defining truth

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;141907 wrote:

But don't they? If you think that most people do not know they were born, why would you think so? And, I'll ask you again. If you don't think we know more than we did 100 years ago, why do you not? Of course, you can decide just not to use the term "know" anymore. But why would you do so. It would be like refusing to use the term, "red" to describe the color of fire-engines.But why would anyone do that?

It's not my job to prove you wrong. If you claim we know things about the world then back up your claim with some kind of argument. As far as I can tell you don't have any reason for thinking that other than your intuition and how gosh darn obvious it seems.

If you say we have more beliefs that are better tested, more successful and more powerful than 100 years ago, that I will agree with.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;139186 wrote:

Does truth only take place in what is the case, or does it also take place in what can be the case? Does understanding what can be the case lead to a refined definition of truth?

If knowledge doesn't imply truth then where is truth? Or does it just not exist?

Is truth a noun or a verb? Can it be made into both? If so, which one is it that philosophers want?

I'm afraid your looking the totally wrong direction with this thread.

Some few things in life, may hold truths, but they are so few that they are not worth as setting up a philosophic discussion about.

That life which I have lived and most others I have met irl, have realized people will lie and decive, thereby nullify the meaning of truth, the relevance ..and useability.

Nor do I see any relevance discussing "truth", has other than wordplay and selfgratification.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;141910 wrote:

It's not my job to prove you wrong. If you claim we know things about the world then back up your claim with some kind of argument. As far as I can tell you don't have any reason for thinking that other than your intuition and how gosh darn obvious it seems.

If you say we have more beliefs that are better tested, more successful and more powerful than 100 years ago, that I will agree with.

Sure. You just don't like the word, "know". That's all right. Just a little weird. But you don't have an argument for the conclusion that you don't know that you were born. You just (as I pointed out) don't want to call it knowing. Perhaps for some reason you don't want to tell me about. As I said, it is as if you don't like called fire-engines "red", even though they are red. Perhaps you'd like to use the term, "bright orange" instead. That's all right. Every time you use the term, "bright orange", I'll know you mean, "red". And, similarly, every time you say a belief is "well-tested" "more successful" (whatever that means) and "more powerful" (whatever that means) I'll know you mean that we know it is true. It won't take me long to do the translation.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;141937 wrote:

Sure. You just don't like the word, "know". That's all right.

Why would you think that? I have no problem with the word "know". There are many things that I do know. I know that 2+2=4. I know that bachelors are unmarried men. I know that it's logically impossible for it to be raining and not raining at the same time in the same place.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;139186 wrote:

Is truth a noun or a verb? Can it be made into both? If so, which one is it that philosophers want?

"Truth" can be made into a verb. 'I truth that such and such is so.' But to the extent that this is an argument from authority, it is not what philosophers want. (Or maybe it's exactly what they want.)

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;141967 wrote:

Why would you think that? I have no problem with the word "know". There are many things that I do know. I know that 2+2=4. I know that bachelors are unmarried men. I know that it's logically impossible for it to be raining and not raining at the same time in the same place.

I am sorry. I should have said that you have a problem with claiming to know that contingent truths are true. But you never say what your problem is. So, I cannot help you with it. Perhaps you think that unless it is logically impossible for a proposition to be false, it cannot be known. Is that it? If it is, could you say why you think so?

@kennethamy,

What is scientific ? Did that not change all the time ? Why not now ?

What is the difference between a Theory and a Believe ?

Yours, Pepijn Sweep

SH:bigsmile:

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;141983 wrote:

I am sorry. I should have said that you have a problem with claiming to know that contingent truths are true. But you never say what your problem is. So, I cannot help you with it. Perhaps you think that unless it is logically impossible for a proposition to be false, it cannot be known. Is that it? If it is, could you say why you think so?

I'll think it over and get back to you.

@Night Ripper,

defining truth is that no matter what angle one looks at it , it still holds true

for example without space , something could never exist and therefore manifest

@north,

north;142272 wrote:

defining truth is that no matter what angle one looks at it , it still holds true

for example without space , something could never exist and therefore manifest

[CENTER]:bigsmile:
How much space the love for your Mother takes ?
Or, so you say, it doesn't exist and doesn't show.
I just mean Truth is not Matter in a Bottle...

Pepijn Sweep's:whistling:
[/CENTER]

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;142275 wrote:

[CENTER]:bigsmile:

How much space the love for your Mother takes ?
Or, so you say, it doesn't exist and doesn't show.
I just mean Truth is not Matter in a Bottle...[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Pepijn Sweep's:whistling:[/CENTER]

but where does love reside without matter ?

@north,

north;142285 wrote:

but where does love reside without matter ?

[CENTER]I don not know. I am interested in Now accumulating Love 4 All. May Be Enough Love does form Matter. Aren't there theories a'bout mass, matter and speed of light ? Why does the energy has to be petreoleum ?

According to Old Egyptian priests of Thot men has two souls. One Human which disolves after dead, and a Godly Spirit which would go back to the Whole to teach what it learned living on Earth;
:shifty:
Pepijn Sweep ESO/HUM:lol:

[/CENTER]

@Pepijn Sweep,

Quote:

Originally Posted by north

http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif

but where does love reside without matter ?

Pepijn Sweep;142343 wrote:

[CENTER][QUOTE]I don not know. I am interested in Now accumulating Love 4 All. May Be Enough Love does form Matter. Aren't there theories a'bout mass, matter and speed of light ? Why does the energy has to be petreoleum ?

[/COLOR][/SIZE]
it doesn't have to be petreeoleum

life energy
[/CENTER]

[CENTER][QUOTE]
According to Old Egyptian priests of Thot men has two souls. One Human which disolves after dead, and a Godly Spirit which would go back to the Whole to teach what it learned living on Earth;
:shifty:
Pepijn Sweep ESO/HUM:lol:
[/QUOTE]

and where has this teaching from those who have gone before , manifested ?[/CENTER]

@north,

north;142358 wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by north
but where does love reside without matter ?

Pepijn Sweep;142343 wrote:
[CENTER]
it doesn't have to be petreeoleum

life energy
[/CENTER]

[CENTER][/CENTER]

this is what I think sufficient to ground myself.

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;142362 wrote:

north;142358 wrote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by north
but where does love reside without matter ?

this is what I think sufficient to ground myself.

but where is the Wisdom expressed ?

@north,

north;142364 wrote:

Pepijn Sweep;142362 wrote:

but where is the Wisdom expressed ?
teh populair believe was that thot made the judgement in Anubis realm because he could write deotic or steno.
He promoted to Judge of the Gods, One of Enders of the Universe etc.
He was the god of knowledge. Learned people faming, raise animale, irrigation, waterclock or sundial, calenders...
Egyptian people were extremly gratefull, but Thit did not want to be worshipped. Waste of money he thought. He lived mainly in derekict temple-buidings.

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:13 PM ----------

Forgot aboutSoufi a Was a Greek interprtetion, maybe to do with mnyth about Aethena.
i think Sophia has become just another Virgin male scientists are trying to penetrate.

For me Wisdom is living to the best og\f you capabilities without unnessecsry nuissance.

@Fido,

Fido;139272 wrote:

You have got to move beyond such a simple conception of the thing, because the thing, truth, is not a thing at all, but a moral object, a spiritual conception that is meaning only, without being...Since not one of us can know truth, or define truth, since truth is an infinite; so we should not try in more than a cursury fashion to say what it is... This is more true than that, given that truth as an absolute can only be approached and never touched- is good enough.

Well said. Do you know the limit concept in math? As 1 --> infinity, etc. Real life requires "truth" not Truth. What is "Truth"? 2 + 2 = 4. Because it's a truism within its symbolic system, etc.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;142394 wrote:

Well said. Do you know the limit concept in math? As 1 --> infinity, etc. Real life requires "truth" not Truth. What is "Truth"? 2 + 2 = 4. Because it's a truism within its symbolic system, etc.

Add two somethink to two somethink else and it's sum equals four somethings but two are else.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;142394 wrote:

Well said. Do you know the limit concept in math? As 1 --> infinity, etc. Real life requires "truth" not Truth. What is "Truth"? 2 + 2 = 4. Because it's a truism within its symbolic system, etc.

2+2=4 is a truism also because here we have an example of something tautological where the symbolic system was created before the need to express and communicate what is being assessed for its truth. The system encompasses what is trying to be understood, not the other way around.

The trouble with truth comes in when one is dealing with the ineffable, where there is no system to encompass its want of communication. Sure, there is truth, but only in regards to the irrational system of the perceiver where the ineffable still remains so. By trying to create a rational system to adapt to the ineffable as opposed to its innate existence beforehand, the truth becomes unreachable. The desire for its truth is really just the desire for its communication in a different form of language.

If all is ineffable by default -just pretend- then perhaps truth is that which is required only when the ineffable needs to be communicated. If there is no need to communicate it, if there is no need or use to be attached to it, then truth is not necessary, and nonexistent?

@Holiday20310401,

As said else where: Numbers are abstractions, and the truth is an abstraction, and one cannot use one abstraction to define another...

You are correct, Holiday to say that the truth does not exist for none of our abstractions exist, while much of what we do abstract from does exist... Truth is a form only, a sort of square hole through which we try to push all round reality... As an abstract measure of abstraction: That all forms must, to be useful, define correctly the reality they represent, -is a sense of truth that cannot be avoided...Otherwise, the law of diminishing returns applies...It is like the speed of light, that we can approach it without reaching, and since the want of truth kills as much as too much truth; why get all anal about it??? If you have enough, you have enough. And to resort to mathematics as a system of thought, and abstraction, that is flawed to begin with in order to define truth is a mental cul de sac...

Philosophy Forum

defining truth

Quick Links

My Account

able2know