defining truth

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

north
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:28 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethamy http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
That facts change does not mean that what was a fact, was a fact.

It was sunny yesterday, and today it is raining. But that does not mean it was not sunny yesterday, does it? That remains true even if it is not sunny today.





Pepijn Sweep;146243 wrote:
I should be more precise. Due to errors we preceive data as facts and build upon them our theories. My example from the Rhein (one of the busiest rivers in the World) was caused by a typing mistake. What I just wonder is that no-body notices ! We talk about 100 kilometer busy riverbody !

Much of what we see as fact, is no fact. With all the help of equipment and computers we still not sure about facts in the natural world. To present proof as facts in abstrat enviroment is easier I think.


interesting

because I see billions of truths / facts

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 10:38 PM ----------

all forms are what the are because they nothing but that form

living and non-living forms

a bear connot be a tv , lead connot be hydrogen , a rock is not water , grass is not concrete etc
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:55 pm
@north,
north;146435 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethamy http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
That facts change does not mean that what was a fact, was a fact.

It was sunny yesterday, and today it is raining. But that does not mean it was not sunny yesterday, does it? That remains true even if it is not sunny today.






interesting

because I see billions of truths / facts

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 10:38 PM ----------

all forms are what the are because they nothing but that form

living and non-living forms

a bear connot be a tv , lead connot be hydrogen , a rock is not water , grass is not concrete etc


So this means that you conclude, correctly that all forms/ideas/concepts/notions/abstractions tell truth; and if they did not, that they would each be useless- which accounts for many of the dead forms we find in history...
 
north
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:58 pm
@Fido,
Fido;146452 wrote:
So this means that you conclude, correctly that all forms/ideas/concepts/notions/abstractions tell truth; and if they did not, that they would each be useless- which accounts for many of the dead forms we find in history...


no

only that all physical forms are because they can be nothing else
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 10:09 pm
@Fido,
PappasNick;146352 wrote:
That's an interesting approach to the question. Are all facts incomplete in this sense? If so, are facts complete only at a sort of absolute moment? What would that moment be like?


I don't know if using the words complete or incomplete are even the right words to use actually.

Facts only need to be as complete as their usefulness takes them, right?

Language doesn't limit the description of the fact itself. It isn't the fact which is ineffable, it doesn't stop the fact from being truthy or complete. Language might make it appear like this is happening, but really language is only capable of making the usefulness of the fact ambiguous.

One can't have a fact without a language first, I think. A language can mean a lot more than just wordplay. We find some thing which we desire to attribute with a fact. We find some usefulness of it. We wish to attribute that red, round, edible thing sitting on the table as 'apple', and that's a fact.

Communication is utility's language, and our confidence in communication is built upon the ability to draw upon as many utilities and perspectives of the thing as possible. These absolute moments, one might be convinced that they are to be looked for in reality (or whatever word you want to use), but can't the "absolute moment" you're describing really be reduced into one's will to communicate, or better, to the totality of what needs to be communicated?


I didn't really want to make anything grand out of truth, but I think that we are really restricting our conceptions of where truth exists to the positive forms of statements. What about normatives? What about values, and wisdom, and things more ineffable, things where the communication becomes a dealing with more irrational forms. Is it still just as simple and 'unspectacular'.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 03:09 am
@Holiday20310401,
 
platorepublic
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 04:29 am
@Holiday20310401,
Is it just me, but I think this topic has been discussed A LOT in literature already! Just read them before you post anything here please!

Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 07:00 am
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;146352 wrote:
That's an interesting approach to the question. Are all facts incomplete in this sense? If so, are facts complete only at a sort of absolute moment? What would that moment be like?


I don't understand what a "complete fact" is supposed to be. It is a fact that there is an apple on the table. That there is no apple on the table later does not mean it is less of a fact. What is true remains true. That something different is also true does not mean that what is true does not remain true. That there is an apple on the table on Sunday if true remains true even if there is no apple on Monday. What would the latter have to do with the former?
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 12:18 pm
@north,
north;146484 wrote:
no

only that all physical forms are because they can be nothing else

Our forms are identical to the phenomenon with which we identify them... Are you trying to say that the phenomena can be only what they are??? Because our perceptions of what they are, are always in flux, always changing as our general understanding of things increases...
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 01:22 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146613 wrote:
I don't understand what a "complete fact" is supposed to be. It is a fact that there is an apple on the table. That there is no apple on the table later does not mean it is less of a fact. What is true remains true. That something different is also true does not mean that what is true does not remain true. That there is an apple on the table on Sunday if true remains true even if there is no apple on Monday. What would the latter have to do with the former?


Holiday20310401 had some interesting things to say about this. Here is one of them:

Quote:
These absolute moments, one might be convinced that they are to be looked for in reality (or whatever word you want to use), but can't the "absolute moment" you're describing really be reduced into one's will to communicate, or better, to the totality of what needs to be communicated?
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 03:46 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Do you know how I am with my sbsolute moments??? About the same as I was a a child falling out of bed... Somewhere between bed and board I would think: This is interesting... I have never been without the narrative... Can't I remember anything without thinking twice about it???Even the most wonderful moments cannot get by with out scrutiny... Is that consciousness??? Do I have to be aware I'm aware to be aware???
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 03:50 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;146786 wrote:
Holiday20310401 had some interesting things to say about this. Here is one of them:


Do you think that if I have no idea what a complete fact is, that I will be edified by telling me about absolute moments? I think that comes under the heading of explaining the obscure by the impenetrable.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 03:50 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146613 wrote:
I don't understand what a "complete fact" is supposed to be. It is a fact that there is an apple on the table. That there is no apple on the table later does not mean it is less of a fact. What is true remains true. That something different is also true does not mean that what is true does not remain true. That there is an apple on the table on Sunday if true remains true even if there is no apple on Monday. What would the latter have to do with the former?

The used to be apple on the table is past tense true...It was true, and the statment about it being there when it was there was true...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 03:54 pm
@Fido,
Fido;146866 wrote:
The used to be apple on the table is past tense true...It was true, and the statment about it being there when it was there was true...


If it is true that there is an apple on Tuesday, then it is true that there is an apple on Tuesday on Wednesday. A change in tense does not make what is true, false.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 03:55 pm
@Fido,
Fido;146861 wrote:
Do you know how I am with my sbsolute moments??? About the same as I was a a child falling out of bed... Somewhere between bed and board I would think: This is interesting... I have never been without the narrative...


Maybe that's what an absolute moment is, one you capture with narrative. But then, as you indicate, there is the question of memory. If one forgets the moment what does that say about how absolute it can be? Must absolute moments be indelible?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 04:03 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;146869 wrote:
Maybe that's what an absolute moment is, one you capture with narrative. But then, as you indicate, there is the question of memory. If one forgets the moment what does that say about how absolute it can be? Must absolute moments be indelible?


Only, I imagine, if they are recorded in indelible ink.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 05:34 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146867 wrote:
If it is true that there is an apple on Tuesday, then it is true that there is an apple on Tuesday on Wednesday. A change in tense does not make what is true, false.


Yes.

But if I only say, "there is an apple on the table" then the tense does matter. The fact is not truth, because now the fact has a condition. The apple may be on the table on Tuesday, but not on Wednesday. The condition must be communicated in order for the fact to be truth again.

A 'complete fact' was meant to mean, in this case, "there is an apple on the table on Tuesday".

An 'absolute moment' was meant to suggest what reality is like when all conditions are satisfied so that there is no ambiguity in expressing data as a fact when communicating whatever you want to communicate.

However, this may be the wrong approach to take. Reality does not become less ambiguous or more ambiguous on its own so that there is an ultimate perspective that satisfies the 'absolute moment' condition of reality.

I think this is what was meant by using the term absolute moment. The mistake I think is in assuming the ambiguity or untruth lies in reality itself somehow, and that perception can alone unveil what is not ambiguous. Ambiguity starts not there, but when someone is trying to communicate something.

Now the question becomes, if this is the right track, what makes truth so hard? Is it just a matter of communication between languages? Or is there more to it? Can there be more to it?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 05:41 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;146915 wrote:
Yes.

But if I only say, "there is an apple on the table" then the tense does matter. The fact is not truth, because now the fact has a condition. The apple may be on the table on Tuesday, but not on Wednesday. The condition must be communicated in order for the fact to be truth again.

A 'complete fact' was meant to mean, in this case, "there is an apple on the table on Tuesday".

An 'absolute moment' was meant to suggest what reality is like when all conditions are satisfied so that there is no ambiguity in expressing data as a fact when communicating whatever you want to communicate.

However, this may be the wrong approach to take. Reality does not become less ambiguous or more ambiguous on its own so that there is an ultimate perspective that satisfies the 'absolute moment' condition of reality.

I think this is what was meant by using the term absolute moment. The mistake I think is in assuming the ambiguity or untruth lies in reality itself somehow, and that perception can alone unveil what is not ambiguous. Ambiguity starts not there, but when someone is trying to communicate something.

Now the question becomes, if this is the right track, what makes truth so hard? Is it just a matter of communication between languages? Or is there more to it? Can there be more to it?


The proposition, the apple is on the table is incomplete. It requires the addition of a temporal parameter. The apple is on the table on Tuesday completes the proposition (when the context does not provide the completion). And, of course, that is is also true that the apple is not on the table on Wednesday, in no way is any reason for thinking that the apple is on the table on Tuesday is false. Those are just two different proposition. If that is what you mean, then I am in agreement.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 06:24 pm
@kennethamy,
Yes. I think the problem is we all have different levels of education and therefore different words and terms for describing the same thing.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 07:01 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;146869 wrote:
Maybe that's what an absolute moment is, one you capture with narrative. But then, as you indicate, there is the question of memory. If one forgets the moment what does that say about how absolute it can be? Must absolute moments be indelible?

I have been there too, once or twice, giving myself entirely to the feeling of it, and it was only justice, and yet still a choice... When life becomes a dream, memory is fantasy... Sometimes life is so intense that the living of it, the surviving of it is enough... It is better so... We all cast ourselves as the heroes in the drama of our lives... We dare the freeway... We endure ass chewings from the boss... We quest after our paychecks...

But what of those moments where senses crowd in upon consciousness, when death is breathing down your shirt collar, or love is nibbling on your ear??? Can you chose to be conscious of consciousness then, or is it enough to live in that moment as though there were no others... I remember because that is my sole intelligence... And I can remember times, not so well, when I was free to feel, the greatest of luxury you know -since there is so much pain, and I surrendered to my senses not carring if each moment were my last if I could just know more pleasure and love, and I have been there in like measure with fear or grief, when I knew I was in the clutches of death, and it was enough to feel, and to endure the feeling in the moment, from moment to moment... There is no memory without perspective, and some times there is no perspective....

I have been at times like a black widow male, not that my lover was, but do you think the bug cares one way or the other??? Some things are fully worth the risk, and whether one survives or not is simply a matter of chance...If he breeds he has done his part and if he becomes food for his bride, then all the better...What good then will be his memories???
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 05:02 am
@sword,
sword;139196 wrote:
Truth is what makes you see reality such as it is. Since man is a finite and fallible being we have to look for a spritual source, that is, Jesus the Christ.


In the early Days of Christianity, Jezus was seen as a human being by the Arian Christians. They accepted the gospel, but not as infallible.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/25/2020 at 02:11:04