Truth, Opinion, Time

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

north
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:27 pm
@Reconstructo,
Truth > the Universe gives life a place on which to exist and evolve

Opinion > the hows , whats , and whys and questions

time > used to understand the movements of the Universe and the object(s) in the Universe , by placing object(s) at a certain place in space at a certain energy level at that point in space at a certain moment

but also understanding that time in and of its self plays no part in an object(s) position in space at all
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:36 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;167465 wrote:
Oh, I have my opinions, but I share them enough already. It's fun to start a thread on a theme, and see where others take it.

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 08:57 PM ----------





It might be even more fun if you were to start a thread with something intelligible.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:56 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;167480 wrote:
It might be even more fun if you were to start a thread with something intelligible.


Ah, but that wouldn't give you the opportunity for criticizing me for not doing so.

Truly, I think this is a good issue. Yes, I left it open. What is the relationship between time and truth? Is there or not a small core of atemporal truths?
 
north
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 09:27 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;167492 wrote:
Ah, but that wouldn't give you the opportunity for criticizing me for not doing so.


Quote:
Truly, I think this is a good issue. Yes, I left it open. What is the relationship between time and truth? Is there or not a small core of atemporal truths?


psychology.......
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 10:30 pm
@north,
north;167500 wrote:
psychology.......


Well it ties right in to psychology, but Kant investigated this sort of thing, and he was a philosopher. So there is a philosophical precedent here. I think in the days of yore philosophers were especially keen on the eternal variety of truth. Or many of them.
 
William
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 07:25 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;167165 wrote:
What is the relation between truth, opinion, and time? If we make a claim to "Truth" that does not stop being the truth, are we not forced to make a claim on the future?


Recon, if you will, imagine/opine/think of a harmony of all synergistically cooperating together/as one as that being a truth over time. In that regard truth is never defined at any one time. Then there will never be an interrogatory that questions. Difficult to imagine. I would say "yes" it is.

Imagine also never asking a question. Can you do that and what if all did that; each offering what they knew from their own perspective for another just to hear only. No argument over time. Please observe this definition of question/interrogatory from this one/other source:

"Questions about facts in a civil suit, which are submitted by one party to the other party or witnesses. These questions are asked under oath, with the questions and sworn answers being used as evidence in the trial. The court may submit questions and answers to the jury as part of the evidence. Court time is saved by the use of interrogatories".

Now who is that "court"? Is their opinion public or private? What is an oath? To tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Please offer justice to who can possibly say that much less, do that? "Save the court time"? Why? What's the hurry? Is that 'time' running out? Hmmm?

We think! Why and how we do that is a good question and there are no answers to that question. No one can define how or why we do that. Could it be fear of that time running out? Is there ANY evidence to support that other than what we observe in our own aging and death? Perhaps that is why we do that; because there are SO MANY QUESTIONS and SO MANY ANSWERS and the friction of mind that causes us to worry, stress, decay and die trying to find justice in all that IT is.

What is IT, you might ask? If WE only knew IT, things/that matter would be so much simpler, huh? Could "to question" be an invasion of a sort, we should not impose, that causes an imposition to any one?

Now again, if you will, please imagine/think/opine and then offer if time never ran out? If you could eliminate "that fear"? Could that be the greatest fear? Believe it or not if you could do that you would have no fear. I know that, because that is where I am so I know that place exists. The only anger I have is when others impose their fear on others and I witness it. They are damning/damming up another's ability to cooperate with this court that I AM. They can and will use what you say and do against you and they/we are good? at that too;.....................sad!

Now say that to yourself and only imagine we are nothing without others to share with. The truth awaits in the offering of one to the other in that sharing process and it never ends. There in IT is a balance we will find together and then life will begin. No trials, no errors, no truth or consequences of relative truth of any one there of to tell another to hear. My offering...................take it or leave it. That choice is yours and yours alone as it will be for all if they were free to do so. But of course we have to pay attorneys to speak it for us. All I can say is good luck if you have the ways and means to do that, ha! Then observe the battle of wits in that court, ha! Justice, my ass!

The more we invade, the more complicated 'matter/matters' become. For instance in our curiosity to define all things the longest word that has created has one hundred and eight nine THOUSAND letters/symbols in it. That word is called Titin/titan for short. That is a protein created by microcosmic investigation/invasion. Is that an indication of complication personified? You see, another question, huh? Ha!

Reconstructo;167165 wrote:
Some might say that this kind of truth is impossible. If so, does this not leave us with nothing but opinions?


Yep!

Reconstructo;167165 wrote:
Someone like Kant tries to give us the unchanging structure of our otherwise changing experience. Or so is my understanding.


Well said/offered.

Reconstructo;167165 wrote:
The more religious philosophers might talk of a God who created and exists outside of time.


I agree.

Reconstructo;167165 wrote:
Hegel suggest that truth must slowly evolve from opinion, within time.


So the argument. Define time? That period between alpha and omega? A beginning to an end? I can't think of that, can you my friend? That would to much too fast and too often to imagine all that between those too points if there are those two points to begin with, huh? Would you agree to that?

Reconstructo;167165 wrote:
Aristotle (correct me if I am wrong) justifies his Truth with the notion that time repeats itself.


Time to change any notion of what time is if you are indeed correct and that is what this man thought. Nietzsche thought that too, or perhaps that is an innocent maliciousness carried forward because no one knows what time it is in the moment. You are right, it is nothing but an opinion by observation. Those Greeks did sow a lot of seeds did they not? Ha! To any receptacle that would receive them. Perhaps Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were birds of a feather, so to speak. They were very good friends, at least it was said by some they were. Perhaps too close might be an appropriate assumption here.

Reconstructo;167165 wrote:
Schopenhaur seems to be in the same boat.


Yes, I agree. But then there was Wagner as it relates to Nietzsche coupled with Schopenhaur's contribution, those associations could confuse any one and why N. needed a "super man"? Perhaps we confuse what is meant by a platonic relationship when it comes to Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche and Schopenhaur, huh?

Recon what I think can be offered here that would give reason is in "in that time" men were admired by other men because of what they thought. Women are more reactive and intuitive than we and in that respect we/men mis-understood that adoration to an extreme in an effort to find that god in man with little regard to that Earth that is woman/mother nature. I offer for your consideration only. I offer that as it relates to what many philosophers offered in those times/as it is arguably written.

What is gay or homosexual in those times could very well be a respect for one another and not carried to the extreme as it is today by those who claim to be gay or homosexual and to assume the early greeks did is but an accusation to justify that later extreme behavior? Is there evidence of what is known of man's love for his fellow man as it relates to those sexual extremes available that is represent of those times?

I love my fellow man but I do not, nor do I feel a need to go to those extremes. So why do others? Could that be just an extreme lack of never being loved by a woman or a man in all ways that are not sexual and that sexual behavior is an expression of that dire lack? Granted we use the word love rather haphazardly and perhaps most do not know what love is but we can surmise something from those behaviors and there aftermath consequences. Without understanding that love between man and woman/heaven and earth we can only observe the hell of that lack of understanding.

Previously I have offered love can only be given from one to another and I for one to believe that, and that is what I do in all ways, and in that now, I experience no consequences, only joy from that. If all were so giving what kind of reality would avail itself then? Would dreams then come true?

Reconstructo;167165 wrote:
For instance, the individual animal dies but the species remains.


I must apologize here, my friend, for here is where we differ as you carry that extreme assumption forward that WE are animals. In this respect Descarte was accurate in if we think that then that is what we become finding ourselves in the downward spiral/black hole the gravest of situations. I choose not to think that we are animals. IAM not that animal and I hope you will one day think the same. I will be forever and I again hope you feel the same as do I wish all to understand that and believe it. With that kind of faith one will never have anything to fear again. So let it be written so let it be done from that time on................forever.

You know I like the godly sound of that and for all I know that is He who is saying it, ha! I find a joy and a comfort in thinking that and I am sure once you do that, you will too.

Recon I mentioned in another thread in reference to those "lacrimal drops", if you will, allow me to offer a difference in the two tiers/tears of that understanding. The one tear if of a fear imposed; that of a sobbing nature and the consequence of bewailing and self pity as some lose what they thought they had and controlled to be their own when no thing, as a matter of fact, is. The other tear is a rapturing experience of a truth/epiphany reached to express a cleansing nature/purification process in the happening. Tears of joy, tears of sadness as they are, most definitely NOT THE SAME. One is heaven approaching one is hell occurring. Let us hope the latter rather than the former.


Reconstructo;167165 wrote:
Or different kinds of government come and go, but humans remain the same. Natural science assumes without being able to prove (?) that the laws of nature do not change. (Is this correct?)


No government will and they must go and never return as it relates to one governing another. That's slavery no matter how one perceives that association to be. Nature has always been and evolves as it should in a progression we will never be understand as long a we are separate from that nature and govern/use/exploit/waste it. We will evolve with it only efforting to find that balance of it and us as those resources all of us and it is. Aah, A BALANCE, A HARMONY, A SONG, A RESONANCE, A WONDERFUL RINGING IN THE EARS. No Noise, No Commotion, No Much Ado About No Thing. SIMPLE AND TRUE. That's the way to get along on down the road or is it up the road? Level ground sounds good to me.

Your friend,

William
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 07:39 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;167397 wrote:
Well, of course, there is a reason to suppose there is a truth about where you will be in 15 minutes. Just wait and I'll show it to you.
You appear to be contending that a present truth is reason to believe in future truths, well, it's not, particularly as you are able to demonstrate present truths but can not demonstrate a future truth for the case I posed. That asymmetry is good reason to suppose that there is no future truth about this matter.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 08:27 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;167492 wrote:
Ah, but that wouldn't give you the opportunity for criticizing me for not doing so.

Truly, I think this is a good issue. Yes, I left it open. What is the relationship between time and truth? Is there or not a small core of atemporal truths?


The only one I know of it that, "Truth is the daughter of time". But a mother

---------- Post added 05-23-2010 at 10:34 AM ----------

ughaibu;167677 wrote:
You appear to be contending that a present truth is reason to believe in future truths, well, it's not, particularly as you are able to demonstrate present truths but can not demonstrate a future truth for the case I posed. That asymmetry is good reason to suppose that there is no future truth about this matter.


Why is that asymmetry a good reason to suppose such a thing? Especially since I can prove future truths on the basis (what else) past truths. For instance, I can prove that I will be able to lift my finger a moment from now because I can lift it now (ceterus paribus of course). Clearly that asymmetry is a very poor reason.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;167683 wrote:
I can prove future truths. . . .
You land on a snake, go back to post 20.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:37 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;167758 wrote:
You land on a snake, go back to post 20.


I can't prove the truth that in the year 2090 it will (still) be true that Obama was the president of the United States in the year 2010. Whyever not? What would make you think that it will not be true that Obama was president in 2010 in the year 2090?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:47 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;167762 wrote:
I can't prove the truth that in the year 2090 it will (still) be true that Obama was the president of the United States in the year 2010. Whyever not? What would make you think that it will not be true that Obama was president in 2010 in the year 2090?
You land on a snake, go back to post 20.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:50 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;167766 wrote:
You land on a snake, go back to post 20.


Same snake? I would have thought he was squashed by my first landing. Cut it out U.. Have you an argument or not? If you happen to have one, write it down. "This coyness lady would be no crime" if I had but world enough and time.
 
davidm
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:59 pm
@Owen phil,
Owen;167396 wrote:
"that the Moon existed before people existed is true."

How do you demonstrate that you know it to be true?

I think that it is very probable, ie. it is a strong belief.
Perhaps a justified belief, but it is not a known truth.


The question isn't whether we know it to be true, or whether it's merely a strong justified belief. The question is whether the statement has a truth value. You seem to be saying that unless we know what the truth value of any particular statement is, then it doesn't have a truth value, an argument I find extremely peculiar. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're saying here, and if so, please clarify.

It seems much more reasonable to believe that all sorts of statements have truth values, but we don't know what those values are.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 03:03 pm
@davidm,
davidm;167770 wrote:
The question isn't whether we know it to be true, or whether it's merely a strong justified belief. The question is whether the statement has a truth value. You seem to be saying that unless we know what the truth value of any particular statement is, then it doesn't have a truth value, an argument I find extremely peculiar. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're saying here, and if so, please clarify.

It seems much more reasonable to believe that all sorts of statements have truth values, but we don't know what those values are.


Yes, there is a constant confusion between the question of whether P has a truth value, and whether we know its truth value on the one hand, and what the truth value of P is. Ughaibu has the same problem about future truths.
 
davidm
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 03:26 pm
@kennethamy,
If I'm following Owen correctly, he is saying that the Law of Exluded Middle is correct: "Either P or not P."

But if that is right, future contingent events must have a truth value now; and distant contingent events to which we have no access (whether there are aliens in Andromeda) must also have a truth value now.

To deny that future contingent events, or any sort of events to which we lack epistemic access, has a truth value, then one must deny the truth of the statement "Either P or not P."

Can this be done? Perhaps quantum mechanics shows that the law of excluded middle fails to hold. Consider Schroedinger's cat. When the cat is in the box, we are inclined to say, "Either the cat is alive or dead," and we believe that one of the disjuncts is true regardless of whether we know which one is true.

Quantum mechanics says the cat is both alive and dead, in superposition, until we open the box; and then the wave function collapses to return a classical result.

Hence, if QM is true, excluded middle doesn't hold.
 
Solarplight
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 03:30 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;167165 wrote:
What is the relation between truth, opinion, and time?

If we make a claim to "Truth" that does not stop being the truth, are we not forced to make a claim on the future? Some might say that this kind of truth is impossible. If so, does this not leave us with nothing but opinions?

Someone like Kant tries to give us the unchanging structure of our otherwise changing experience. Or so is my understanding. The more religious philosophers might talk of a God who created and exists outside of time. Hegel suggest that truth must slowly evolve from opinion, within time. Aristotle (correct me if I am wrong) justifies his Truth with the notion that time repeats itself. Schopenhauer seems to be in the same boat. For instance, the individual animal dies but the species remains. Or different kinds of government come and go, but humans remain the same.

Natural science assumes without being able to prove (?) that the laws of nature do not change. (Is this correct?)

I'm not making a case in any direction but opening a dialogue, or shall we say trialogue.


Plato, I believe, would suggest truth can be twisted over time. This would leaves us with opion in the end. Quantum Physics stipulates, and many eastern philosophies say that reality is shaped by our perceptions. This would suggest that a massly shared opinion could become truth over time. All that I can extrapolate from this is that there is a very blurry line between Truth and Opinion and time can have great effect on our perceptions of both, or maybe visa versa. Maybe it's a kinda balance of both, truth turning into opinion, turning into truth. I feel, it's healtiest, to conscribe to the idea that, for the most part, everything is opinion, for opinions are easier to change.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 03:36 pm
@Solarplight,
Solarplight;167788 wrote:
Plato, I believe, would suggest truth can be twisted over time. This would leaves us with opion in the end. Quantum Physics stipulates, and many eastern philosophies say that reality is shaped by our perceptions. This would suggest that a massly shared opinion could become truth over time. All that I can extrapolate from this is that there is a very blurry line between Truth and Opinion and time can have great effect on our perceptions of both, or maybe visa versa. Maybe it's a kinda balance of both, truth turning into opinion, turning into truth. I feel, it's healtiest, to conscribe to the idea that, for the most part, everything is opinion, for opinions are easier to change.


Opinion is not something contrasted with truth, as you seem to think it is. Opinions can be either true or false. A physician may give it as his true opinion that the child has measles. An opinion is something we do not know is true, but that does not mean it is not true. It is false that everything is an opinion. I know that Obama is president of the United States. That is not just an opinion. I know it. Of course if it is known, then it is true.
 
Solarplight
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 03:49 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;167790 wrote:
Opinion is not something contrasted with truth, as you seem to think it is. Opinions can be either true or false. A physician may give it as his true opinion that the child has measles. An opinion is something we do not know is true, but that does not mean it is not true. It is false that everything is an opinion. I know that Obama is president of the United States. That is not just an opinion. I know it. Of course if it is known, then it is true.


I do not suggest that they are oppisites, what I put forth was ment to be looked at with in the context of the relaionship you put forth here: "An opinion is something we do not know is true, but that does not mean it is not true". Once we are not completly certain that something is true than it is an opinion. And yes it is 100% true that Obama is president, I was talking in the more generalized philosophical sense, this is a philosophy forum i believe, hence the "for the most part". I don't spend alot of time in philosophical debate or thought over who the president is, nor do most philosophers, thats a job for historians. Philosophers generally concern themselves with the less tangible.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 04:08 pm
@Solarplight,
Solarplight;167794 wrote:
I do not suggest that they are oppisites, what I put forth was ment to be looked at with in the context of the relaionship you put forth here: "An opinion is something we do not know is true, but that does not mean it is not true". Once we are not completly certain that something is true than it is an opinion. And yes it is 100% true that Obama is president, I was talking in the more generalized philosophical sense, this is a philosophy forum i believe, hence the "for the most part". I don't spend alot of time in philosophical debating or thought on who the president is, nor do most philosophers, thats a job for historians. Philosophers generally concern themselves with the less tangible.


Why do you think we have to be certain that something is true to know it is true. I am not certain Quito is the capital of Ecuador, It is possible for me to me mistaken that it is. But if I am not mistaken that it is, which I am not, then I know it is the capital of Ecuador. What other propositions should we discuss that are true than that Obama is president. A truth is a truth so far as I know. If there are philosophical truths they are truths in exactly the same way that it is true that Obama is president is true. What truth would you like to talk about?

---------- Post added 05-23-2010 at 06:26 PM ----------

I don't spend alot of time in philosophical debating or thought on who the president is, nor do most philosophers, thats a job for historians. Philosophers generally concern themselves with the less tangible.

But maybe if philosophers want to discuss the ideas of truth and opinion and knowledge, that Obama is president, or that Quito is the capital of Ecuador are just the kinds of things (proposition) they should be talking about. Philosophers should employ simple, clear, examples if they want to discuss complicated matters like truth, knowledge, and opinion just so the discussion is not diverted, pulled off the track, by the particular example. After all, it is not the particular example that matters. It is the issue (knowledge, truth, etc.) that matters. So a clear and simple example of these concept is exactly what we should use. That is what Socrates did. His examples were of shoemakers and carpenters (and shoemaking, and carpentry). He did not use high-flown complicated examples that did not matter to the issue he was discussing (morality, knowledge) and would have diverted from the main issue. Why not follow Socrates's example in this?
 
Solarplight
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 05:38 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;167797 wrote:
Why do you think we have to be certain that something is true to know it is true. I am not certain Quito is the capital of Ecuador, It is possible for me to me mistaken that it is. But if I am not mistaken that it is, which I am not, then I know it is the capital of Ecuador. What other propositions should we discuss that are true than that Obama is president. A truth is a truth so far as I know. If there are philosophical truths they are truths in exactly the same way that it is true that Obama is president is true. What truth would you like to talk about?


Well, i guess, that depends on what philosophies one subscribes to. How one defines truth and views the universe. Does one see the universe as a set of fixed perment laws, in wich case there is no debate really truth is truth. And I feel, when philosphically bringing up the concept of truth were not wondering about the obvious truths but those truths that are harder to be certain on. Stuff like, is it true that there was a great flood and Noah made an arc. In which case the question becomes, for me, what makes something true. Would the story be true if everyone on this planet was 100% certain it was? And this topic is about the relaionship of opinion, truth and time, so the question ultimatly is what happens to truth over time, and again the Truth about our current legistlation is still not the most appropriate example to use.

Quote:

But maybe if philosophers want to discuss the ideas of truth and opinion and knowledge, that Obama is president, or that Quito is the capital of Ecuador are just the kinds of things (proposition) they should be talking about. Philosophers should employ simple, clear, examples if they want to discuss complicated matters like truth, knowledge, and opinion just so the discussion is not diverted, pulled off the track, by the particular example. After all, it is not the particular example that matters. It is the issue (knowledge, truth, etc.) that matters. So a clear and simple example of these concept is exactly what we should use. That is what Socrates did. His examples were of shoemakers and carpenters (and shoemaking, and carpentry). He did not use high-flown complicated examples that did not matter to the issue he was discussing (morality, knowledge) and would have diverted from the main issue. Why not follow Socrates's example in this?


Ok, good point. But I would point out that it's Plato's example we'd be following. Socrates did not write any philisophical text, he was soley a teacher, most everything we generally attribute to Socrates came from Plato's dialogues.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 05:20:52