• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

How would you define Truth?

Psyduck said:
one mustn't agree with Heidegger of course.
Click to expand...

lol.


Truth is a value if you buy some sort of correspondence theory. It is a value you can place on a statement if it corresponds with things *out there*

Truth is some spooky b.s. otherwise - redefining the term to mean something like "the set of all knowledge" or "the set of all possible states of affairs" or "i feel stuff and that stuff good and that truth" is up to you to do... However, when out and about in the world, expect the correspondence thingy.

I for one totally buy into some sort of correspondence theory :)
 
This thread is starting to remind me of Fourty-six & 2. We think far too much for our own good, sometimes. :P I guess where I'm going is truth is only what you make of it. When you think beyond the aspects of what you're experiencing right at this moment, everything gets a little hazy as you try to explain your own details.
 
An attempted (but indemonstrably) truthful statement:

As I perform what I presume to be an act to which I refer in this text as typing, whether I am truly typing a thing to which I refer in this text as a post or not, I am not feeling the particular emotion to which I textually ascribe the word (and personally identify as) 'ecstatic.'
 
So which portions are truth in your eyes? I see two truths, but truth is completely objective depending on who's looking at it.
Click to expand...

I see many more than two, though the sentence's truth value isn't particularly impressive - many implicit assumptions must still be made and the informational content is small in proportion to the amount of words expended. I do, however, consider the sentence to be comparatively devoid of the typical linguistic confounds of more 'normal' writing styles, since its intended meaning is provided near-unambiguously, internally, and reflexively. I tried to construct a closed loop so that the world of discourse could be more suitably confined to the sentence itself, effectively insulating it from external appropriation of meaning (refer to the underlined words for exception; here, I simply appeal to consensus upon definition).

The primary assumption that must be made before any truth-value can be made known: that an individual capable of conscious thought and experience is chiefly responsible (via execution of personal will) for the text's existence.
 
thesoundofmotion said:
I feel like Truth is the absolute.

I feel like Truth can't be spoken with mere words, we just use words to try and tell the Truth but it obviously does not do it justice and adds to more confusion.

Truth can be everything that can't be said. It is everything that is but can hardly be defined through words although words are apart of it.

So all in all Everything that exists is Truth but it just hard to explain through mere words but maybe can be felt at times.
Click to expand...

I agree communication is difficult when describing the truth. Certain words mean some things to people and other things to others.
One thing about the truth though. I feel that what may be true to me is not an absolute for others. Sometimes
 
Dunno where peeps get the idea that 'truth' needs to be objective to be called truth. I say first consider what objectivity really means.

In my view/fwiw, if truth has to be objective to be considered truth, there's no such thing at all. Like an absolutely/100% pure drug, objectivity is merely an attempt that can never fully succeed.

And in the utter absence of any such attempt, of any seeking, of any striving, of any kind -- what is the truth?

When there is no search whatsoever for truth, thus no ego to succeed in finding it -- what is always already the case?
 
Last edited:
P A said:
The primary assumption that must be made before any truth-value can be made known: that an individual capable of conscious thought and experience is chiefly responsible (via execution of personal will) for the text's existence.
Click to expand...

This statement further supports my view that the truth is only what is happening at this moment. As for all of the other points you have made, your own conscious decisions make your will. And it happens in that moment. The past isn't truth, since it becomes distorted with the passage of time. The future isn't truth, since time has not come to our view to give us truth. The only truth I see is now.
 
Simply_Live said:
This statement further supports my view that the truth is only what is happening at this moment. As for all of the other points you have made, your own conscious decisions make your will. And it happens in that moment. The past isn't truth, since it becomes distorted with the passage of time. The future isn't truth, since time has not come to our view to give us truth. The only truth I see is now.
Click to expand...
Agreed -- the past doesn't exist at all, as (by definition) it can never be present. Same with the future, which is past projected. Thus, 'truth' need not be sought and is in fact always already the case, the default condition for all.

"But 'just what is, as is' is boooooring, and depreeeeesssssing"... that's it all right, eh? People tend not to want "the truth", I suspect. Nothing could be more unpopular.
 
If you are searching for the absolute truth, then I tend to agree. Scientia is a wonderfully explanatory tool whose very nature would preclude an absolute, though the goal for the philosophers stone requires at least a temporary belief in the absolute.

Some form of objective truth (whatever that is) is required (even theoretically) to provide intersubjective objects, upon which the Scientist or philosopher must first agree before proceeding in any endeavour.

I tend to favour Schopenhauer's critique of Kant
 
Pythagoras said:
Some form of objective truth (whatever that is) is required (even theoretically) to provide intersubjective objects, upon which the Scientist or philosopher must first agree before proceeding in any endeavour.
Click to expand...
And if truth didn't lie in the realm of thought-based endeavour at all?

(if truth didn't lie... chuckling ;)).
 
Dedbeet said:
And if truth didn't lie in the realm of thought-based endeavour at all?

(if truth didn't lie... chuckling ;)).
Click to expand...

Quite, as with Schopenhauer, all perception is absurd, irrational.

PS - Alwys enjoy a good belly-laugh.:)
 
sssssssssss said:
do you think knowing 100% truth would be y(t) = 2^n where y(t) = truth t = time and n = the number of thoughts youve had?

because you can have two solutions to every thought.. T or F..
Click to expand...

I dont understand your post but if you want to get close to truth as your brain allows then concentrate on superstrings sub sub atomic level of all energy/matter.Its the holy grail of information about everything from time to god

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
 
Pythagoras said:
Quite, as with Schopenhauer, all perception is absurd, irrational.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's all emotion that's irrational (or non-rational) , as an emotional reaction is not reasoned out, but appears instantly and drives one's thoughts and behavior.

People tend to put a high value on emotion as meaningful, seeing life as empty and boring without them. This is why the "separate self" is so persistent, as most of them are tied in to the sense of self.
 
Last edited:
This wasn't quite what I was getting at when mentioning Shopenhauer, I am sure a brief read on his philosophy would be of interest to you WIKI.

My own views are that our emotions are important to us, a life without emotions might appeal to some (never having to suffer grief, anger, jealously etc), but my own view is that we accept these negative emotions as the price we have to pay to enjoy the positive emotions of joy, ecstasy, surprise, happiness.

I think a life devoid of all emotions would be a life not worth living. I think emotions are a unique human character (and higher mammals) that do, and will continue to differentiate ourselves from AI (something I see as a positive thing).

Since the turn of the Enlightenment we have been promised a mind-panacea, either from psychotherapy, pharmaceuticals, behavioural psychology, neurobiology etc.

I think we are so intimately linked to our emotions that it would be hard to parse them out in any study, an fMRI scans showing bright blobs in the brain of a mouse on opiates seems far from attaining the goal of mapping the mind, if ever a thing could be done given neoroplasticity.
 
Pythagoras said:
My own views are that our emotions are important to us, a life without emotions might appeal to some (never having to suffer grief, anger, jealously etc), but my own view is that we accept these negative emotions as the price we have to pay to enjoy the positive emotions of joy, ecstasy, surprise, happiness.
Click to expand...
The thing is though, it all balances out in the end (positive/negative) -- so I think it would be the difference between a roller coaster ride across the park, or walking across. I don't think a life without emotions would be as worthless as you're imagining, just a lot less 'adventurous'. There are times for everyone when they aren't feeling emotional about something, and it's not like it seems worthless.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top