Do we have "THE TRUTH?"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

richrf
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 04:01 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;68382 wrote:
? And, were you, when you did, trying to feel superior? Or was it your motive to get the A? I might also ask you why you wanted to get the A. To feel superior, or because you believed you deserved an A?


Yep, I think it had more to do with getting an A and feeling superior. There was lots of competition in school. Part of the human experience. As I said, people at times like to feel superior to others. Hierarchy is one aspect of human existence. No hierarchy is another. In Eastern philosophy there is Confucianism which adores hierarchy, and therefore warmly embraced by everyone higher on the hierarchy. And then there is Daoism, which sees things are round and equal. Each has its place in the world, and I wanted my A! Smile

Rich
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 10:47 pm
@richrf,
richrf;68386 wrote:
Yep, I think it had more to do with getting an A and feeling superior. There was lots of competition in school. Part of the human experience. As I said, people at times like to feel superior to others. Hierarchy is one aspect of human existence. No hierarchy is another. In Eastern philosophy there is Confucianism which adores hierarchy, and therefore warmly embraced by everyone higher on the hierarchy. And then there is Daoism, which sees things are round and equal. Each has its place in the world, and I wanted my A! Smile

Rich



How about that you believed you deserved the A?
 
richrf
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 11:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;68468 wrote:
How about that you believed you deserved the A?


At the time I thought I deserved it because I was caught up in the game. Nowadays, it means nothing to me. I've changed.

Rich
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 11:27 pm
@richrf,
richrf;68470 wrote:
At the time I thought I deserved it because I was caught up in the game. Nowadays, it means nothing to me. I've changed.

Rich


But didn't you deserve it? And if you did, wasn't it wrong for you not to get it?
In any case, you are certainly conceding that there was truth, and that you had it, and that the teacher did not. Is that not true? What we are now talking about is whether we should care whether we have the truth. And the answer to that is, certainly, at least under certain circumstances. Although, perhaps under other circumstances, it is not important, or, at least not so important as other things. But, in the past, people have died for the truth, so, perhaps you should not be so cavalier about it, and say that people want to have the truth only because they want to feel superior. That is simply not true.

That is why I suggest you read that book, Why the Truth Matters.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 11:27 pm
@charles brough,
kennethamy wrote:
Well, we say that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is true (I don't think we call it true, not in English), but we say it is true because we believe it is true. If we said it was true without believing it is true, then we would be lying. Isn't that right? And it is true that Quito is the capital because Quito is the capital. If it were not the capital, it would not be true that it was the capital. Consensus comes in when the question is whether our belief that it is true is correct. If there were not consensus, then that would be reason to think I was wrong in thinking that Quito is the capital.


I believe you're trying to make a distinction between two different "truths". One solely based on belief consensus, and the other solely in agreement with fact or reality. I received this impression when you stated, "I don't think we call it true" in reference to the capital (which I got the impression would fall under the former of the distinctions).

I, on the other hand, don't believe there to be a separation. The notion of "truth" I'm referring to is in agreement with fact or reality while also based on intersubjective agreement. Consensus is what matters - this defines "reality" (as far as it applies to our communication; who cares *what is* when we're not around)

If one were to say, "The capital of Ecuador is Quito", we would call this true as we consider the capital of Ecuador being Quito a fact. If we said there was a chair in a room and there really was a chair in said room, we could say, "It's true there's a chair in the room". Verification by others would allow us the recognitition that we "told the truth".

richrf wrote:
So life goes on, and I continue to look for new ideas to make life interesting. And what I say is neither True nor False, just observations coming from my Individual Consciousness that is exercising its creative faculty and its ability to observe and speak.


Once again I'm getting the impression you're applying some mystical overtone to "truth". Simply, when one says "truth" (the notion I'm speaking of, at least) they are referring to something in agreement with fact or reality. Though we are each viewing from individual consciousnesses, we can have intersubjective agreement on things. An example would be if we pointed at a chair in a room and there actually was a chair in said room. We could both proclaim, "There is a chair in the room", and in this case, this proclaimation would be deemed "True".

Keep in mind that I see where you were going with this, and I understand your neutrality. But there's no need to burden semantics and overcomplicate the common usage of a word.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 11:36 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;68473 wrote:
I believe you're trying to make a distinction between two different "truths". One solely based on belief consensus, and the other solely in agreement with fact or reality. I received this impression when you stated, "I don't think we call it true" in reference to the capital (which I got the impression would fall under the former of the distinctions).

I, on the other hand, don't believe there to be a separation. The notion of "truth" I'm referring to is in agreement with fact or reality while also based on intersubjective agreement. Consensus is what matters - this defines "reality" (as far as it applies to our communication; who cares *what is* when we're not around)

If one were to say, "The capital of Ecuador is Quito", we would call this true as we consider the capital of Ecuador being Quito a fact. If we said there was a chair in a room and there really was a chair in said room, we could say, "It's true there's a chair in the room". Verification by others would allow us the recognitition that we "told the truth".



Once again I'm getting the impression you're applying some mystical overtone to "truth". Simply, when one says "truth" (the notion I'm speaking of, at least) they are referring to something in agreement with fact or reality. Though we are each viewing from individual consciousnesses, we can have intersubjective agreement on things. An example would be if we pointed at a chair in a room and there actually was a chair in said room. We could both proclaim, "There is a chair in the room", and in this case, this proclaimation would be deemed "True".

Keep in mind that I see where you were going with this, and I understand your neutrality. But there's no need to burden semantics and overcomplicate the common usage of a word.



But as I pointed out, you are putting the cart before the horse. It is not that a statement is true because there is agreement that it is true. It is that there is agreement that it is true because it is true. Agreement indicates that the sentence is true, but agreement is not why it is true. What explains the truth of a sentence is that that fact is as the sentence says it is. As Aristotle put it, to that of what it that it is, is to say what is true. That says it all in a nutshell. If there is a agreement, that is because those who agreed, agreed that the sentence said of what is, that it is. Sentences are not true because they are "deemed" true, but they are "deemed" true, because they are true. Again, cart before horse.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 12:05 am
@charles brough,
What are we to reference when we state, "The capital of Ecuador is Quito"? That is, how do we verify the sentence "said of what is, that it is"?

"Capital" is an abstract notion. Physically speaking, there is no verification until after our agreement (until after we agree those buildings are part of the city). Intersubjective consensus of semantical meaning is all we have.

I see what you're saying, but I don't quite understand how to place the horse before the cart.
 
richrf
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 12:36 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;68473 wrote:
Though we are each viewing from individual consciousnesses, we can have intersubjective agreement on things. An example would be if we pointed at a chair in a room and there actually was a chair in said room. We could both proclaim, "There is a chair in the room", and in this case, this proclaimation would be deemed "True".


Hi Zetherin,

Yes, I agree. My viewpoint is that humans get together, and though they are looking at things from different perspectives, they can reach a consensus, and have, as you describe it, intersubjective agreements. This consensus can disintegrate when a new perspective is introduced. Usually, there is much resistance to such changes, no matter which field is involved. Sometimes the initial consensus evolves, sometimes new perspectives are rejected or suppressed, and sometimes new groups are formed which embrace the new perspective. Sometimes wars develop between competing consensus groups. Smile And thus,as I see it, human Consciousness evolves.

I am not so much concerned with semantics, as I am that different points-of-view about Truth are understood. Sometimes, certain definitions are taken for granted, and all of a sudden it becomes clear that people are conversing about two different things.

Rich

Rich
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 06:31 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;68479 wrote:
What are we to reference when we state, "The capital of Ecuador is Quito"? That is, how do we verify the sentence "said of what is, that it is"?

"Capital" is an abstract notion. Physically speaking, there is no verification until after our agreement (until after we agree those buildings are part of the city). Intersubjective consensus of semantical meaning is all we have.

I see what you're saying, but I don't quite understand how to place the horse before the cart.



I don't understand your question. We verify that Quito is the capital in the way you know we do. We look it up in various reliable sources. We can phone the Ecuadorean Embassy or Consulate, we can fly there and see for ourselves.

Of course, before Quito was made the captial, we could not verify it was the capital, for we can verify it only if it is true. And it was by agreement that it was made the capital. But that does not mean that it is by agreement that we discover it is true that it is the capital. How Quito became the capital is one thing; how we determine it is the capital is a different thing.

Through what perspectives do we look to determine whether Quito is the capital of Ecuador? So far as I can determine, there is only one perspective. Finding out if we do not know. I have listed various ways of finding out; although I did not have to, since you already know them. It a teacher had asked you (as an assignment) discover the names of the capitals of the following countries..... would you have asked him how to do it? Of course not.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 08:34 am
@charles brough,
i still think we are just dreaming this whole damn thing.
 
richrf
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 08:53 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;68536 wrote:
i still think we are just dreaming this whole damn thing.


Hi,

The interesting thing is that in one type of dream (call it the mind viewing something), there are dimensions of space and time. This is commonly referred to as the awake state. And in another type of dream, called the asleep state), these dimensions do not exist. Isn't that odd?? Smile I actually started a thread on this over here as an example of Free Will:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-mind/4730-example-free-will.html

I pose the question, whether the switching from one state to another is not an example of Free Will?


Rich
 
ValueRanger
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 02:11 pm
@charles brough,
If each linguistic word is modular and scalar in application, then any non-sequitur, in relation to your knowledge/belief/truth sequitur, is also true, as modular/scalar tools imply.

Adaptability as root cause, in the flux equation?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 05:11 pm
@richrf,
richrf;68545 wrote:
Hi,

The interesting thing is that in one type of dream (call it the mind viewing something), there are dimensions of space and time. This is commonly referred to as the awake state. And in another type of dream, called the asleep state), these dimensions do not exist. Isn't that odd?? Smile I actually started a thread on this over here as an example of Free Will:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-mind/4730-example-free-will.html

I pose the question, whether the switching from one state to another is not an example of Free Will?


Rich


When I wake up in the morning, it is because of a loud alarm clock, and is certainly not of my own free will.
 
richrf
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 06:36 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;68630 wrote:
When I wake up in the morning, it is because of a loud alarm clock, and is certainly not of my own free will.


I don't have an alarm clock. Smile

But, listen, here is a perfect experiment for you. Don't turn on the alarm clock tonight (of course, you have a choice to turn it on if you want). Then see if you wake up in the morning. If you wake up, make a posting. If you don't wake up, I'll know you are asleep. If you never wake up ..... Well then, what you say is True - you need an alarm clock. :surrender:

Rich
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 11:22 pm
@richrf,
richrf;68648 wrote:
I don't have an alarm clock. Smile

But, listen, here is a perfect experiment for you. Don't turn on the alarm clock tonight (of course, you have a choice to turn it on if you want). Then see if you wake up in the morning. If you wake up, make a posting. If you don't wake up, I'll know you are asleep. If you never wake up ..... Well then, what you say is True - you need an alarm clock. :surrender:

Rich


Oh, I'll wake up when my wife pulls me out of bed. Don't worry. But I won't of my free will, unless it is noon.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:41:56