Truth, Opinion, Time

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 06:11 pm
@Solarplight,
Solarplight;167823 wrote:
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?





Aristotle defines truth as follows: To say what is true is to say that what is, is: and to say what is not true is to say that what is not, is not. Now, that sounds just about right to me, doesn't it to you. Of course, it is not how Aristotle. or you or I happen to define "truth", that matters. It is whether a definition of "truth" is the correct one that matters. That is, if the definition correctly describes how the word "truth" is used. For example, to say that the proposition that Obama is the 44th president of the United States is true to say that Obama is the 44th president of the United States, but to say that the proposition that Obama is the 44th president of the United States is not true, is to say that Obama is not the 44th president of the United States. Now that conforms with Aristotle's definition of "truth", and it seems to me exactly correct, and so that is evidence that Aristotle's definition of "truth" is right on the money.
State. Of course, what makes it true that Obama is the 44th president is a different question. If you are asking how do we know it is true, well that is one question. If you are asking why it is true, that is another question. Obviously we know it is true because we can look it up in reliable sources, and we can trust our memories. But is you are asking why it is true, what makes it true, that Obama is 44th president, the answer is that there is some fact or state of affairs in the world to which the proposition, "Obama is the 44th president" corresponds. It is because Obama is 44th president that the sentence "Obama is the 44th president" is true. Something in the world makes that sentence (or belief-if you like) true. Of course it doesn't matter that everyone is confident (is that what you mean by "certain") that Obama is 44th president that makes that true. All of us know that people can be ever so confident that something is true, and still be wrong. After all, a lot of people are confident that God exists, and a lot of people are confident that God does not exist. But one of those two groups of people is wrong (they cannot both be right) therefore, one confident group is wrong. And therefore confidence (or certainty) cannot make what you are confident about true. Right?
 
Solarplight
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 07:26 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;167829 wrote:
Aristotle defines truth as follows: To say what is true is to say that what is, is: and to say what is not true is to say that what is not, is not. Now, .........


You have some very good logical points here. However, I believe I must point out again that the topic is about the relationship of truth, time and opinion. The operative question than being, Does truth turn into opinion over time?

I obviosly didn't answer this question well enough:
Quote:
What truth would you like to talk about?

Let me try again. I was talking about truths that have had some time [\B]. Truths where the facts aren't so apparent.

And again the topic is not about what is truth. It's, ultimatley, what happens to truth over time, while inserting a speculation that it turns to opinion.

[QUOTE]After all, a lot of people are confident that God exists, and a lot of people are confident that God does not exist. But one of those two groups of people is wrong (they cannot both be right) therefore, one confident group is wrong. And therefore confidence (or certainty) cannot make what you are confident about true. Right?[/QUOTE]
That completly depends on the shools of thought you adhere to. You have outlined here, pretty well, the western philosophy view. But according to many eastern philosophies, and currently Quantum physics even suggests, reality is shaped by our perceptions. This makes the definition of truth, in some schools of thought quite litterally, that which we believe.

One needs to remember to keep an open mind when entering a philosophical debate.

And I don't mean to offend, but I don't get how anything you've been bringing up has any relevance to the topic, Does truth turn into opinion over time? Especially when I, from the get go, all be it very briefly, pointed out this duality and moved on to my rather simplistic view on the topic. And all you seem to be talking about is the wester philosphy view on truth.

I was origanally merely pointing out that when it comes to defining the harder to obtain truths of the universe, those truths where its harder to tell whether it's truth or opinion, I feel it is best to leave things little more open ended leaving an individual more receptive to of change.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 07:47 pm
@Solarplight,
Solarplight;167858 wrote:
You have some very good logical points here. However, I believe I must point out again that the topic is about the relationship of truth, time and opinion. The operative question than being, Does truth turn into opinion over time?


Let me try again. I was talking about truths that have had some time [\B]. Truths where the facts aren't so apparent.


I was origanally merely pointing out that when it comes to defining the harder to obtain truths of the universe, those truths where its harder to tell whether it's truth or opinion, I feel it is best to leave things little more open ended leaving an individual more receptive to of change.


But there is no need to choose between truth and opinion because, as I have already explained, opinions can be either true or false. So the choice is not between truth and opinion, but between true opinion and false opinion. As I also explained, the choice I think you are aiming at is between opinion and knowledge. And sometimes, it is true, we can have only opinions, and other times we can have knowledge. The question is how we decide which is one, and which is the other. I don't see that time has anything to do with it at all. And, as I have already said, I think that truth or opinion is a false dichotomy, since we can have true opinion.

Your turn.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 08:06 pm
@William,
William;167675 wrote:

Now again, if you will, please imagine/think/opine and then offer if time never ran out? If you could eliminate "that fear"?

For me, this question isn't about fear. It's simply about how truth is related to time.

---------- Post added 05-23-2010 at 09:07 PM ----------

William;167675 wrote:

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?

Actually, I would say that time and concept are interdependent. That concept is the source of time, both as memory and project. Of course the source of memory and project is mysterious, at least to me.

---------- Post added 05-23-2010 at 09:12 PM ----------

William;167675 wrote:

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.

First, I don't reduce humans to animals. We agree on that. I think you are responding to this thread from an ethical religious angle which I respect. At the same time, I was looking at something more narrow, namely that which separates truth from opinion. If a man lived in a world in which nothing was constant, he could say very little that he could also expect to remain true. This is why I mention the species in relation to an individual animal. If a philosopher sees that patterns repeat in nature, he can have a certain confidence that his ideas will remain valid in the future, that they will not expired. Of course he is trusting that the future will resemble the past, which is somewhat complicated logically.
 
Solarplight
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 08:32 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;167861 wrote:
But there is no need to choose between truth and opinion because, as I have already explained, opinions can be either true or false. So the choice is not between truth and opinion, but between true opinion and false opinion. As I also explained, the choice I think you are aiming at is between opinion and knowledge. And sometimes, it is true, we can have only opinions, and other times we can have knowledge. The question is how we decide which is one, and which is the other. I don't see that time has anything to do with it at all. And, as I have already said, I think that truth or opinion is a false dichotomy, since we can have true opinion.

Your turn.


Were getting hung up on symantics here. Truth, in the sense I've been using is it, is more synonymous with Fact.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 08:47 pm
@Solarplight,
1 - Given there are events, what they are is what is True...
2 - The way we perceive events, our epistemic possibility is an entirely different matter...
3 - Now, if there are events as it seams to be the case, Truth is events, exactly for what they were, and that cannot but be that, even now...

...WHAT IS TRUE CANNOT CHANGE, AND WHAT CAN CHANGE, WAS NEVER TRUE !...

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 08:50 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;167886 wrote:
1 - Given there are events, what they are is what is True...
2 - The way we perceive events, our epistemic possibility is an entirely different matter...
3 - Now, if there are events as it seams to be the case, Truth is events, exactly for what they were, and that cannot but be that, even now...

...WHAT IS TRUE CANNOT CHANGE, AND WHAT CAN CHANGE, WAS NEVER TRUE !...

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE


This is nice and concise. But #2 is the tricky part. How does one connect one's statements to the True events? (I'm not saying it isn't possible. )
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 08:57 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;167888 wrote:
This is nice and concise. But #2 is the tricky part. How does one connect one's statements to the True events? (I'm not saying it isn't possible. )


Conformity of knowledge with TRUTH is always representative, always symbolic...

The way I look at it, Truth is literally Universal in extension, meaning Holistic, thus connecting every event together in a massive epiphenomena and such that therefore, it cannot be known if not by symbolic representation, a summary, one distorted image of the fact itself...

(...The image, as a summary, cannot outgrow the Fact, its extension, or size...)

---------- Post added 05-23-2010 at 10:01 PM ----------

The Fact which is pure Truth, will always have a deeper "resolution" then its image...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 09:05 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;167894 wrote:
Conformity of knowledge with TRUTH is always representative, always symbolic...

The way I look at it, Truth is literally Universal in extension, meaning Holistic, thus connecting every event together in a massive epiphenomena and such that therefore, it cannot be known if not by symbolic representation, a summary, one distorted image of the fact itself...

(...The image, as a summary, cannot outgrow the Fact, its extension, or size...)

---------- Post added 05-23-2010 at 10:01 PM ----------

The Fact which is pure Truth, will always have a deeper "resolution" then its image...


I agree with you on this. I was writing on this sort of thing in the thread "ineffable." Our experience, the totality of it, is always greater than our abstractions we use to describe/navigate it. And there is sensation/emotion which just doesn't seem to fit in words, although our universals can help us deal with these ineffables. ("Tell me where it hurts.")
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 09:09 pm
@Solarplight,
Solarplight;167878 wrote:
Were getting hung up on symantics here. Truth, in the sense I've been using is it, is more synonymous with Fact.


Ah yes, semantics, just as if semantics is not important. Yes. There are two senses of "truth". "Truth" as synonymous with "fact", but also, "truth" as the relation between a statement and a fact. When we say that, for instance, it is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, we may simply be saying that it is a truth or a fact that Quito is the capital. But we may also be saying that our belief that Quito is the capital is true because it corresponds with the fact.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 09:23 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;167903 wrote:
Ah yes, semantics, just as if semantics is not important. Yes. There are two senses of "truth". "Truth" as synonymous with "fact", but also, "truth" as the relation between a statement and a fact. When we say that, for instance, it is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, we may simply be saying that it is a truth or a fact that Quito is the capital. But we may also be saying that our belief that Quito is the capital is true because it corresponds with the fact.


---------- Post added 05-23-2010 at 10:27 PM ----------

So, Truth only has one possible sense...Smile
 
Solarplight
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 09:44 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;167861 wrote:
But there is no need to choose between truth and opinion because, as I have already explained, opinions can be either true or false. So the choice is not between truth and opinion, but between true opinion and false opinion. As I also explained, the choice I think you are aiming at is between opinion and knowledge. And sometimes, it is true, we can have only opinions, and other times we can have knowledge. The question is how we decide which is one, and which is the other. I don't see that time has anything to do with it at all. And, as I have already said, I think that truth or opinion is a false dichotomy, since we can have true opinion.

Your turn.


Were getting hung up on symantics here. Truth, in the sense I've been using is it, is more synonymous with Fact.

Time has to do with it because that was what I was talking about. I was responding to the initial topic:
Reconstructo wrote:
What is the relation between truth, opinion, and time?

And that is why I am talking about the relationship of Truth and Opinion.

post added

"Our intelligence is imperfect, surely, and newly arisen; the ease with which it can be sweet-talked, overwhelmed, or subverted by other hardwired propensities -- sometimes themselves disguised as the cool light of reason -- is worrisome." - Carl Sagan
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:35 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;167768 wrote:
Cut it out U.. Have you an argument or not? If you happen to have one, write it down.
I take it, then, that you can give me no reason to suppose that there is a truth now about whether I will be at home in fifteen minutes time.
kennethamy;167772 wrote:
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.
Rubbish.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/19/2019 at 01:30:20