I am a mathematician, and as of now I've yet to see a single 'mathmatical' belief proffered here. Every thing else - though it may be put together well by the rest of the members- is speculation mingled well with psychology.

Perplexity: Excellent posts; I commend you. But you confused me with that last point of yours. You said 'Fasting is remarkably enervating' in the above post's penultimate line, and yet in the last line, you said 'It sharpens the senses wonderfully'. How could this be true (unless you speak of the senses being sharpened in the long run of things)? Would this not be like saying 'My jogging every Saturday does tire me greatly', and then saying 'It makes me feel like running another 10 leagues.'? Any elaboration would be most appreciated.

Im curious to know how we know what truth really is then. My understanding is that things are only accepted when a collection of individuals all have the same agreement. You said [cuttothepoint] you are only interested in fact based philosophy, well so am I. For the sack of my use of words in this case,'fact' is meant to mean the dictionary sense. Its hard to cover everything with my theories and explain everything away, but I only alude to it when I begin to see a pattern form.

So what exactly do you mean when you refer to mathematical fact as such? I have a good idea, but I thought it may lead to your first helpful contribution! (insert smile here)

Is the relativity of truth then a moral assertion?

What if one rejects it? Isn't the rejection also a form of truth?

One might choose to be an immoral absolutist rather than a moral relativist.

Good question, but I think to get a more faller answer from me, could you please ellaberate a little.

I shall try to. It seems to me that those who say that truth is relative do so out of a moral position. They want the truth to be relative because it sets them free to believe anything they want. But if selfishness and Narcissism are the real reasons upon which they found their relativism, then maybe they are being insincere. Or at least, I would assert, they did not learn that truth is relative (which would be noble and admirable) they rather unquestioningly accepted it on 'faith' as a moral postulate.

This is why I am still waiting for someone to explain exactly how it is that truth is relative. I'm waiting for references to arguments about a postoriori reasoning and contingency which must be learned.

Truth is not necessarily what the majority of the public believes to be true. Just because 400 years ago people 'knew' that the 'truth' was that the Earth was flat, did not mean it was true.
True truth (what a concept) is something that can be proven to be true time & time again through most relentless tests and inquiries. Of course, I'm sure that to this rule there is an exception or two, like I stated in my above post.
Rejection can be a form of truth, I'm sure, just as acception can; it depends on what you're rejecting or accepting.



I suppose, but that wouldn't really change what 'truth' in and of itself is.

What about God? If the existence of God is a moral assertion does that change whether or not God exists?

What I mean is that most of a person's cherished truths are not considered as morally objectionable to the person, are they?

Could it be that the so called 'relativity of truth' is a mere convenience (to many who accept it without reasons) for doing whatever feels good? Why not rather tell lies and have fun?

Trust me, I would like nothing more than to be fixed to certanty, but it seems to me that Im the odd one out cos I dont accept the everyday granted world which so many are saticfied with. It is quite simple to live an immoral relative existance, just dont believe in God, But I do however. I am ensnered in a web of madness, picking through the debris of past revelations.

We can all believe anything we want (no reason needed) but that doesnt make it true. I have come to my current conclusion because I have researched all types of areas and find confliction everywhere. And additional development of thinking has led me to conclude that ultimatly (unfortunatly) its all subjective.

Its important to first workout what you believe is true.

I believe you when you say that you have learned of the relativity of truth and not accepted it as a moral postulate but could you elaborate? What are some general types of areas that you have researched and what are some of the general conflicts that you have found?

Generally speaking what do you mean that "it's all subjective"? And what makes the subjectivity of it "unfortunate"?



-- Pythagorean