And the vast majority of people are not BASE jumpers. Both statements are true; neither bear on my answer above.
Does truth have many versions?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
What?? No.
Sorry if anyone read anger. No anger intended. Apologies to both billvon and wegs if I seemed angry.
Curt, yes. The thread took the left turn as I thought it would:
To be clear:
"Drugs kill lots of people" is true.
"Drugs will kill my friend" is not true.
"You should intervene if your friend is taking drugs." is not true.
I admit, it's a bit of a detour, but my point was that various ''truths'' dictate how we live our lives, whether they're dictated by us or someone else. The narratives you follow, the script you read from, the various roles you play in your everyday life, etc stem from ''truths'' that you have learned to believe about life, about yourself, about what drives you to do the things you do.
Your entire life is based on ''truths,'' and we all live this way every, single day. From why we buy the toothpaste we do, to why we don't do drugs, to why we don't smoke, to why we exercise every day, to why we love those we love, and what motivates us to log into this site. Every action stems from a truth, or set of truths, and maybe it simply leads to a better question...whose truth is it?
Hey, I never stated any of that ^ (to be clear)
"Drugs kill lots of people" may be true, but can be false if you carefully define "lots."
"Drugs may kill my friend" is true.
"You may have a responsibility to intervene if your friend is taking drugs" is true.
Hence the discussion.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Granted.
It's just not the discussion I was originally involved in.
And it took an abrupt turn without warning (post 61). I called that out.
Y'all may carry on.
It's funny, and maybe I am just soooo strange, but...... I would never consider those things as truths per see but more deceptions i temporarily choose to believe that may lead to a truth that can never be achieved.
"The pseudo truth is like a rough cut diamond buried under a ton of deception and lies waiting to be discovered."
aint that the truth!Oh-kay, let's go back to the original topic.
2+2=4
2+2 =5
Both can't be right? Only one can be ''true.''
End of thread.
See? We need detours.
Maybe your Op should have started with it... lol
Well I disagree. Either statement stands for nothing without context,and context brings into /out of focus the retreating mirage I mentioned earlier** . But there seem to be two threads in one here .
One may be epistemology and the other is "applied knowledge" (what we make of "knowledge" that we accept as true for the purposes of getting on with our lives)
**post#55
We usually shouldn't conflate "true" with "real" -- i.e., a distinction should be maintained.
For instance, that kryptonite can harm Superman is true. But neither is a real substance or a real person. They are real inventions when shifted to the context of fiction, however. "Kryptonite can harm Superman" is only a fact via being one of many items SET as such in the character's history of development in two mediums (radio and comics). And there can be contexts where it isn't true -- certain stories where he temporarily acquires immunity or a phase where one of his new creative handlers decides to revise/eliminate such circumstances from his history.
Mathematicians set fundamental principles and traits for quantitative concepts, too; and discover, propose/confirm new "facts" in their analysis of those long already resting on the table. But even the most extravagantly ideational of those may also find correspondence to concrete situations in the world, and often do. And basic properties actually had their origin in the latter, the contingent empirical features were simply stripped away to produce something abstract or what groups of different items had in common (their count or measurement). Mathematical purists might even occasionally deign to admit that such was once descended from or dependent upon everyday experienced objects and their relationships. But the latter isn't tolerable as simple and uncomplicated "proof" because it's stepping outside the "game" where the game's entities are treated as subsisting in and are manipulated as abstract description. (Familiar applied mathematics, of course, has a leg in each domain: the ideal and practical.)
True, but at face value, I think most would concur that 2+2=4, in a broad sense. That is an objective ''truth,'' and not many would quibble over it. Of course, when we bring context into anything, we encounter grey areas. But, your post could illustrate that there are indeed, ''versions of truths.''
aint that the truth!
Maybe your Op should have started with it... lol
Hindsight, and all that.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I think most any point can be made if you start to change the meaning of words.
"Truth" is being used as both "fact" and as "opinion". The temperature, at the moment, is 80 degrees F, is fact. It doesn't matter what "your truth" is.
If you say using drugs is a healthy thing to do because that's "your truth". That's not using "truth" to mean "fact".
You can't seriously conduct an argument where you change the meaning of words back and forth throughout the argument.
"Truth" is being used as both "fact" and as "opinion". The temperature, at the moment, is 80 degrees F, is fact. It doesn't matter what "your truth" is.
If you say using drugs is a healthy thing to do because that's "your truth". That's not using "truth" to mean "fact".
You can't seriously conduct an argument where you change the meaning of words back and forth throughout the argument.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This just popped up on imgUR.
Not bad
I like that.
Disagree with the last .
The Truth , the real truth , is always there . No matter the perspective or versions .