What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

And, I only know of my childhood from my present knowledge of what happened in my childhood. What might I have forgotten which informing my present state of mind?

As a matter of fact, in thinbking of my childhood I can come to all sorts of reasons and conclusions that make sense as to why I am the wAy I am now, and many of the ideas I have of my childhood contradict each other in their conclusions. To what authority should I turn?
The sense that I make of such events that equate to my being happy and content with my life, or the ones which point out my problems?
They are the same events, but I can argue either way. What if I'm mad right now? Does that effect how I constrew my childhood?
Again, to what authority do I turn?
Psychology? I am fine. Why would I need a science which give diagnoses from cases that has problems?
I am great.
Which features of human plight lead to happiness? To sadness? Perhaps I should be very sad but I just don't know it. ? Perhaps I'm in denial ??
To whom do I turn to tell me if I'm good or not good?
If I do not have a problem, what interest do I have in psychology telling me about myself when pshychology has to do with dealing with people who have problems they can't figure out on their own. ? And putting all humanity into statistics and gerneralizations?

And if ther were childhood traumas which have effected me badly, would not accepting these events Totally, as a welcome and inherently Good thing for me, result in my being relieved from the badness they may have created for my life?

And what does such accpetance entail? Figuring out what particular events of the past contributed adversly, or
Accepting the effect of such trauma? Which is to say to realize that I am here in the present with such thoughts about my past, and that such thoughts constitute me now and really have no basis in what may or may not have occured, since the reality is me, here, now, having such thoughts. ?

Ahhh. That was a big ramble.

[SpheresOfBalance]

And, I only know of my childhood from my present knowledge of what happened in my childhood. What might I have forgotten which informing my present state of mind?

As a matter of fact, in thinbking of my childhood I can come to all sorts of reasons and conclusions that make sense as to why I am the wAy I am now, and many of the ideas I have of my childhood contradict each other in their conclusions. To what authority should I turn?
The sense that I make of such events that equate to my being happy and content with my life, or the ones which point out my problems?
They are the same events, but I can argue either way. What if I'm mad right now? Does that effect how I constrew my childhood?
Again, to what authority do I turn?
Psychology? I am fine. Why would I need a science which give diagnoses from cases that has problems?
I am great.
Which features of human plight lead to happiness? To sadness? Perhaps I should be very sad but I just don't know it. ? Perhaps I'm in denial ??
To whom do I turn to tell me if I'm good or not good?
If I do not have a problem, what interest do I have in psychology telling me about myself when pshychology has to do with dealing with people who have problems they can't figure out on their own. ? And putting all humanity into statistics and gerneralizations?

And if ther were childhood traumas which have effected me badly, would not accepting these events Totally, as a welcome and inherently Good thing for me, result in my being relieved from the badness they may have created for my life?

And what does such accpetance entail? Figuring out what particular events of the past contributed adversly, or
Accepting the effect of such trauma? Which is to say to realize that I am here in the present with such thoughts about my past, and that such thoughts constitute me now and really have no basis in what may or may not have occured, since the reality is me, here, now, having such thoughts. ?

Ahhh. That was a big ramble.

I could be wrong but it seems that you over think things sometimes. While I have voluntarily sought the services of a psychologist on two occasions, My main experience has been with college and books. I think you may fear psychology because you fear yourself, this is often the case, especially if you have any guilt. There is nothing to fear except fear itself. Finding out about yourself is always enlightening.

[lancek4]

And, I only know of my childhood from my present knowledge of what happened in my childhood. What might I have forgotten which informing my present state of mind?

As a matter of fact, in thinbking of my childhood I can come to all sorts of reasons and conclusions that make sense as to why I am the wAy I am now, and many of the ideas I have of my childhood contradict each other in their conclusions. To what authority should I turn?
The sense that I make of such events that equate to my being happy and content with my life, or the ones which point out my problems?
They are the same events, but I can argue either way. What if I'm mad right now? Does that effect how I constrew my childhood?
Again, to what authority do I turn?
Psychology? I am fine. Why would I need a science which give diagnoses from cases that has problems?
I am great.
Which features of human plight lead to happiness? To sadness? Perhaps I should be very sad but I just don't know it. ? Perhaps I'm in denial ??
To whom do I turn to tell me if I'm good or not good?
If I do not have a problem, what interest do I have in psychology telling me about myself when pshychology has to do with dealing with people who have problems they can't figure out on their own. ? And putting all humanity into statistics and gerneralizations?

And if ther were childhood traumas which have effected me badly, would not accepting these events Totally, as a welcome and inherently Good thing for me, result in my being relieved from the badness they may have created for my life?

And what does such accpetance entail? Figuring out what particular events of the past contributed adversly, or
Accepting the effect of such trauma? Which is to say to realize that I am here in the present with such thoughts about my past, and that such thoughts constitute me now and really have no basis in what may or may not have occured, since the reality is me, here, now, having such thoughts. ?

Ahhh. That was a big ramble.

I could be wrong but it seems that you over think things sometimes. While I have voluntarily sought the services of a psychologist on two occasions, My main experience has been with college and books. I think you may fear psychology because you fear yourself, this is often the case, especially if you have any guilt. There is nothing to fear except fear itself. Finding out about yourself is always enlightening.

Yes it was a good ramble
And therapy can be good at times.

My point, though, began upon the fear and denial thing.
I tend to agree that agression and anger stem from fear, and in so much as I may be angry, it is probably because of something that I fear that I don't want to admit.
This is typically what is meant by denial.
And this is what I have known as denial, that is until, as I pointed out earlier, that denial is (a neat little anacronym - but slightly off in the letters): Don't Even (K)now I Am Lying. Lol.

It seemed significant to me that you came accross the fear 'epiphany' you had. I apologize if I appeared to demean it.
The issue goes thus, as a summary:

If there an Object which exists in-itself, as a thing essentially itself apart from our knowledge of it?
The Subject only has knowledge by which to determine this Object, so if there is such a thing, the Subject can only know it with reference to its knowledge.
Knowledge, as itself, thus posits an Object in knowledge's position; that is, knowledge exists in so much as there is an Object.
This Object is the purpose of knowledge; the Object is the objective of knowledge.

Yet, if there is an Object in-itself, essentially of its own existence, beyond the necessity of knowledge's positing, then knowledge itself exists in itself as the same Object, since, knowledge cannot exist without the Object, but the Object without reference to knowledge. Hence, the Object is both unttainable at all times and posited at all times as attainable, and thus, argues itself at all times.

If the Object argues itself, then to posit that knowledge may attain something other than itself is a position based in denial of the nature of knowledge.

Such denial exists because of the fear of the individual of its own limitation of being known.

This fear, as you indicate, amounts to the creation of a process of self detruction.

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance] If it is only our 'knowing' of it, and this is relative, is there a point to discussing what may be 'absolutely true' ? It would seem that the absolute actual and the actual absolute would be mutually exclusive for argument. A 'thing in itself' (a noumena) that is knowable. <-- did you mean 'unknowable.' Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this is what I mean when I say that I believe that you sometimes contradict what I believe to be your point.

[/quote]

The 'actual absolute', meaning the absolute that is absolute independant of our knowledge, and the 'absolute actual' which seems more in line with our definition. These two types of Absolute seem irreconcilible because they reside in thier own domains. What I hear you saying in the previous posts is that there is an Absolute Truth, and our present knowledge may or may not be True -at least its True for now, but it may be wrong in reference to what may be 'actually Absolute'. An 'actually absolute' thus amounts to a 'noumen' (or whatever the Kant term is): a thing in-itself.

the question becomes: is there an 'overlap' of essential things-in-themselves, such that our knowledge, which could be seen as a sort of 'reconisance' (sp?) vector of the Object that is the individual Subject, extends into a space where the 'other' Object-in-itself likewise extends itself, such that we encounter through knowledge the thing-in-itself absolutely?

But if it is they way of the former situation of the first paragraph, the is there a point of discussing the Absolute?

[SpheresOfBalance]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance] If it is only our 'knowing' of it, and this is relative, is there a point to discussing what may be 'absolutely true' ? It would seem that the absolute actual and the actual absolute would be mutually exclusive for argument. A 'thing in itself' (a noumena) that is knowable. <-- did you mean 'unknowable.' Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this is what I mean when I say that I believe that you sometimes contradict what I believe to be your point.

<snip>

Could you please answer the original question? Did you mean knowable or unknowable?

[/quote]

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance] If it is only our 'knowing' of it, and this is relative, is there a point to discussing what may be 'absolutely true' ? It would seem that the absolute actual and the actual absolute would be mutually exclusive for argument. A 'thing in itself' (a noumena) that is knowable. <-- did you mean 'unknowable.' Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this is what I mean when I say that I believe that you sometimes contradict what I believe to be your point.

<snip>

Could you please answer the original question? Did you mean knowable or unknowable?

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Yes, I did in the post just prior.
I clarified my bad sentence-ing.

[SpheresOfBalance]

OK, so where were we? Oh yeah!

Truth is all that actually exists in it's natural, real form without interpretation. This is the definition of truth and was required as we found a need to differentiate between a clouded, and a pure unfettered understanding so as to know it's essence. This means that everything in the universe what ever it is has an actual set of properties associated with it, in any language, with out any language, in and of itself. These properties and thus their objects require no human or other life-form to cause them into existence. This job was that of the universes birth, by what ever means, in what ever time, for what ever reason, there is a truth to what ever the universe entails.

Man was born in a primordial pool of chemicals, developed into simple cells then multi-cellular colonies, and finally giving way to us of today. As chemicals we had no consciousness such that somewhere along the way it developed through evolution. We once knew nothing!

As we grew, we first had belief, there was much confusion as everyone had a slightly different version. At some point we decided that we had to find a singular ultimate answer to various important issues or the chaos would continue. The concept of truth was born, designed to unify beliefs pertaining to a particular thing or idea thus negating the confusion in their then current state of multiplicity.

As we investigated each topic of contention we eliminated those beliefs that clearly were falsehoods, leaving as few beliefs as possible. Once a particular topic was reduced to one singular solution or idea we called it knowledge, and believed that in fact we had reached it's particular true state of actual existence, that which exists without human bias, misconceptions, or personal agendas.

Finally as we've grown we've understood that not all of our knowledge was actually based upon a truth such that we've had to reevaluate them finding new solutions in knowledge. This then has allowed us to call into question truth criteria thus giving way to several theories as to how to eliminate all ambiguity, and thus realizing the actual truth.

This also has shown us that truth and knowledge are actually assumed to be accurate and that there may be a more accurate assessment that will be based on the answering of future, yet unknown questions. Also that we can gain a broad base of knowledge as there is a crossover connection of each bit by another bit of knowledge, thus giving more credence to any particular bit.

[lancek4]

Good. That is a more thourough synopsis.

I ask then: "as we grew, we had belief" - what is the relationship between the chemicals where there is Truth (actual) and no belief, and then the chemicals which 'formed' or 'allowed for' belief?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Good. That is a more thourough synopsis.

I ask then: "as we grew, we had belief" - what is the relationship between the chemicals where there is Truth (actual) and no belief, and then the chemicals which 'formed' or 'allowed for' belief?

In a word 'evolution', but you're digging for a GOD aren't you? Now I know which side of the fence you're on, which is cool by me. I understand that in light of all the 'supposed' coincidences that gave way to planet earth why one would believe in creation. But just as well, when viewing the immensity of the universal infinity, it can also give way to the chance of the relatively few (by comparison of the universes size) properties that coincidentally came together in this one particular relative spot, this is not to say that the universes size precludes a duplicate scenario, quite the contrary.

Star of this size.
Distance from star.
Magnetosphere.
Iron core and mass of this particular gravitational intensity.
Moon of proportionate size and synchronized rotation.
Elements.
H2O.
Atmosphere of gases at the specific ratio.
Chemical formation.
And the way that these things came into existence and interact.
ETC, ETC, ETC.

The amount of things that gave way to life on this planet seriously pales by comparison to the possibilities due to both it's shear size and the age of the universe.

Again I'm not saying which is true or as you believe that both are. I unlike most am honest and realize that both are equally possible.

[lancek4]

Good. That is a more thourough synopsis.

I ask then: "as we grew, we had belief" - what is the relationship between the chemicals where there is Truth (actual) and no belief, and then the chemicals which 'formed' or 'allowed for' belief?

In a word 'evolution', but you're digging for a GOD aren't you? Now I know which side of the fence you're on, which is cool by me. I understand that in light of all the 'supposed' coincidences that gave way to planet earth why one would believe in creation. But just as well, when viewing the immensity of the universal infinity, it can also give way to the chance of the relatively few (by comparison of the universes size) properties that coincidentally came together in this one particular relative spot, this is not to say that the universes size precludes a duplicate scenario, quite the contrary.

Star of this size.
Distance from star.
Magnetosphere.
Iron core and mass of this particular gravitational intensity.
Moon of proportionate size and synchronized rotation.
Elements.
H2O.
Atmosphere of gases at the specific ratio.
Chemical formation.
And the way that these things came into existence and interact.
ETC, ETC, ETC.

The amount of things that gave way to life on this planet seriously pales by comparison to the possibilities due to both it's shear size and the age of the universe.

Again I'm not saying which is true or as you believe that both are. I unlike most am honest and realize that both are equally possible.

Fair enough. For me, if I believe that there is a God then I am involved in an attempt to diprove it. I do not assert that God or a god exists.
I am mostly conerned with decribing effects. I am sure that evolution can describe the development of consciousness, but then I would offer the evolutionary theory which suggests that there is no consciousness as we think of it. Consciousness is an effect of a center of the brain, like Broccas area and such, that interprets thing in the 'actual' universe which had already occurred. The develpment of human consciousness from the animal is merely one of conflation of neuro adaptational features whcih conflate to give us our consciousness, what is called 'the interpreter' which is merely a by product of our particularly adapted brain.
In other words consciousness, what we understand as human conscuousness, is merely an interpretation of what has already 'actually' occurred.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Good. That is a more thourough synopsis.

I ask then: "as we grew, we had belief" - what is the relationship between the chemicals where there is Truth (actual) and no belief, and then the chemicals which 'formed' or 'allowed for' belief?

In a word 'evolution', but you're digging for a GOD aren't you? Now I know which side of the fence you're on, which is cool by me. I understand that in light of all the 'supposed' coincidences that gave way to planet earth why one would believe in creation. But just as well, when viewing the immensity of the universal infinity, it can also give way to the chance of the relatively few (by comparison of the universes size) properties that coincidentally came together in this one particular relative spot, this is not to say that the universes size precludes a duplicate scenario, quite the contrary.

Star of this size.
Distance from star.
Magnetosphere.
Iron core and mass of this particular gravitational intensity.
Moon of proportionate size and synchronized rotation.
Elements.
H2O.
Atmosphere of gases at the specific ratio.
Chemical formation.
And the way that these things came into existence and interact.
ETC, ETC, ETC.

The amount of things that gave way to life on this planet seriously pales by comparison to the possibilities due to both it's shear size and the age of the universe.

Again I'm not saying which is true or as you believe that both are. I unlike most am honest and realize that both are equally possible.

Fair enough. For me, if I believe that there is a God then I am involved in an attempt to diprove it. I do not assert that God or a god exists.
I am mostly conerned with decribing effects. I am sure that evolution can describe the development of consciousness, but then I would offer the evolutionary theory which suggests that there is no consciousness as we think of it. Consciousness is an effect of a center of the brain, like Broccas area and such, that interprets thing in the 'actual' universe which had already occurred. The develpment of human consciousness from the animal is merely one of conflation of neuro adaptational features whcih conflate to give us our consciousness, what is called 'the interpreter' which is merely a by product of our particularly adapted brain.
In other words consciousness, what we understand as human conscuousness, is merely an interpretation of what has already 'actually' occurred.

Funny you should say this, as recently upon thinking about consciousness, I decided that it was in fact a central point so to speak where all sensing come together. In other words as data is sensed via our eyes, nose, ears, mouth and dermis the point as which the brain adds them up compares them to our databases (memory) and then decides what to make of it, appropriate action, etc., is the consciousness. It's simply the point of integration, orientation, extrapolation, manifestation, manipulation, etc., of the data streams from both live and memorex . After all we're so much like that of a tape recorder (nah, that's sequential), more like a floppy, (yeah, that's random access)

[lancek4]

There was a somewhat famous study in ssychology where they told a group that something like find the meaning of a series of pictures. The series was totally random pictures and sequence. Everyone came up with a different meaning - but they all did come up with a meaning of the set, though the set wsas random- there was no meaning.

Which is to say noone came up with the meaning that there was no meaning or that it 'meant' it was a random series of unassociated pictures.

[Mark Question]

What you're saying is not apparent, NOT AT ALL!! Truth is not a word. Rather that word (truth) is a label for something that exists without the distortion of mislabeling. You people that are caught up on language really have some fundamental issues. Take away your language, imagine if you can. Do you see the object? That's because it's 'actually' there, in whatever form by whatever means, is it's truth. No, it is not a figment of your imagination, just because you can't call it by it's name.

The English word truth is from Old English tríewþ, tréowþ, trýwþ, Middle English trewþe, cognate to Old High German triuwida, Old Norse tryggð. Like troth, it is a -th nominalisation of the adjective true (Old English tréowe).
takeaway your language, imagine if you can answer to me. (imagine babies playing with toys without words "babies" and "toys" to "play" with.) do you see the "object" or "it"? is "it" actually "there"?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does (by definition). If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does anyone know it made a sound? Of course not!

if sun has risen every day, does it rise tomorrow?

Change does not negate truth, if something changes then that's the truth!

so, do you know if that truth about trees has already changed? i was only questioning your knowledge that you use when you talk about truth. to be continued:

Does anyone know if it made a rise when there was no one to see it?

Make up your mind, I thought we were talking about truth, not knowledge.

do you need knowledge to talk about truth? is it alright to use any kind of "knowledge"? can i use tarot cards and do you use them too here in philosophy now forum? do you say to the vehicle inspection officer that hey, we are talking about the car here, not the car parts or the building and fixing methods or used materials? to be continued:

what you mean "(by definition)"?

Scientifically, sound is produced with friction which is a result of a tree impacting the ground. By definition in this case, sound does in fact exist.

sounds empirical definition to me. is empirical knowledge the only form of knowledge or the best form of knowledge, according to what form of knowledge? to be continued:

let us test if beliefs are in fact truths: Truth: is all that actually exists; is the state of being in accord with fact or reality. in which criterion of truth truth is like that?

If you mean that the criterion of truth tests and thus gives way to either truth or falsehood, then yes!

Truth has a variety of meanings,
so, is it true that "Truth: is all that actually exists; is the state of being in accord with fact or reality"? in which criterion of truth truth is like that? is this also true: "Truth: is all that god has revealed to us"? why on earth? do we have to test both "truths" and can we test different definitions of truth and see if they are true truths or not? what tests you prefer to use?

As I originally used Jack Shit was synonymous with anything, I thought that was self evident. Can you know of something without knowing everything?

do you mean that anything is same as something? synonyms? and thank you for trying with me. maybe i see the truth one day.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What you're saying is not apparent, NOT AT ALL!! Truth is not a word. Rather that word (truth) is a label for something that exists without the distortion of mislabeling. You people that are caught up on language really have some fundamental issues. Take away your language, imagine if you can. Do you see the object? That's because it's 'actually' there, in whatever form by whatever means, is it's truth. No, it is not a figment of your imagination, just because you can't call it by it's name.

The English word truth is from Old English tríewþ, tréowþ, trýwþ, Middle English trewþe, cognate to Old High German triuwida, Old Norse tryggð. Like troth, it is a -th nominalisation of the adjective true (Old English tréowe).
takeaway your language, imagine if you can answer to me. (imagine babies playing with toys without words "babies" and "toys" to "play" with.) do you see the "object" or "it"? is "it" actually "there"?

Now I understand what you're having a problem with, You are confusing truth and knowledge. As that baby, the truth is that, at that moment, I have no knowledge of 'it,' other than my visual system has detected, what all functional eyes, old and young alike, have. The difference between myself and an adult is that the adult has a language which is a system of assigning labels to things. So they can talk about them. The truth is that what I see and they see are one in the same thing. That thing has certain truths about it that I as a baby do not know while the adults do, however those associated truths are just as true for me and them despite the fact that I do not know it!

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does (by definition). If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does anyone know it made a sound? Of course not!

if sun has risen every day, does it rise tomorrow?

Change does not negate truth, if something changes then that's the truth!

so, do you know if that truth about trees has already changed? i was only questioning your knowledge that you use when you talk about truth. to be continued:

See here, the part before the question mark. You're confusing knowledge and truth. Of course knowledge is required to talk about truth.

Does anyone know if it made a rise when there was no one to see it?

Make up your mind, I thought we were talking about truth, not knowledge.

do you need knowledge to talk about truth? is it alright to use any kind of "knowledge"? can i use tarot cards and do you use them too here in philosophy now forum? do you say to the vehicle inspection officer that hey, we are talking about the car here, not the car parts or the building and fixing methods or used materials? to be continued:

Of course you use knowledge to talk about truth. But you don't have to have knowledge for truth to exist. OK, here you go:

Knowledge, absolutely, has to be truth! Truth doesn't absolutely have to be known! It's a one way affair my friend. Do we have to know of truth and knowledge to talk about them? Absolutely, Yes!

what you mean "(by definition)"?

Scientifically, sound is produced with friction which is a result of a tree impacting the ground. By definition in this case, sound does in fact exist.

sounds empirical definition to me. is empirical knowledge the only form of knowledge or the best form of knowledge, according to what form of knowledge? to be continued:

Yes it's empirical. I look a philosophy from a "today's" base of knowledge perspective.

let us test if beliefs are in fact truths: Truth: is all that actually exists; is the state of being in accord with fact or reality. in which criterion of truth truth is like that?

To which criterion of truth theories are you familiar? Personally I'm aligned with the substantive: correspondence theory of truth criterion.

If you mean that the criterion of truth tests and thus gives way to either truth or falsehood, then yes!

Truth has a variety of meanings,
so, is it true that "Truth: is all that actually exists; is the state of being in accord with fact or reality"? in which criterion of truth truth is like that? is this also true: "Truth: is all that god has revealed to us"? why on earth? do we have to test both "truths" and can we test different definitions of truth and see if they are true truths or not? what tests you prefer to use?

I don't know anything about truth testing as far as a GOD goes. Personally I'm into truth for a lot of reasons. But here in the metaphysics section for me it's all about why and how we've come to be here; the truth of our origins. I am not opposed to a creator, but I absolutely hate GOD because GOD was created in mans image. I believe that history has beared this out. The word actually makes me feel nauseous. I prefer creator because as of yet it has not been tarnished, as far as I know.

I look at the bible ONLY as a book of love. The rest you can pitch. The crap about a jealous god is just that MANS CRAP! If there's one thing I Know about a creator, in light of this infinite universe, it's that a creator of all this is not jealous of anything. It was mans selfish projection upon his god of his jealousy. A creator of all this has no emotions it is PURE ENERGY (INTELLECT). Mankind is so pathetic.

As I originally used Jack Shit was synonymous with anything, I thought that was self evident. Can you know of something without knowing everything?

do you mean that anything is same as something? synonyms? NO! not at all!
and thank you for trying with me. maybe i see the truth one day.
Does this mean you are quitting?

Thanks for taking your time and conversing with me in easier to understand terms. I can see how you must be getting tired of doing all the work of translation. I Thank You! Look at the bright side, practice makes perfect!

Have a good one!

[Mark Question]

Now I understand what you're having a problem with, You are confusing truth and knowledge. As that baby, the truth is that, at that moment, I have no knowledge of 'it,' other than my visual system has detected, what all functional eyes, old and young alike, have. The difference between myself and an adult is that the adult has a language which is a system of assigning labels to things. So they can talk about them. The truth is that what I see and they see are one in the same thing. That thing has certain truths about it that I as a baby do not know while the adults do, however those associated truths are just as true for me and them despite the fact that I do not know it!

now i think i understand how you pictured truth and knowledge with all these words. with all these words you tell that you dont need them to see things and that without these words theres still the truth out there. remembering long stories about wordless world and its long history in libraries full of history books. near childrens section and fiction wing full of many kind of tales. and next time when you are pretending to be a baby, try harder. do babies talk like that? are we easily anthropomorphising even babies if adult dog is as smart as 2 years old children? is there anything without anything and is story named "this is not a story" also a story?

Change does not negate truth, if something changes then that's the truth!

so, do you know if that truth about trees has already changed? i was only questioning your knowledge that you use when you talk about truth. to be continued:

See here, the part before the question mark. You're confusing knowledge and truth. Of course knowledge is required to talk about truth.

if truth changes then how would you know it? if your knowledge about truth changes, it is not truth that changes, or is it? forever?

Yes it's empirical. I look a philosophy from a "today's" base of knowledge perspective.

empirical view is only one way of thinking. what do you mean "today's" base of knowledge?

To which criterion of truth theories are you familiar? Personally I'm aligned with the substantive: correspondence theory of truth criterion.

so, you are in the right section if you support naive realism and scientific realism as an ontological metaphysics. theres lots of other metaphysical theories or models too. why you believe just that kind of theory? are you corresponding just words? does your corresponds correspond to your corresponds endlessly? do you define the truth from the correspondence theory for the correspondence theory, circular way? also: Some suggest that epistemological fallibilism claims absolute knowledge as part of an axiom. Essentially, the statement "This much is certain: nothing is certain" claims the knowledge that: there is no knowledge; thus arriving at a contradiction.
Karl Popper has suggested the methodological approach that the statement be provisionally taken as true until another statement is presented that, after surviving a critical discussion, is accepted as certain. The acceptance of this statement as certain would then be sufficient to reject fallibilism.