What is truth?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by creativesoul » Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:24 pm

Not at all. Progress is made by virtue of noting the inherent issues within Kant's framework and keeping it alive in the mind by virtue of keeping it intact. Then, we can determine better ways to talk about things...

raw_thought
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What is truth?

Post by raw_thought » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:22 am

Well, Spheres has gone on one of his childish rants. We give actual arguments and he calls us poopy heads. Um please don't debate this 12 year old. Its a waste of time.

raw_thought
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What is truth?

Post by raw_thought » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:24 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
raw_thought wrote:It is true that the earth revolves around the sun. My pet is a dog. However, that does not mean that " pet" is another word for " dog". I also own a cat. Similarly , "truth" is not another word for " earth revolves around the sun."
You are an idiot!
Umm spheres, you were confusing a statement of truth with the concept truth.
That is what I was trying to explain to you. However, it was obviously way over your head.

raw_thought
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: What is truth?

Post by raw_thought » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:24 am

Spheres is part of the reason I keep taking vacations from this Philosophy Now site. He never offers an actual argument. It all childish nonsense with him. Anyway, maybe he will at least understand this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPuw9wZrl10
I should just accept that there are children here and should not let them prevent me from engaging the educated readers of this site.

osgart
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by osgart » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:09 am

Truth is mercy to those who havent gone too far, benevolent heart to the innocent, compassion for others, care of souls, give to those who deserve, do none murder, honesty, patience, help the helpless, love the innocent above all, defend the faith and virtue of the true whom are the innocent. Truth is loyalty, honor, humility to see yourself as you are. Lift up and encourage others. Teach the willing. Truth is prudence and virtue and every good thing needed. Peace and joy come only to those that live truth from the love of an honest heart. Only way to find it.
Truth is justice and judgment.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by creativesoul » Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:58 am

osgart wrote:Truth is mercy to those who havent gone too far, benevolent heart to the innocent, compassion for others, care of souls, give to those who deserve, do none murder, honesty, patience, help the helpless, love the innocent above all, defend the faith and virtue of the true whom are the innocent. Truth is loyalty, honor, humility to see yourself as you are. Lift up and encourage others. Teach the willing. Truth is prudence and virtue and every good thing needed. Peace and joy come only to those that live truth from the love of an honest heart. Only way to find it.
Truth is justice and judgment.
Looks more like your notion of what counts as being acceptable thought/belief and/or behaviour. In other words, you're conflating your own moral thought/belief with truth.

Not that I disagree with the account, if it meant to talk about good things....

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5028
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: What is truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:38 pm

Truth is all that actually is the case and false is all that actually isn't the case.

Londoner
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by Londoner » Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:43 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Truth is all that actually is the case and false is all that actually isn't the case.
So far, so circular. The problem arises when we try to apply that criteria to anything specific; when we move from 'all that actually is the case' to 'this particular proposition is the case'.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5028
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: What is truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:51 am

Londoner wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Truth is all that actually is the case and false is all that actually isn't the case.
So far, so circular. The problem arises when we try to apply that criteria to anything specific; when we move from 'all that actually is the case' to 'this particular proposition is the case'.
The topic is "What is truth?" So no, you're talking about knowing how to arrive at truth, I'm not! I'm simply defining what truth is, despite either knowing or not knowing any particular truth. Of course, arriving at truth is the problem isn't it. There is one light at the end of the truth tunnel though. Once humanity can no longer find plausible solutions to query as to any particular truth, it's probable that they have finally found it. ;-)

Londoner
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by Londoner » Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:06 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Londoner wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Truth is all that actually is the case and false is all that actually isn't the case.
So far, so circular. The problem arises when we try to apply that criteria to anything specific; when we move from 'all that actually is the case' to 'this particular proposition is the case'.
The topic is "What is truth?" So no, you're talking about knowing how to arrive at truth, I'm not! I'm simply defining what truth is, despite either knowing or not knowing any particular truth. Of course, arriving at truth is the problem isn't it. There is one light at the end of the truth tunnel though. Once humanity can no longer find plausible solutions to query as to any particular truth, it's probable that they have finally found it. ;-)
I think the problem is more that if 'truth is all that actually is the case' any given example would have to be identical with 'what is the case' - it shouldn't include anything more than what is the case.

But I do not think we ever stand in that simple relationship to what is the case. For one thing, any empirical experience of the world must also involve me, so it is a combination of what is the case' and also me, my particular sensory equipment, the way my mind interprets the data and so on.

Similarly I do not see how we could express any particular truth, since the words do not relate directly to what is the case', in the sense of a word being nothing but a simple and transparent sign for an object, or a sensation. Any words with which we frame our truth must also incorporate logical relations, which again come from us and not from what is the case.

(This argument is largely pinched from later Wittgenstein & co.)

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5028
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: What is truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:10 pm

Londoner wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Londoner wrote:
So far, so circular. The problem arises when we try to apply that criteria to anything specific; when we move from 'all that actually is the case' to 'this particular proposition is the case'.
The topic is "What is truth?" So no, you're talking about knowing how to arrive at truth, I'm not! I'm simply defining what truth is, despite either knowing or not knowing any particular truth. Of course, arriving at truth is the problem isn't it. There is one light at the end of the truth tunnel though. Once humanity can no longer find plausible solutions to query as to any particular truth, it's probable that they have finally found it. ;-)
I think the problem is more that if 'truth is all that actually is the case' any given example would have to be identical with 'what is the case' - it shouldn't include anything more than what is the case.

But I do not think we ever stand in that simple relationship to what is the case. For one thing, any empirical experience of the world must also involve me, so it is a combination of what is the case' and also me, my particular sensory equipment, the way my mind interprets the data and so on.

Similarly I do not see how we could express any particular truth, since the words do not relate directly to what is the case', in the sense of a word being nothing but a simple and transparent sign for an object, or a sensation. Any words with which we frame our truth must also incorporate logical relations, which again come from us and not from what is the case.

(This argument is largely pinched from later Wittgenstein & co.)
I understand what you and Wittgenstein & co. are saying. I'm saying that it is a misconception, that you all are wrong, that you all are trying to split hairs where hairs need no splitting.

The facts:

We are of the universe!
We were created by the universe!
Within us is contained the elements of the universe!
We are the same as those things that are the universe!
Our senses were created by the universe so as to sense the universe, so our language!
Nothing within the universe is not of the universe!
If the universe be true, so all it's constituents!
One does not have to know the truth of the entire universe, to know the truth of some of it's constituents!
One of the constituents (us) of the universe cannot not know the truth of the universe, because it is us and we are it!
That knowing the entire truth of the universe, shall take us many many millennia does not mean we cannot know it's truth!
If the complete knowing of the universal truth takes it's animals a googleplex of millennia it doesn't mean the universes animals are incapable of knowing it, it just means that in their relative beginning, it seems to their small minds that they are incapable. If one is as small as a microbe, how can it know the truth of the human host in which it is contained, let alone the universe in which the human is contained. In the beginning it has no concept, and falsely "believes" that it cannot know the "truth" of the universe. Incorrect! Time is the solution, as long as it can sustain itself for that long, it shall in fact know the truth of the universe or rather the universal truth complete!

Humans are simply infants that fail to see, nay, refuse to admit that they might currently be incapable, because of pride, ego, self image, etc! So then the best they can do is to say it's impossible, rather than to admit that in fact they're just still far too small! In time, not only could we be larger than this universe, but we could create one! With enough time!!!!

Now, we haven't even been able to get past our own moon. We, my friend, are currently insignificant despite our puffed up pride thus denial. We can't even balance our own planet! We'll probably never know!

But as Henry Ford said, 'If you say you can or you say you can't, you're right!'

Londoner
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by Londoner » Thu Mar 02, 2017 1:10 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: The facts:

We are of the universe!
We were created by the universe!
Within us is contained the elements of the universe!
We are the same as those things that are the universe!
I would not accept any of those as being facts.

What evidence, what example of 'what is actually the case', would prove those facts false? Because if we are saying that they are true, then they must be based on something outside the meaning of the words used, in other words they must be capable of being falsified by observation. I do not see that they are. I think their truth depends on an assertion of a logical relationship; i.e. that 'the universe', if it means 'everything', must include 'we'. (I do not think that makes sense, but I think that because I think it is self-contradictory, not because I have contrary empirical evidence).
Our senses were created by the universe so as to sense the universe, so our language!
Nothing within the universe is not of the universe!
If the universe be true, so all it's constituents!
One does not have to know the truth of the entire universe, to know the truth of some of it's constituents!
If you do not think you can divide us human observers from the universe as a whole, then that contradicts the last sentence above. If it is wrong to attempt to see humans as separate from the universe, then the same would apply to everything. In which case it would be wrong to have separated the universe into 'some of it's constituents', let alone say that those constituents have a truth distinct from the single universal truth.

But we are not now dealing with facts, this is still a discussion of logical relationships.
If the complete knowing of the universal truth takes it's animals a googleplex of millennia it doesn't mean the universes animals are incapable of knowing it, it just means that in their relative beginning, it seems to their small minds that they are incapable. If one is as small as a microbe, how can it know the truth of the human host in which it is contained, let alone the universe in which the human is contained. In the beginning it has no concept, and falsely "believes" that it cannot know the "truth" of the universe. Incorrect! Time is the solution, as long as it can sustain itself for that long, it shall in fact know the truth of the universe or rather the universal truth complete!
The reason we cannot know 'the universe' in that sense is because we are part of it. You are using 'universe' to mean 'everything'; we cannot 'know everything' unless we were not part of everything. Yet you say our claim to know things is because we are part of everything.

And still we are not discussing facts, what is 'actually the case', rather we are discussing the logical consequences of introducing this very abstract notion of 'everything' into propositions. Consider the paragraph I quote above. Suppose I disagree. What observation of 'what is the case' would show which of us was right?

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5028
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: What is truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:45 am

Londoner wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: The facts:

We are of the universe!
We were created by the universe!
Within us is contained the elements of the universe!
We are the same as those things that are the universe!
I would not accept any of those as being facts.
So I gather that you're a theist?

What evidence, what example of 'what is actually the case', would prove those facts false?
You confuse me here. Don't you mean, "...prove those facts true?"

Because if we are saying that they are true, then they must be based on something outside the meaning of the words used, in other words they must be capable of being falsified by observation.
Again, don't you mean, "...verified by observation."

I do not see that they are. I think their truth depends on an assertion of a logical relationship; i.e. that 'the universe', if it means 'everything', must include 'we'.
Lets face it, if you are a theist, you've just shot your theist argument in the foot. And even if you are a theist, I'm shocked that you don't see that 'everything' that is contained within us, is also contained in the universe outside of us, and that the universe came first. Not only does science say so but the bible also does in Genesis. Sure it's impossible to observe the past, including that which is written in the bible. Seemingly all we have are logical relationships, in either case. But I would say that Science trumps what's written in the bible every time. As it has been proven empirically via chronological dating. So it doesn't matter if our origins are by chance from a primordial pool or a gods hands with the stuff it's already created, in fact we are made of universal elements.

I'm agnostic by the way, believing that neither side of the argument can 'prove' it's case.


(I do not think that makes sense, but I think that because I think it is self-contradictory, not because I have contrary empirical evidence).
I like your honesty here, but I don't see it as self contradictory at all. It may lack observable 'proofs' but in my book when one can put together a plethora of other related facts, in the absence of opposing facts, those that support, gel together to create a complete picture of the supporting facts as one unified fact. Lets face it, to be as strict as you insist, neither of us know for a fact anything that we have not observed for ourselves, still we go to school and read and study from books stating things as if fact, that we take on faith because the web of taught facts seems to fit together logically. Often we then report them as facts, even though we can't know for certain.
Our senses were created by the universe so as to sense the universe, so our language!
Nothing within the universe is not of the universe!
If the universe be true, so all it's constituents!
One does not have to know the truth of the entire universe, to know the truth of some of it's constituents!
If you do not think you can divide us human observers from the universe as a whole, then that contradicts the last sentence above. If it is wrong to attempt to see humans as separate from the universe, then the same would apply to everything. In which case it would be wrong to have separated the universe into 'some of it's constituents', let alone say that those constituents have a truth distinct from the single universal truth.
You misunderstand me. The universe is everything that has/will ever be contained within it, and that is the truth of the universe; it's potential; it's physics. But that has nothing to do with examining all the parts of it. At our current size we can only see small parts of it at a time, not to mention that our brains haven't as yet developed with enough complexity to see it complete, even with our minds eye. Examining a portion of it does not separate it from the whole, it's just all we can currently focus on, and in fact it's the only way we could ever know it as a whole, one piece at a time. Analogy: can you see the entire picture puzzle before scrutinizing each and every piece so as to place it exactly where it belongs? You are not removing the piece from the completed picture, quite the contrary, the only way you can understand the entire picture is by very closely scrutinizing each and every piece, otherwise you'd never be capable of placing them in their correct place, so you'd never, 'eventually,' understand it complete. We, like all other 'things' in the universe are just pieces of the universal puzzle. To observe them individually does not preclude our vision of it complete, quite the contrary. It's the only way we shall one day see the complete picture. I think you are having trouble with time. A 2000 piece puzzle will usually take one person several days to complete, possible a week. Each piece is a part of the truth, none of them are a falsehood unless they are forced into the wrong place. No imagine how many pieces it takes to complete a puzzle the size of the universe, where the individual pieces are the size of subatomic particles, obviously it shall take mankind as a whole, quite possibly, a googolplex of eons, probably more, before we can see the absolute truth of the universe. Crap we're still practically prehistoric relative to the quest, we keep killing one another over resources and can't properly manage our symbiotic biosphere. Look at our ever uncontrolled increasing numbers, when shall the cup runneth over? And what shall the mess look like. I don't want to see it!

But we are not now dealing with facts, this is still a discussion of logical relationships.
Not the way I see it, some are just stiff as a board. To me a bunch of small related facts yields one unified fact. Especially when contrary facts are not to be found. You can call them soft facts instead of hard facts. ;-)
If the complete knowing of the universal truth takes it's animals a googleplex of millennia it doesn't mean the universes animals are incapable of knowing it, it just means that in their relative beginning, it seems to their small minds that they are incapable. If one is as small as a microbe, how can it know the truth of the human host in which it is contained, let alone the universe in which the human is contained. In the beginning it has no concept, and falsely "believes" that it cannot know the "truth" of the universe. Incorrect! Time is the solution, as long as it can sustain itself for that long, it shall in fact know the truth of the universe or rather the universal truth complete!
The reason we cannot know 'the universe' in that sense is because we are part of it. You are using 'universe' to mean 'everything'; we cannot 'know everything' unless we were not part of everything. Yet you say our claim to know things is because we are part of everything.
Nope, I'm saying that we are still far too young to know everything, sorry if my verbiage has misled you, as it makes perfect sense to me. I'm saying that it's impossible for something such as we are, that is a "part" of "everything," to not "eventually" know the truth of everything. Keep in mind that "eventually," in this particular case, is an "extremely" long time. Keep in mind that "extremely," in this particular case,... you get my meaning, right? Googolplex x Googolplex!


And still we are not discussing facts, what is 'actually the case', rather we are discussing the logical consequences of introducing this very abstract notion of 'everything' into propositions. Consider the paragraph I quote above. Suppose I disagree. What observation of 'what is the case' would show which of us was right?
OK, good question. Those things that "together" support one argument over another. I'm assuming you don't live in a cave and wipe with leaves right? ;-) The science's/studies that you and I rely on every day: Chronological dating, archeology, anthropology, history, automobiles, bridges, computers, tongs, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, ice cream, metallurgy, open heart surgery, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc, etc, etc, etc... The more pieces of the puzzle one puts in their proper place, the more they can start to glimpse a portion of the total picture. Oh sorry, I forgot to mention theology, sure it has it's place too! ;-) All these things are just as important if one wants to get a glimpse of the universal truth. All that exists is the truth, we just have to place them where they belong. So each of our positions have places where they fit in the truth of the universal puzzle.
P.S. I'm sure that your next question, in order to test what I might say, might be: Well how do we know where the pieces fit, whom is to place them? To which I would reply: Only time shall tell, assuming we do everything we can, to ensure our future generations shall have some. But then some people aren't content accepting that their knowing might never be the case. ;-) So to them I'd say, keep doing what it is you need to do, to satisfy your need. Just make sure you fight the good fight! Where the good fight is all, all inclusively! ;-)

Later, Londoner!

Thanks for your time, my friend :!:

Londoner
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: What is truth?

Post by Londoner » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:31 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
What evidence, what example of 'what is actually the case', would prove those facts false?
You confuse me here. Don't you mean, "...prove those facts true?"

Because if we are saying that they are true, then they must be based on something outside the meaning of the words used, in other words they must be capable of being falsified by observation.
Again, don't you mean, "...verified by observation."
It is better to say 'falsified' because strictly speaking no individual observation can verify things, since the next observation might be different. I am asserting that 'X is the rule'. I can say that it has always been X so far, but I cannot know that it will be X next time, or the time after. On the other hand, a single example of 'not X' is enough to show that my assertion was wrong.

This came up with 'logical positivism'; the idea that statements are only meaningful if there was some observation (perhaps only theoretical) that could show them to be true or false (so that statements about God, or morality, or the universe as a whole were neither true or false, but meaningless). When this idea was around it was pointed out that strictly we could never show anything to be true in that sense, only false.
Lets face it, if you are a theist, you've just shot your theist argument in the foot. And even if you are a theist, I'm shocked that you don't see that 'everything' that is contained within us, is also contained in the universe outside of us, and that the universe came first. Not only does science say so but the bible also does in Genesis. Sure it's impossible to observe the past, including that which is written in the bible. Seemingly all we have are logical relationships, in either case. But I would say that Science trumps what's written in the bible every time. As it has been proven empirically via chronological dating. So it doesn't matter if our origins are by chance from a primordial pool or a gods hands with the stuff it's already created, in fact we are made of universal elements.

I'm agnostic by the way, believing that neither side of the argument can 'prove' it's case.


I'm not presenting a case for or against theism; I'm only addressing the subject of this thread as it stands i.e. 'what is truth?' My own position is that it does not have any single meaning, rather that our idea of truth changes depending on the sort of thing we are discussing. So, when I dispute the way you describe it, it isn't that I am putting forward an alternative theory of my own that I think is the correct one, it is rather to point out that other approaches are possible.

I do not think any approach is the correct one; that would be like insisting there is a 'true direction' irrespective of where we are trying to go from and to.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5028
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: What is truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:45 pm

Londoner wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
What evidence, what example of 'what is actually the case', would prove those facts false?
You confuse me here. Don't you mean, "...prove those facts true?"

Because if we are saying that they are true, then they must be based on something outside the meaning of the words used, in other words they must be capable of being falsified by observation.

Again, don't you mean, "...verified by observation."
It is better to say 'falsified' because strictly speaking no individual observation can verify things, since the next observation might be different. I am asserting that 'X is the rule'. I can say that it has always been X so far, but I cannot know that it will be X next time, or the time after. On the other hand, a single example of 'not X' is enough to show that my assertion was wrong.
Exactly! Now you got my meaning, "It shall take much observation, eons x eons, maybe even x several googolplexs ! It can't be seen in a single observation. YES, we're too young (small)! ;-)

This came up with 'logical positivism'; the idea that statements are only meaningful if there was some observation (perhaps only theoretical) that could show them to be true or false (so that statements about God, or morality, or the universe as a whole were neither true or false, but meaningless). When this idea was around it was pointed out that strictly we could never show anything to be true in that sense, only false.
I would disagree, in that case, to say, "only false" is biased towards the false, and to say, "meaningless" can really only be said to be meaningless at that time. It's more correct to say neither true nor false, that we are incapable of determining at this time. Why? Because it's impossible for anyone to know that which they don't know, or they'd know, right. ;-) Just because the solution is currently invisible, doesn't mean the proposed solution is necessarily false, true or meaningless. It just means that the query is not yet capable of being answered by mankind. Now I know this is hard for some to take, as most humans are, "I want it NOW!" And seem to not be capable of understanding that they can't necessarily have it now, which is why so many damned conflicting ideas are out there among men. Oh they have a place alright, and only time can determine that place.

And yes, I have had some logic at university.


Lets face it, if you are a theist, you've just shot your theist argument in the foot. And even if you are a theist, I'm shocked that you don't see that 'everything' that is contained within us, is also contained in the universe outside of us, and that the universe came first. Not only does science say so but the bible also does in Genesis. Sure it's impossible to observe the past, including that which is written in the bible. Seemingly all we have are logical relationships, in either case. But I would say that Science trumps what's written in the bible every time. As it has been proven empirically via chronological dating. So it doesn't matter if our origins are by chance from a primordial pool or a gods hands with the stuff it's already created, in fact we are made of universal elements.

I'm agnostic by the way, believing that neither side of the argument can 'prove' it's case.


I'm not presenting a case for or against theism;
I'm not saying you are, I'm saying that if you are a theist then you'll have bias against some of those things that I accept as true and vise versa. For instance, Orthodox theists say they believe that Adam and Eve were created about 6,000 years ago. So if you believe that, then me talking about anything pertaining to evolution beyond 6,000 years will bounce right off your brain, like a steel trap. Then they usually say that scientists have fabricated all the archeological evidence to the contrary. Then how can you and I come together and talk? We can't under those circumstances, it's futile and goes nowhere. We'll both resist one anothers discourse, whether we realize it or not, because of bias. And that bias, itself, can't be 'proven.' You see at least I understand that for differing people to come together and communicate effectively, 'much' background info about each must be understood by the other. So as to know how to negotiate.

I'm only addressing the subject of this thread as it stands i.e. 'what is truth?' My own position is that it does not have any single meaning,
I disagree "Truth" has one single meaning; it is that which cannot be disputed because, it is the actual; that which really is the case; that which has no other explanations; it is the pinnacle of knowledge; it is that which contains us all; it is that which all thinking educated humans shall come to agree upon, because all other options have been addressed and dismissed (all other possibilities have been completely exhausted, ad infinitum). And that takes a shit load of time my friend! We are currently too young (small)! Sure, we have bits and pieces of it! We're on our way! But nowhere near completion.

rather that our idea of truth changes depending on the sort of thing we are discussing. So, when I dispute the way you describe it, it isn't that I am putting forward an alternative theory of my own that I think is the correct one, it is rather to point out that other approaches are possible.
I disagree, there is only one way to find truth, and that's through trial and error over much time. That might include several methods of trial and error, but until it's resolved, that's all it is. Which is not to say that some might only feel comfortable believing in one particular thing along that path, because to not know truth for certain scares some.

I do not think any approach is the correct one; that would be like insisting there is a 'true direction' irrespective of where we are trying to go from and to.
Seemingly, contained within this reasoning is the road to nowhere, unless of course, with the usage of "from" you mean "ignorance" and with "to" you mean "knowledge". And to say that you don't believe any road is the correct one means truth can never be understood, unless you're just splitting hairs, ("the road" into smaller roads), as I see every attempt to know the truth combined is, "the road." Look at all those truths you know, obviously the truth is obtainable!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests