Philosophical Discussion On Truth

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Sarkus, Dec 19, 2022.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,300
    • Attempting to negate a thread closure by starting a new thread on exactly the same topic is inappropriate. Please do not do this again.
    What is the philosophical nature of "truth"? Is it objective, or subjective, or both/either? What can be considered true/false, e.g. are facts "true", or are only propositions true or false?
    If truth is that (a proposition or otherwise) which corresponds to reality, does this just push the question back to "what is reality?" and whether there is an objective and subjective reality, etc?
    Are there different kinds of "truth" - e.g. scientific truths, personal truths, normative truths, etc?
    Does opinion matter when considering whether something is true or not?

    I would suggest that most people's view of truth starts (and maybe ends?) with the Correspondence Theory, the notion that truth corresponds with a fact, or some reality. This was a view held and promoted by Betrand Russell et al.

    There are competitive theories, such as the Coherence Theory of truth, such that a truth is such that coheres with a set of beliefs. It ultimately seems to resolve into relativism, and with a "true for me, not true for you" type of truth - i.e. subjective.

    There is the Identity theory, where a propositions are not true if they correspond with fact, but are facts themselves, and there are other theories of truth out there in the philosophical ether.

    A further question of interest crossed my path, that one may like to wade into:

    "Is there any factual truth to moral propositions?
    How can the idea of objective moral truths be made consistent with a correspondence theory of truth and fit into a physicalist sort of 'scientific' realism?
    "​

    While the premise of these questions may rely on one's view of the earlier questions, they are interesting questions that may serve well as an example of what we mean as "truth" - especially on the matter of objective/subjective. Or maybe it is just putting in additional layers without getting to the heart of it. Let's see.


    So, have at it. A lot of questions above, but really just a thread to share and discuss one's philosophical view of "truth", if one has any to share.

    Mod Note

    Edited to reopen with OP's permission.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2022
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I’m reminded of a quote “we don’t see things as they really are, we see things as we are.”

    It’s likely nearly impossible to keep personal bias out of our worldviews and how we see “truth.” Since this thread is posted under philosophy, I’m coming from a philosophical point of view.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635
    Both - It's part of being an individual. As a Christian, I'd call truth a personal relationship with God, which involves both objective reality and my personal subjective truth or reality as an individual. I'm totally biased and need to be.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,300
    So what do you do if there is a contradiction in "truths"? Or is it a case of one (subjective) only kicking in, so to speak, when the other (objective) is unobtainable/unattained? How do the two interact? Which takes precedent, or does that scenario never arise?
     
  8. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635
    As a Christian required to honor the holy spirit of truth, and having the understanding clear that deception, error, and falsehoods are part of the discernment and diviidng process of the relationship, if something is found to be erroneous, I am obligated as a Christian to view it as such and lean on truth as my guide.

    My own understanding isn't always on spot, so acknowledgment of truth is a necessity according to my faith and should be, even if I weren't a "Christian".
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    With my view of religion - it is the world's biggest con job - a statement like "As a Christian required to honor the holy spirit of truth" I feel sorry for you buying the con

    With indications you are a bot that's funny


    If a accurate description is given of a happening I would class such description as true (the truth)

    When statements about feelings are made are such expressions and judgements about feelings discernible as being true (the truth) or not?

    My opinion - think not


    Looks and sound's like bot when spoken

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2023
  10. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635


    Buying into the con? How many territories on earth are you aware of that the majority of their populations don't prescribe to some sort of religion? I don't know of any. So, you also seem to equate the concept of true, at least when it comes to people like myself, who happen to be religious, as something less than and by your own admittance, a con. I view true to equate to something true, whether it be a subjective truth such as favorite flavor if ice cream, or an objective truth such as the age of this country.

    Deceit is part of life. People lie. That is a major theme as well as a warning given to those of us who read the scriptures for the caution, so we might avoid deception.

    True is true. Honesty is a spirit of truth. We can discern the difference between honest people and dishonest people by that method. We call them fruits.

    Sometimes we fall short when it comes to study and understanding, but that is a human tendency and not isolated to the religious world.

    Do you find the act of people being deceived something to laugh about? I don't. I'd much rather people be well informed and capable than to fall for a con, which oddly enough brings us back to your perspective on religious belief and practice.

    How informed are you?
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2023
  11. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,250
    It might even be the case. Albeit a person is probably intervening at times, judging from the initial posts to the forum (elsewhere) being more lucid and fewer dashes of eccentric phrasing.

    I suppose it could also just be traditional human doublespeak or doubletalk activity, but the style really does seem to reflect the new chatbot variety of relying on statistical-regulated selection of the next words rather than quasi-randomly borrowing and patching together tracts of text. (Can compose poetry, prose, etc, to boot.)

    Guess it boils down to whether there's already a web roving or forum deployable software for the latest phases.
    _
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2023
    wegs likes this.
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Well spotted and very much correct

    When the subject is religion I am tempted

    However the religion con, for me, is a sad reflection on evolution and since evolution is not sentient pointless to show emotion towards the process which has brought religion into being

    If being religious subjectively works for you fine

    If I, subjectively, feel the opposite I would only step in if life threatening to you

    Ya, perhaps, maybe but no

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635

    Evolutionary process and finding no point of showing emotion towards it, the process itself, is I guess a coping method? Difficulty is part of the process, which I myself find difficult to not show emotion toward. It's likewise difficult not to show emotion towards difficulties polar opposite, which would be more ease. I'm fairly certain both are guides in life. Between ease of passage and difficulty, the strait gate, so to speak of life, helping us as sentient beings navigate, is the bridge I think - the channel, if you will, between good and evil, or rather the walk the line part of life.

    I find it difficult to show no emotion towards this process, due to this process being essential for and to our ongoing development as sentient beings.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    And then there is this, from another forum I help moderate and not addressed to me, but oh so true.
    Does that ring a bell?
    I believe it is called "character assassination".
     
  15. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Bots are more sophisticated now - they can follow, like and quote posts on most social media platforms. I thought at first, that the writing style is similar to another member who doesn’t post anymore, but they weren’t banned. But, now, I’m leaning towards thinking it’s a bot because the posts seem detached from connecting with the topic or other users, despite using the quote feature to appear like it’s making a connection. If that makes sense. Hmm!
     
    C C likes this.
  16. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,250
    I doubt that any single theory can subsume all instances of particular statements or representations that are presented as "true". If an _X_ is accepted, then the underlying standard being consciously or unconsciously used to justify its validity can contingently vary across them all (correspondence, coherence, pragmatic, consensus, constructivist, etc).

    A particular profession or culture might be rigidly devoted to a single criterion for what it allows in as "truth", but people and society in general bounce from one to another, depending on what route it takes to get something established or rejected. Often done informally -- only after the fact when an observer might construe how a community or clique arrived at "_X_ being the truth" as fitting one or more formulations of such.
     
  17. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,250
    As far as both arguing with it and being offended by its remarks went, I saw a less sophisticated one fool members of a Usenet group years ago. Despite their being well aware of the "demonstration prone" (or trickster?) AI engineer slash marketer who occasionally posted there.

    The workers who used primitive ELIZA back in the '60s could hardly avoid knowing what it was, but still attributed emotions and good advice to it.

    OTOH, mundane alternatives abound. If English isn't one's native language -- there can be plenty of oddities arising in the parlance. Especially if a translator app is mediating in a roundabout way.

    At any rate, though this might very jaggedly concern "truth" or "getting at the truth", I don't want to clutter the thread with another "branching off".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    _
     
    wegs likes this.
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I think it is easy to confuse truth with language. Is truth possible if language is used to describe or define it?
    or put it this way:
    Can truth ever be defined or described using language?
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2023
    C C likes this.
  19. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,250
    Well, that could be the case if "truth" is being used as a synonym for metaphysical affairs or the idea of an ultimate reality (things that are not representations). But as far as everyday usage goes, it's probably rare for "truth" to be referring to that abstract playground.[1]

    True/false status usually does apply to "fact" candidates expressed or mediated by language and its concepts, since that's the easiest way to communicate information. It's not practical for me to constantly teleport to another part of the world or travel into the past, so to personally witness every source of a claim or knowledge proposal (i.e., the latter has to be converted to either words/symbols or pictures in order to be presented to me conveniently).

    The majority of knowledge even requires inferential processes (and their associated biases and cognitive filters). Simply seeing/hearing a phenomenal event or condition doesn't in itself endow an accurate and/or in-depth understanding of what's really going on (especially in terms of science explanations).

    Granted, the mobile era permits easier transmission of visual-grounded knowledge, so that has undermined the propositional kind of knowledge a little bit. But those pictures, scenes, diagrams, etc are still representations that have to be interpreted slash reasoned about (The Myth of Objective Data), which again involves language-based thought activity at some point.

    With respect to the domain of tacit knowledge (and its supposed non-verbal or embodied brand of competence), just to assert and indicate that Ms or Mr is doing something incorrectly in the course of learning a non-codified skill, the specifics may at times have to be converted to something descriptive. Whereas other times it might be possible to demonstrate merely by physical example. But by its very nature, evaluation of tacit knowledge could invite "that's the wrong or the right way" (to achieve whatever) more than "that's true or false".

    - - - footnote - - -

    [1] And if some minor or major aspect of "brain-independent" existence was often what most people were referring to, they would still be trapped in their brain-dependent representations. Whatever they'd be claiming about truth with a capital T would be beliefs that can't be validated.

    Though many practical arguments, considerations, and social conformities might compel us to pretend an _X_ philosophical belief is true or had been magically confirmed. That happens all the time in morality melodramas -- like proclaiming each human being (or animal) having "special rights and entitlements" is literally objective -- more than just an artificial, contractual agreement between the participants.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2023
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  20. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    266
    Truth is what authority (-ies) says it is.

    authority (n.)
    https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=authority

    ===

    How neat:

    mathematics - for mathematicians;
    linguistics - for linguists;
    politics - for politicians;
    ...
    philosophy - for philosophers.

    ===

    divide and rule/conquer
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2023
    C C likes this.
  21. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    266
    for a space:

    a) the axiomiser/legislator/creator - states the truths/"rules";
    b) the enforcer.

    ===

    Big Lebowski Dream Part


    -

    The First Edition : Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)


    ===

    "Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)"

    (Yeah, yeah, oh-yeah, what condition my condition was in)

    I woke up this mornin' with the sundown shinin' in
    I found my mind in a brown paper bag within
    I tripped on a cloud and fell-a eight miles high
    I tore my mind on a jagged sky
    I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in

    (Yeah, yeah, oh-yeah, what condition my condition was in)

    I pushed my soul in a deep dark hole and then I followed it in
    I watched myself crawlin' out as I was a-crawlin' in
    I got up so tight I couldn't unwind
    I saw so much I broke my mind
    I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in

    (Yeah, yeah, oh-yeah, what condition my condition was in)

    Someone painted "April Fool" in big black letters on a "Dead End" sign
    I had my foot on the gas as I left the road and blew out my mind
    Eight miles outta Memphis and I got no spare
    Eight miles straight up downtown somewhere
    I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in

    I said I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in
    Yeah, yeah, oh-yeah...
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2023
  22. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,250
    The inventors and practitioners (authority, management) of an "intellectual game" or formal system especially set the rules, values/properties, and method of validation/proof for new candidate components or discoveries within it. Ultimately it's a matter of a proposed _X_ being coherent or consistent with the rest of the operation.

    If the system is regarded as wholly abstract by its purists -- working independently of and "floating" on its own without messy inputs and considerations from the experienced world, then it features entities or relationships that can qualify for "absolute truth" status (2+2=4). Of course, that doesn't rule out people finding that facets of the system still have everyday applications -- using it as a tool, even modeling and determining affairs of the immediate environment and universe overall with its concepts.

    Hardly surprising if the non-recreational "game's" earliest origins consisted of extracting certain attributes from the perceived world (like quantity) and stripping away the other, contingent empirical characteristics. Again, yielding something abstract and non-messy or globally reliable.
    _
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2023
  23. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    266
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2023

Share This Page