personal truth

[Lacewing]

How would a human decision matter in regard to that?

"No decision" IS a decision, in that case. It's a decision to do nothing in view of death, and "let the chips fall where they may."

How does it matter?

And your answer to that is going to make a huge difference.

How? When?

At death, obviously. Now, if there's nothing after death, neither you nor I will know it. And what we do right now makes no difference at all.

Right.

But what if there is...?

What if... what? There could be countless "what ifs". How would our decisions matter in regard to what-ifs about after we die?

There's no avoiding that decision, since you and I are inevitably going there.

Is this some more absolute truth that you claim you don't claim?

It's a truth you know.

Dying, or something after death? What is it that you think you know?

Well, if this life is just an accident in the middle of an indifferent cosmos, then nothing. But if this world is what I think it is, the stage upon which human free will is demonstrated and validated by God, then what you do here and now makes all the difference...not just now, but forever.

Are there only two potentials? It's an accident of indifference or there's a god like you imagine?

Do you believe there's anything more than "the body"?

Seems like it. But I don't have a big scenario worked out as to what that is or means. And the god story does not ring true, despite growing up in a Christian environment.

What absolute truth do you think you know that exists beyond death?

I have no special access...but if God desires to tell us what's coming, why couldn't He?

So, one absolute truth you believe is that there is a god?

[Skepdick]

Reality decided, and humans interpret. But their interpretations are only any good if they conform to reality already.

So, for instance, if one thinks "cyanide can't kill" is "not accurate," what difference does it make?

None whatsoever if I don't know how to decide what the contents of that bottle are.

Is it cyanide, or is it tea?

If a person happens not to know whether or not Caesar crossed the Rubicon, does it mean he can't have done it until we believe he did?

Suppose we are all wrong, and he never did. What difference does that make. The only thing that requires amendment is our historical records.

And when we do believe it, will our change of heart pull Caesar across the Rubicon? Of course not.

I don't know about you, but the opportunity to drag Caesar across the Rubicon (if he hadn't done so), or preventing him from crossing it (if he did) is loooong gone.

Unless you have some tips on time-travel...

[Immanuel Can]

... if we say that truth amounts to simply saying that some state of affairs is the state of affairs that it is, we wind up having to say that falsehood is a completely different sort of thing ontologically, which doesn't make sense given that we're talking about a modal distinction (truth versus falsehood).

I don't think that's actually a problem...or if it is, you're going to have to show me how, I guess. Ontologically, truth pertains to what exists. Falsehood is simply a claim that the opposite is what exists...

Fill me in.

[Immanuel Can]

How would a human decision matter in regard to that?

"No decision" IS a decision, in that case. It's a decision to do nothing in view of death, and "let the chips fall where they may."

How does it matter?

Well, as I say...in a non-God world it doesn't. In fact, nothing genuinely "matters," because even "mattering" is merely the contingent assessment by moribund creatures.

How would our decisions matter in regard to what-ifs about after we die?

Well, if this life is nothing, then it doesn't. But if this life is the stage for the next, then it does.

Is this some more absolute truth that you claim you don't claim?

It's a truth you know.

Dying, or something after death?

Dying. We all know it's something we're going to do.

Well, if this life is just an accident in the middle of an indifferent cosmos, then nothing. But if this world is what I think it is, the stage upon which human free will is demonstrated and validated by God, then what you do here and now makes all the difference...not just now, but forever.

Are there only two potentials?

Yes. Either this life means something, or it means nothing. There's no middle state there. But if you mean, could I life "mean" different things? Plausibly. We could say that the future is reincarnation, for example. But we can estimate the plausibility of such alternatives, and decide what is the most reasonable expectation.

Do you believe there's anything more than "the body"?

Seems like it. But I don't have a big scenario worked out as to what that is or means. And the god story does not ring true, despite growing up in a Christian environment.

Hmm...more than the body. Interesting. I'm curious: what makes you suspect that?

So, one absolute truth you believe is that there is a god?

Certainly. Existence is another actual dichotomy: either things exist, or they do not, with no middle state possible. If there is a God, then by definition, there is not no-God. If there is no-God, then there is, by definition, not any kind of God.

[Immanuel Can]

Reality decided, and humans interpret. But their interpretations are only any good if they conform to reality already.

So, for instance, if one thinks "cyanide can't kill" is "not accurate," what difference does it make?

None whatsoever if I don't know how to decide what the contents of that bottle are.

Is it cyanide, or is it tea?

But that's my point. It won't save anyone from dying, if your opinion is that it's tea, will it?

If a person happens not to know whether or not Caesar crossed the Rubicon, does it mean he can't have done it until we believe he did?

Suppose we are all wrong, and he never did.

Then he did not cross the Rubicon: and likewise, none of our belief that he did will make Caesar cross the Rubicon.

[Skepdick]

But that's my point. It won't save anyone from dying, if your opinion is that it's tea, will it?

If it is tea nobody needs saving.

Then he did not cross the Rubicon: and likewise, none of our belief that he did will make Caesar cross the Rubicon.

Seems like we can believe either one and it won't change or determine what Caesar actually did.

[Terrapin Station]

... if we say that truth amounts to simply saying that some state of affairs is the state of affairs that it is, we wind up having to say that falsehood is a completely different sort of thing ontologically, which doesn't make sense given that we're talking about a modal distinction (truth versus falsehood).

I don't think that's actually a problem...or if it is, you're going to have to show me how, I guess. Ontologically, truth pertains to what exists. Falsehood is simply a claim that the opposite is what exists...

Fill me in.

Truth and falsehood are usually thought of as opposites or complements; they're modalities. But we can't have opposites or complementarity of completely different sorts of phenomema, and the whole idea of a modality is that it's a particular form or variety of something, not properties of two very different sorts of things.

[Immanuel Can]

Seems like we can believe either one and it won't change or determine what Caesar actually did.

That's correct. The only "damage" will be to ourselves, and in the case of Caesar, the damage will not be great...merely the believing of something untrue. But if the issue is not Caesar but cyanide...

[Immanuel Can]

Truth and falsehood are usually thought of as opposites or complements; they're modalities.

Perhaps that's wrong. Perhaps we're making a mistake when we do that.

Take light and darkness. They're not "modalities," though they could easily be mistaken for that. Light is a thing, but dark is not. It's merely the absence of light. And you can tell that this is so, because one can walk into a room and "turn on the light," but never walk in and "turn on the dark." Dark is merely a negation of a real thing (light, in this case). It is not a thing-in-itself, despite the way we sometimes talk.

Perhaps truth and falsehood are the same: the truth is a thing-in-itself, but falsehood is merely the negation of the thing-in-itself, and not merely its opposite modality. And one key difference is that in the case of truth, reality is consonant with it. But there can be many falsehoods, which only share the characteristic that reality is not consonant with any of them.

[Terrapin Station]

Take light and darkness.

They're relative terms for the amount of photons present, basically. (And if we're using them more figuratively, they're still going to be relative terms for the amount of some particular property present.)

Perhaps truth and falsehood are the same: the truth is a thing-in-itself, but falsehood is merely the negation of the thing-in-itself,

Here you're saying that they're modalities of the "thing-in-itself." But despite the grammatical appearance of your statement, you'd be talking about two completely different things here. Not x and the negation of x.

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps truth and falsehood are the same: the truth is a thing-in-itself, but falsehood is merely the negation of the thing-in-itself,

Here you're saying that they're modalities of the "thing-in-itself."

No. I'm saying that one IS the thing-in-itself," and the other merely the negation or denial of the "thing-in-itself," and that only the thing-in-itself has a relationship to reality, whereas any number of negations, no matter how different from one another, still have no such relation at all.

[Terrapin Station]

Perhaps truth and falsehood are the same: the truth is a thing-in-itself, but falsehood is merely the negation of the thing-in-itself,

Here you're saying that they're modalities of the "thing-in-itself."

No. I'm saying that one IS the thing-in-itself," and the other merely the negation or denial of the "thing-in-itself," and that only the thing-in-itself has a relationship to reality, whereas any number of negations, no matter how different from one another, still have no such relation at all.

The negation of x is not-x, right?

[henry quirk]

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.

Seems to me: what is true is that which is real. Don't know how what's real to one isn't real to everyone else.

A campfire, for example: Joe, who was burned badly as a child, fears fire as an adult, while Carol, taught by her parents that fire is a useful, powerful tool, has no such fear.

The fire is real, is true, for both, but their beliefs regarding fire differ.

Personal truth, then, seems, to me to a new agey, tree huggy, crystal rubby, way of talkin' about belief.

I believe fire is bad doesn't have the same umph as My personal truth is fire is bad.

We can question the first, but are ourselves bad if we question the second.

In other words: personal truth is horse manure.

[Lacewing]

...in a non-God world it doesn't. In fact, nothing genuinely "matters," because even "mattering" is merely the contingent assessment by moribund creatures.

...Well, if this life is nothing...

It is interesting how you frame things in such dark terms, as if to suggest that, compared to your beliefs: a) there is no other reasonable or wonderfully natural potential, and b) without your beliefs, people are going to pay a price and be sorry. Apparently, this is the way you have to frame things in order to justify the beliefs you have.

Either this life means something, or it means nothing. There's no middle state there. But if you mean, could I life "mean" different things?

Life can mean different things to different people. Life's purpose could vary among people. Life and death could be experienced very differently among people. What you see as meaning or mattering, is not some template for humankind. Surely, as with anything, there are varying degrees of meaning and awareness throughout life for everyone. And here you are telling people they need to make decisions, based on your beliefs.

Hmm...more than the body. Interesting. I'm curious: what makes you suspect that?

Experiences I've had: including a near-death experience which was like a state of pure energy and awareness while I lay dying for hours -- noticeably without any of the usual human ideas/needs/fears. And other similar experiences just naturally through meditative wakefulness. As well as discussions with other people who've had similar experiences. To many people, this kind of natural frequency makes much more sense than god stories. Life and death can be viewed as a natural part of a vast flow of creativity and manifestation. Not to be feared. And it's not necessary to have supreme beings to fear or plead with. A human's need to know and control creates the stories.

So, one absolute truth you believe is that there is a god?

Certainly.

So, this is the imprint you place over everything as you deny the existence of any other potential or value. And any alternative suggestions or insights are dismissed and called irrelevant by you. Yet, you clearly do not know all there is. You just seem intent on believing that you are aligned with truth in a way that no one else is. That does not make sense.

[Skepdick]

That's correct. The only "damage" will be to ourselves, and in the case of Caesar, the damage will not be great...merely the believing of something untrue.

That's no damage at all. You believe in God and you are doing just fine.

But if the issue is not Caesar but cyanide...

The issue is that you don't know whether it's cyanide or tea.

But on the balance of probabilities I figure being wrong about tea is far less worse than being wrong about cyanide.