lancek4 wrote:The Voice of Time wrote:Throughout history there have been countless many ways to define truth. The latest and likely most extensively agreed upon is that truth is a correlation between the objective world (also called "reality") and our own. I want to slap this definition.
First of all, the definition overlaps with the word "correct", which means correlation between an ideal of an object and the experience of the same object. What many people forget is that "reality" is also an ideal, because how else could we conceive of it? How can we conceive of reality as independent of the mind if we could not first make it an idea of the mind? So reality is an idea, practically speaking and my objection is to say that "truth" is reflected in correctness when this is only a recent development historically speaking. Instead, correctness should be correctness, and truth should be truth.
Truth has to do with the object. I think you have said as much. And, you have asked "What I mean by object"
You've still not answered, is it a physical object? Logical object? Other object? I said other people believe truth is about the "objective world" (which is sometimes a synonym for reality depending on how you use it), my objection was that this is not so (only at least, this is where it gets complicated because my definition recognizes this definition but puts itself as a dominant definition in the top of a two-staged hierarchy where it resides alone looking down on all other definitions, you could say).
lancek4 wrote:The Voice of Time wrote:So I came up with an idea myself about what truth is, one that tries to encompass all possible meanings of it, and that is that truth is a product of management of the mind.
Here it appears that you are making mind foundational
I'm only saying truth in whatever form it arrives from is a product of the management of the mind, I'm not saying the mind precedes the outer world or the outer world precedes the mind. I'm saying that the "practical idea" of truth, which we create by being alive each and every one of us for ourselves, in our biological brains (and whatever else science will come up with), which we might say is separate from the ideal "THE TRUTH" (which in my world doesn't exist because it's a meaningless concept, unless it would become a description for any practical truth that they are improvable), in the same way that a code of honour is different from the ideal concept "HONOUR". You understand?
lancek4 wrote:The Voice of Time wrote:That is, any process of managing of our ideas leading up to a specific state of the mind with specific ideas and those beliefs that accompany those ideas. I also believe that's what it really, at the very abstract level, always has meant, and that every single definition has always been an instantiation of this abstract concept, an instance, so to speak, of a general concept. I'll also explain, that the reason why we find the current circulating definition so attractive (that truth = correlation between reality and contents of mind), is because of the battle we've had to make people seek answers in the sensuous world instead of ideology and religion, a battle which is still fought and finding recurrence every now and then.
I would say that any position of truth that correlates with an object (out there, physical) is both ideological and religious.
"Position of truth"? That's not a real term, truth does not have a position (humans do though), but I'll go along with it. How exactly is it ideological to say that an apple carrying the colour red is red when you see it as such? How exactly is it religious? No matter how much you stretch those terms, ideology and religion as well are disciplines that in themselves deal with quite different kinds of thought. From Wikipedia:
Wikipedia wrote:An ideology is a set of conscious and unconscious ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions...
That is perhaps the end of your reading? Because it goes on rather importantly...
Wikipedia wrote:...Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics...
Ideology is not interchangeable with ideas. They are strictly separate. Like I described for
SoB that Kant's phenomena-ontology is not phenomenology, but are strictly separate ways of thinking.
lancek4 wrote:The Voice of Time wrote:This however, is only an instance, and to understand how it is only an instance, can also help us understand when truth isn't true, that is, when we think perhaps that we are quite correct, but when our interpretations are hopelessly worthless (like when you interpret an illusion as literal and real, or if you focus wrongly so you don't get the really interesting about any situation), by allowing for multiple instances, we can compare them and figure out which one excels the best at its task, which in my world would be need satisfaction, but for other people might vary between other similar parameters.
i see this as a very narrow version of what truth may be. It 'behaves' as if in a container of 'true/untrue', as if such contingencies are not based in a medium of truth. Example: { True is not false; false is not true} is True. That set is not false. What is true is never false, but what is false is always true in its being false. Thus the solution to what is true cannot solve itself through parameters of contradiction, such as the {} set: your situating of truth falls in the set that is " suspended " in contradiction; it does not include contradiction within its set, such truth is defined by contradiction as 'end'. Where there is 'end', there an object is defined 'in-itself'. This type of truth is de facto ideological, and religious by the nature of it being ideological.
Aaah, you mean my definition is not "transcendent"? It doesn't go beyond itself? Well that's where you are mistaking, practically speaking, because anyone can produce a new set of thoughts to redefine truth, because anyone can manage their minds in a different manner than any other person. However, when we use truth at any point of time as a practical fundamental tool for getting something done, we must select among many choices, and then we select the one which we find most likely to excel the most at the task it has at hand. For instance, most people would likely agree that a 40 year old sailor is a better man for advice on sailing than a four-year-old who just learned how to speak, this is not always the case, so some of us would still listen to what the four-year-old has to say about the matter, because maybe the kid has a fundamentally different point of view than the sailor which becomes of its fundamental character can also be fundamentally better. It's well known how kids tend to ask questions about the world that other of us just take for granted for instance. But again, the sailor is the man whose truth we would value most likely the most because the evidence of his experiences and the like which would likely give him a more robust way of thinking about his job.
lancek4 wrote:What then 'manages'? The mind?
The mind manages itself yes, in the way that a person might manage their own business.
lancek4 wrote:So again I return your question to me: what is the object?
What the heck why can't you just tell me instead of prolonging this to eternity! I mean, what the fuck how am I supposed to know the answer? I don't even know what an object is yet!
lancek4 wrote:If it is of mind then the possibility of management has also been determined as a necessary 'thought' of the objects under consideration.
What? You lost me there completely.
lancek4 wrote:When 'mind' becomes such object, then your idea fails.
Such what object?
lancek4 wrote:The solution to this paradox cannot be situated within the set that is established by the same paradox. Thus what is true must be found in the situation that encompasses and includes paradox.
You're faintly getting me back I think. I think I can say, yes, my definition does allow paradox solving, in fact, its whole practical existence is a process of solving paradoxes! Contradictions, remember, the simplest paradox. You and I have two different products of management of the mind, so we have two different truths, and what we are doing now, argumenting, is a solving of that paradox.
lancek4 wrote:Such a situation thus necessarily must see that 'management' does not occur of 'mind' but something that determines the relation by which 'mind' and 'management' find themselves as 'objects' of consideration.
You lost me again.