personal truth

[Sculptor]

* On my view, the property of propositions in question, truth(/falsehood), obtains via an individual making an judgment about the relation between a proposition (the meaning of a declarative sentence) and something else--the something else being a matter of which truth theory someone uses. So a judgment about the relation between a proposition and empirical observations if correspondence, or a judgment about the relation between a proposition and usefulness if pragmatism, and so on.

* It's worth noting that truth is different from facts here.

Potato potatoh. Your position is tantamount to truth being semantic and facts being.... You forgot to tell us what.

Is it true that the color of this square is purple?
Is it a fact that the color of this square is purple?
Is is true that the color of this square is red?
Is it a fact that the color of this square is red?

You are tripping up over the symbol-grounding problem.


purple.png

It is true that the image is called purple.
Are you trying to make a point?
Or is it yet another desperate appeal by a lonely person to get himself noticed?

[Skepdick]

It is true that the image is called purple.

I am not talking about the name of the image. I am talking about the color you are experiencing.

This color is red.
This color is red.
This color is red.

If all of the above are personal truths, which one is a fact and why?

But, of course I fully expect you to derail us from the point. Because it's inconvenient.

Are you trying to make a point?
Or is it yet another desperate appeal by a lonely person to get himself noticed?

Did the point go over your head? It must have. Since you've gone straight for the ad hominem.

[Sculptor]

It is true that the image is called purple.

I am not talking about the name of the image. I am talking about the color you are experiencing.

This color is red.
This color is red.
This color is red.

If all of the above are personal truths, which one is a fact and why?

But, of course I fully expect you to derail us from the point. Because it's inconvenient.

Are you trying to make a point?
Or is it yet another desperate appeal by a lonely person to get himself noticed?

Did the point go over your head? It must have. Since you've gone straight for the ad hominem.

Make your point or feck off.

[Skepdick]

Make your point or feck off.

The point is still going over your head, eh?

I don't know how to dumb it down further. Try understanding better.

[Sculptor]

Make your point or feck off.

The point is still going over your head, eh?

I don't know how to dumb it down further. Try understanding better.

You have yet to make a point.

[Skepdick]

You have yet to make a point.

It has been made.

I am sorry if it's beyond your level of comprehension.

[Sculptor]

You have yet to make a point.

It has been made.

I am sorry if it's beyond your level of comprehension.

What red is red?

[Skepdick]

What red is red?

No, but given your cognitive limitations, you've actually outdone yourself.

Good on you for at least trying!

[DPMartin]

its seems to be fashionable now to redefine personal knowledge as personal truth. turning what i know or have experienced isn't what you know or have experience in to "truth is relative". and converting that into if it isn't known, then its not true.

I never understand what purpose the use of the word "truth" is supposed to serve in the phrase "personal truth." If something is "only true for me," then isn't it, by definition, a matter of utter indifference or plausibly of outright falsehood for everybody else?

Why even use the word "truth" if one is not also trying to imply, "and you owe it to me to believe it, too"? But why should anybody else be obligated to believe something that is, by its own definition, only one's "personal" view?

It seems to me that the proponents of "personal truth" are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to say, "X is personal, so you have no right to doubt me or question me on it," but at the same time, to say, "X is a real truth, so you owe me to respect me on it." That's a fraud.

Both cannot be true: if X is merely "personal," then it's not obligatory at all that anybody else must respect it, and it's not "truth." But if X is "truth," then it is by definition not "personal," and everybody ought to believe it.

Which way is "personal truth" meant?

nicely put, agreed, it hocus pocus. the way you put it it seems that personal opinion which means nothing, and they know it, is being put under a cloak of what they want to redefine as truth.

[Sculptor]

What red is red?

No, but given your cognitive limitations, you've actually outdone yourself.

Good on you for at least trying!

You are pointless.
I've given you your daily quota of attention. Now run along and find some more from someone else you sad lonely fuck.

[Sculptor]

its seems to be fashionable now to redefine personal knowledge as personal truth. turning what i know or have experienced isn't what you know or have experience in to "truth is relative". and converting that into if it isn't known, then its not true.

I never understand what purpose the use of the word "truth" is supposed to serve in the phrase "personal truth." If something is "only true for me," then isn't it, by definition, a matter of utter indifference or plausibly of outright falsehood for everybody else?

This is due to two basic flaws in your personality.
The first, which is self evident is that you think that your personal views are objective and the every one else is wrong to believe something that you do not.
The second flaw is that you lack imagination.
Most people have personal truths. If you were to be honest with yourself so do you.
Here's an example or three
"Dog's are worthy of love"
"Vincent Van Gogh's art is wonderful"
"country and western is fucking awful".
These are how we carry our opinions, as truths. Most people realise that these truths are personal and that although they may meet others that share those ideas, they know and accept others do not.

[DPMartin]

its seems to be fashionable now to redefine personal knowledge as personal truth. turning what i know or have experienced isn't what you know or have experience in to "truth is relative". and converting that into if it isn't known, then its not true.

The language is just another way of trying to describe reality. Just because a person believes they have experienced a god (in one form or another)... or that they know ultimate truth (in one form or another)... doesn't mean that their "knowledge" or "truth" is any broader than personal.

I never understand what purpose the use of the word "truth" is supposed to serve in the phrase "personal truth." If something is "only true for me," then isn't it, by definition, a matter of utter indifference or plausibly of outright falsehood for everybody else?

People share belief in all kinds of "truths", which may or may not be true at all. What shall we call those kinds of truths? Shared-but-unproven truths? If it's true to an individual, it's personal for them. Why make a big deal out of the words that are used? Oh, wait, I know! So that you can play games with words and act shocked.

Why even use the word "truth" if one is not also trying to imply, "and you owe it to me to believe it, too"?

Is that how you use the word "truth"?

no you are trying to say its not truth unless you know it, and that is a lie and you know it. if you believe a lie then its not truth because you want to use the word for your own purpose. its still a lie or false and is not the truth, no matter how you slice it.

i say it will rain today, it rains today therefore it was the truth what i said and it is the truth that it rained today and it will always be the truth it rained today. that is the essence of what the word truth represents or means. not one's perception of themselves or environment. a lake is a lake whether you perceive it correctly or not.

[DPMartin]

On my view, truth is personal/relative. Here's why in a nutshell:

* A standard view in analytic philosophy is that truth is a property of propositions. I agree with this view/I think it's useful for a number of reasons (including Russell's comments that truth and falsehood make more sense if they're modal properties of the same sort of thing).

* A standard view in analytic philosophy is that propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences. I agree with this view, too/I think it's also useful for a number of reasons (including the simple fact that it makes sense to be able to say that "Snow is white" and "Schnee ist weiss" are the same proposition; they're not, however, the same sentence).

* On my view, which isn't standard, meaning is subjective. Meaning is something that individuals "do in their heads." It's an associative way of thinking.

* On my view, the property of propositions in question, truth(/falsehood), obtains via an individual making an judgment about the relation between a proposition (the meaning of a declarative sentence) and something else--the something else being a matter of which truth theory someone uses. So a judgment about the relation between a proposition and empirical observations if correspondence, or a judgment about the relation between a proposition and usefulness if pragmatism, and so on.

* It's worth noting that truth is different from facts here.

i guess i get what you're saying here, but judgment or opinion for philosophical reasons still isn't truth. it maybe the truth that one can say yea or na to a statement but other than that, it has to be a fact to be the truth. it doesn't have to be fulfilled or manifest, it just has to be so.


it seems many maybe correct about what they think declaring what they say about what they think to be the truth or true, because it is the truth about what they think, but yet what they think isn't the truth at all.

[Lacewing]

no you are trying to say its not truth unless you know it

No, I'm not saying that at all.

I don't know how you came up with that.

[Immanuel Can]

People think things that may or may not be true, so what they think they KNOW as "truth" may be false.

We agree on that. But so what?

You seem to think that truth is somehow independent from human perspective and thought?

Yes, I do. But I don't merely "think" it, it's manifestly true. As I say, if somebody jumps off a cliff, it's of no value whatsoever that she does not believe in gravity. She will die, all the same. That's truth. That's reality. What somebody "knows" or "thinks she knows" about it will not change one thing about reality.

Some (rightly) acknowledge that their beliefs might only be true to/for them.

A belief that only one person believes may turn out to be true, or may turn out to be false. But it is reality that will make the difference. Her opinion will make nothing true that is not already objectively true.

You're mistaking my belief in truth for some sort of assertion that I have the absolute truth about everything. I am not making that latter claim, nor have I ever. The same as I have said above is true for me: my beliefs will only be true if reality conforms to what those beliefs are. If reality does not, then my beliefs will be false...just as anyone's will be.