What is truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

To me this place is both a learning and teaching experience.

What I'm ultimately looking for is neither. I'm ultimately looking for a "friendly conversation experience" with people who are fond of academic philosophy. And I'm only looking for that because of my background in academic philosophy combined with the fact that I'm no longer involved in that social milieu, and I don't otherwise interact with many people with much knowledge of academic philosophy.

Well unfortunately you won't find that in me because I'm socially inept! I'm more of a hermit than anything else. I'm extremely jaded, as the older I've gotten, thus the more I've understood, the more I'm unhappy with the level us humans have achieved as a whole. I really do consider us dumb animals. As to me the path seems so clear, what's actually best for us, as a whole, we should only ever do. I'm sick and tired of money being the only consideration when it comes to the course of human endeavor. Sure everyone fears death, but enough is enough, get over it already, and lets start doing what we 'should' do instead of simply doing what we 'can' do, just because we 'can'.

I'll tell you this which is absolutely true. I always treat people in kind. Don't judge me for nasty things I say to others, as it's that way because they were nasty with me first. I've had many a civil exchanges with those that also see the importance of civility. But I can get damn nasty with those that have either been nasty with me or others when it isn't called for. I really prefer civil exchanges, as the Beatles said, "Life is very short and there's no time, for fussing and fighting my friend." So I can get very tired of fighting the fighters. But I see that they need to take a sip of their own medicine for them to learn it tastes bad!

Maybe you see it as a rant, but I'm just letting you know where I stand, unfortunately I've forgotten what a friend is or rather how to negotiate a friendship. The last so called friend I had stopped calling me, even going so far as to avoid me, after he called once and asked me what I'd been doing, to which I automatically replied, "just waiting to die it would seem." In hindsight I found it extremely curious that I responded in that way, because I really don't want to die anytime soon. But me saying that sure cleared the room, I then knew that I could never really depend on, such type people, known as friends.

So as a wrap up,
as long as you're a good one, and you seem to be, you can expect the same thing from me.
So please apprise me of anything crass aimed your way, or not depending upon your interest that day.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Actually I see that a description 'can' be the truth if it agrees with the object, that indeed the truth of the object is contained within itself. All things in the universe are real, factual, the actuality, the truth of the matter. Mans descriptions of things in the universe can be just as truthful, factual, real and actual, if they agree with the universe.

Isn't just to describe a 'thing in the universe' already to not agree with the universe?
Not necessarily, unless of course you have the only edition of the universe's user manual.

The universe is a whole; once we divide it up in a particular way we are already imposing something in our own minds on the universe and thus misrepresenting it.
Not at all, you're just presuming that the universe cares how we view it. Show me where it says that in the user manual, and I might agree with you.

That we endeavor to see all it's perspectives, ensures we can see it as completely as possible, no? That way we can be sure at least one of them can be found in the user guide.

There's no necessary rule for how the universe should be viewed!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Actually I see that a description 'can' be the truth if it agrees with the object, that indeed the truth of the object is contained within itself. All things in the universe are real, factual, the actuality, the truth of the matter. Mans descriptions of things in the universe can be just as truthful, factual, real and actual, if they agree with the universe

But the only way to make any sense out of descriptions "agreeing with" what they describe is to consider a person thinking about the description, about the meanings they assign to the terms and so on,
Personally I just consider the dictionary! And I really don't want to hear about Zeitgeist as the Germans, back then, were all about world domination, believing themselves superior, so then they say that it can't be translated, then I say, "it figures!"

and then deciding that the description, from that subjective perspective, matches something about the world.
I see you looking at it all backwards. I say that first the human sees an object in the world, then they create terms to exemplify particulars about the object, once everyone is taught such and agrees, it's set in stone. That is until just cause for further refinement is due, at which time those terms that exemplify such are either refined or added to for further clarification, that these revisionist terms are directly proportional to the human species learning curve. Hence there is no need to look at a tree through a microscope unless you simply want to add additional truth to that which is already true. For instance that nothing of a tree is actually of the color we see, instead simply a reflection of that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that it's surface more aptly reflects, doesn't detract much from what was already known as truth of a tree, yet just further refines the truth of a tree, and everything else in this particular case.

The OP created the topic, "What is truth." Regardless of his continued discourse, I answered that question as best I could. What you are now concerned with, is how one knows what is and is not truth/fact/reality/actuality, and my answer would be to consider the correspondence theory, as it is indeed the most agreed upon by philosophers. Which in fact considers the sensing of objects more than any other theory. There must be something to it as it's the oldest theory and still holds the attention of the majority. It always seemed the most logical to me.

[Terrapin Station]

The OP created the topic, "What is truth." Regardless of his continued discourse, I answered that question as best I could. What you are now concerned with, is how one knows what is and is not truth/fact/reality/actuality,

Actually my concern there was that at different times you said both "truth is reality" and "truth is descriptions of reality."

[SpheresOfBalance]

The OP created the topic, "What is truth." Regardless of his continued discourse, I answered that question as best I could. What you are now concerned with, is how one knows what is and is not truth/fact/reality/actuality,

Actually my concern there was that at different times you said both "truth is reality" and "truth is descriptions of reality."

And I explained what I actually meant, regardless of who dropped the ball of understanding, "Truth is reality, is fact is actuality. Human descriptions can contain reality/truth/facts/actuality, as long as the descriptions accurately agree with them, thus they then become just as real/true/factual/actual as the things themselves. The more accurate and all inclusive of the totality of the object they become, the more true/factual/real/actual they become.

[henry quirk]

"New Shimmer is both a floor wax and a dessert topping!"

[Hobbes' Choice]

Your position means you cannot understand anyone's conception of these words.

LOL (literally). So I can't even understand my own conception?

If you want to educate yourself, first consult Plato then Kant.

Patronization is a good look on you.

There is really no one elses', that does not stem from either of these two.

Again literaly LOL. So in your view, is it just not possible to use the concepts in a way doesn't agree with either Plato or Kant? (And where we pretend that Kant wasn't often contradictory with respect to himself--I'm no Kant fan.)

Okay.
Please let us have YOUR personal definitions of noumena, and Phenomena.

[Londoner]

Isn't just to describe a 'thing in the universe' already to not agree with the universe?
Not necessarily, unless of course you have the only edition of the universe's user manual.

The universe is a whole; once we divide it up in a particular way we are already imposing something in our own minds on the universe and thus misrepresenting it.
Not at all, you're just presuming that the universe cares how we view it. Show me where it says that in the user manual, and I might agree with you.

Where did you get the notion I think the universe 'cares'?

I absolutely agree that there is no set way of viewing the universe, but you say: Mans descriptions of things in the universe can be just as truthful, factual, real and actual, if they agree with the universe. If you say the descriptions can be true, then you are saying they can also be false. If you say that, then you are the one who claims to be in possession of the user manual, or at least that the manual exists!

That we endeavor to see all it's perspectives, ensures we can see it as completely as possible, no? That way we can be sure at least one of them can be found in the user guide.

There's no necessary rule for how the universe should be viewed!

Yes, I would agree. It was a question of how we can reconcile that view with your remark that 'All things in the universe are real, factual, the actuality, the truth of the matter', I think that to say something is a 'fact' etc. is to imply we do have a rule for how things should be viewed. But if that isn't what you intended, I accept that.

[Terrapin Station]

Please let us have YOUR personal definitions of noumena, and Phenomena.

The way I'm using the terms, and I couldn't care less if this coheres or doesn't cohere with how anyone else is using the terms, is simply that phenomena refers to how things appear to be, especially to consciousness, and noumena refers to how things really are, especially objectively. (With "objectivity" being defined as I defined it earlier.)

[Hobbes' Choice]

Please let us have YOUR personal definitions of noumena, and Phenomena.

The way I'm using the terms, and I couldn't care less if this coheres or doesn't cohere with how anyone else is using the terms, is simply that phenomena refers to how things appear to be, especially to consciousness, and noumena refers to how things really are, especially objectively. (With "objectivity" being defined as I defined it earlier.)

Cop out.
You are using the terms in meaningless ways, You might as well use the terms banana, and arse bandit.
IF we need to talk about subjectivity and objectivity then we have two perfectly good words for that.

[Harbal]

You might as well use the terms banana, and arse bandit.

I know anything Freudian is discredited these days but, all the same, I think you may be revealing a little more about yourself than you probably intend.

[Terrapin Station]

Please let us have YOUR personal definitions of noumena, and Phenomena.

The way I'm using the terms, and I couldn't care less if this coheres or doesn't cohere with how anyone else is using the terms, is simply that phenomena refers to how things appear to be, especially to consciousness, and noumena refers to how things really are, especially objectively. (With "objectivity" being defined as I defined it earlier.)

Cop out.
You are using the terms in meaningless ways, You might as well use the terms banana, and arse bandit.
IF we need to talk about subjectivity and objectivity then we have two perfectly good words for that.

I didn't define them so that they're coextensive with (how I define) subjectivity/objectivity.

Why any particular definition is a "cop out" in your view, though, <shrugs>

[A_Seagull]

Yes a very good question! And the simple answer is that the relationship is one of pattern identification.

So is what we're perceiving (not the perception itself) patterns on your view? Or are you just saying something about patterns of sense data, and you think that what we're perceiving is sense data on the traditional view of that? (Unsurprisingly, I don't at all agree with (the) sense data theory).

What I am saying is that the data from the senses is processed using pattern identification methods to create 'objects', which may subsequently be labelled as a 'tree'.

[A_Seagull]

I have no problem with the "sense-data bit".

What is your problem with it?

As one example; where do they originate?

Suppose you 'see' your tree, however actually this is an illusion. Is your sense of the tree still an example of sense data' or not? Some would say yes, others no. The ones who say 'no' say that sense data are an awareness of physical phenomena. But then, if we only have the sense data, how could we ever know that what we are aware of is a physical phenomenon?

Another problem arises from how we interpret sense data. To describe it as 'a tree' (or anything else) is to move away from that sense data and bring in other ideas. So, if we cannot differentiate the sense data from the rest, what does 'sense data' describe? It turns it into a word like 'noumena', that attaches a name to a something, but a something that we can never encounter.

Lots more if you Google 'sense data'.

I think there may be a difference in the meaning of the ways we are using the word 'sense-data', I am not using it as an object of any form. I am simply using the word to mean the data that is incident on the senses.

And regarding your question about physical phenomena: we 'know' that what we are aware of is a 'physical phenomenon' because that constitutes the 'best pattern' that fits the data.

I dare say that some of the concepts of 'the pattern paradigm' do not fit in comfortably with some of the concepts of traditional philosophy which is why I have termed it a 'paradigm' - a collection of ideas and concepts that are self-consistent and fit the facts. Traditional philosophy itself constitutes a paradigm.

And as for your question of :Where do sense data originate? Well I put that one right alongside the question: Why does something exist instead of nothing? Both interesting questions, but neither relate particularly to epistemology.

[creativesoul]

Please let us have YOUR personal definitions of noumena, and Phenomena.

The way I'm using the terms, and I couldn't care less if this coheres or doesn't cohere with how anyone else is using the terms, is simply that phenomena refers to how things appear to be, especially to consciousness, and noumena refers to how things really are, especially objectively. (With "objectivity" being defined as I defined it earlier.)

So...

Things never appear how they are?