Page 2 of 6
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 5:33 am
by WanderingLands
thedoc wrote:WanderingLands wrote:Felasco wrote:You are reflecting upon the differences between reason and ideology, a point of much confusion across the forum landscape. Forums are almost always about ideology, and not reason, whatever the participants may claim.
It is not just about forums, but is about individuals that clutch on to a belief system.
Unfortunately many of the people I have encountered have been 'People of Paradigm' as opposed to 'People seeking the truth'. When confronted, most of these people will make something up to support their paradigm rather than seek the truth. I have simply learned not to argue with people like this.
Yeah. I wish that many of the people wouldn't be so setthed in their ways. I just see a lot of people seemingly unconscious about the larger reality, just fret about drama, and try to supress their depression. I myself have been through it enough to just see it in others, and it's pretty disturbing - just wondering if they would ever wake up.
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 5:55 am
by uwot
WanderingLands wrote: I just see a lot of people seemingly unconscious about the larger reality
What larger reality? You have said words to the effect that there are 'Truths' about reality which are only accessible to the mind. How can you be sure that isn't the only place they exist?
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 3:53 pm
by WanderingLands
uwot wrote:What larger reality? You have said words to the effect that there are 'Truths' about reality which are only accessible to the mind. How can you be sure that isn't the only place they exist?
The "larger reality" as in a larger perspective that may be possibly outside of your own thinking is what I've meant. The mind, you see, is as limitless as the entire universe is, and it can be explored by whatever means to know what life is all about. It is by taking a journey that you find pieces of objective facts to where you can make a puzzle of what the absolute truth is ~ even though it takes many revisions and many paths, as well as a strong will, to see what absolute truth is.
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 4:44 pm
by uwot
WanderingLands wrote:The "larger reality" as in a larger perspective that may be possibly outside of your own thinking is what I've meant. The mind, you see, is as limitless as the entire universe is.
Not if there is a larger perspective outside.
WanderingLands wrote:and it can be explored by whatever means to know what life is all about.
Well, yes. I'm all for a bit of methodological anarchy.
WanderingLands wrote:It is by taking a journey that you find pieces of objective facts to where you can make a puzzle of what the absolute truth is ~ even though it takes many revisions and many paths, as well as a strong will, to see what absolute truth is.
The absolute truth is what Parmenides said: Being is. Something is going on, there definitely isn't nothing. It takes a strong will, sometimes, to resist the temptation to believe that whatever story you have concocted, or have been persuaded of, is the absolute truth. In some sense there are things which are 'true' about reality, but we can't absolutely know anything. By all means create a narrative that explains everything to your own satisfaction, but don't forget your own dictum, there is 'a larger perspective that may be possibly outside of your own thinking'. That will always be the case, unless you consciously limit your own mind.
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:39 am
by A_Seagull
'Truth' is a label that denotes certainty of belief. 'Absolute truth' is a label that denotes certainty of the certainty of the belief.
And certainty is a consequence of utility and self-consistency within a paradigm. It is the confidence that further investigation around that belief will not change it.
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:45 pm
by Wyman
'Truth' is a label that denotes certainty of belief. 'Absolute truth' is a label that denotes certainty of the certainty of the belief.
And certainty is a consequence of utility and self-consistency within a paradigm. It is the confidence that further investigation around that belief will not change it.
Your notion of 'certainty' is much different than mine. You're turning certainty into a pragmatic concept where 'certainty' is usually, and properly I think, meant as the opposite of a pragmatic concept. I agree that truth can be a consequence of utility and self-consistency within a paradigm, but not certainty, which is by definition what is left over after truth is given over to pragmatism. Certainty may not exist, but that is saying something different. And so 'certainty of the certainty' is meaningless as redundant (properly defined).
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:01 pm
by WanderingLands
A_Seagull wrote:'Truth' is a label that denotes certainty of belief. 'Absolute truth' is a label that denotes certainty of the certainty of the belief.
And certainty is a consequence of utility and self-consistency within a paradigm. It is the confidence that further investigation around that belief will not change it.
I differ about what you've said about Absolute Truth. It is not a "certainty of the certainty of the belief", as if a Truth was already confirmed you wouldn't need to confirm it again because you already know that it produces the same results. 'Absolute Truth' as I defined it, is the One Truth that binds all other truths of the world, and from where all truths emanate from. I also agree with Wyman that the phrase "certainty of the the certainty of the belief" to be redundant, and it is somewhat of a run-on sentence and also is grammatical error.
Your first sentence talking about 'Truth' is correct, and I do agree that 'certainty' is the confidence of things being true in your belief system. However, even when you think your paradigm is consistent, there are still many things that you may have ignored on your paradigm; so really it should not be so much whether or not your paradigm is consistent or not, but if you are simply for Truth enough to actually investigate different perceptions to test and/or expand your mental capacity to know. There is much more to 'Truth' and 'certainty' than 'utility and 'self-consistency'.
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:30 am
by A_Seagull
Wyman wrote:'Truth' is a label that denotes certainty of belief. 'Absolute truth' is a label that denotes certainty of the certainty of the belief.
And certainty is a consequence of utility and self-consistency within a paradigm. It is the confidence that further investigation around that belief will not change it.
Your notion of 'certainty' is much different than mine. You're turning certainty into a pragmatic concept where 'certainty' is usually, and properly I think, meant as the opposite of a pragmatic concept. I agree that truth can be a consequence of utility and self-consistency within a paradigm, but not certainty, which is by definition what is left over after truth is given over to pragmatism. Certainty may not exist, but that is saying something different. And so 'certainty of the certainty' is meaningless as redundant (properly defined).
Yes, your definition of certainty is far different from mine.
I follow the dictionary version:
cer·tain·ty
noun
1. the state of being certain.
2. something certain; an assured fact.
And I include he dictionary definition of 'certain ' for additional clarification:
cer·tain adjective
1. free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure: I am certain he will come.
2. destined; sure to happen (usually followed by an infinitive): He is certain to be there.
3. inevitable; bound to come: They realized then that war was certain.
4. established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable: It is certain that he tried.
5. fixed; agreed upon; settled: on a certain day; for a certain amount.
I am using the meaning of certainty as defined in definition 1 above. Which refers to 'certain' and I am using the definition 1 of 'certain'.
In other words 'certainty of belief' means 'free from doubt with regard to the accuracy of a belief'.
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:36 am
by A_Seagull
WanderingLands wrote:A_Seagull wrote:'Truth' is a label that denotes certainty of belief. 'Absolute truth' is a label that denotes certainty of the certainty of the belief.
And certainty is a consequence of utility and self-consistency within a paradigm. It is the confidence that further investigation around that belief will not change it.
I differ about what you've said about Absolute Truth. It is not a "certainty of the certainty of the belief", as if a Truth was already confirmed you wouldn't need to confirm it again because you already know that it produces the same results. 'Absolute Truth' as I defined it, is the One Truth that binds all other truths of the world, and from where all truths emanate from. I also agree with Wyman that the phrase "certainty of the the certainty of the belief" to be redundant, and it is somewhat of a run-on sentence and also is grammatical error.
Your first sentence talking about 'Truth' is correct, and I do agree that 'certainty' is the confidence of things being true in your belief system. However, even when you think your paradigm is consistent, there are still many things that you may have ignored on your paradigm; so really it should not be so much whether or not your paradigm is consistent or not, but if you are simply for Truth enough to actually investigate different perceptions to test and/or expand your mental capacity to know. There is much more to 'Truth' and 'certainty' than 'utility and 'self-consistency'.
Your definition : "
'Absolute Truth' as I defined it, is the One Truth that binds all other truths of the world, and from where all truths emanate from." seems to me to be entirely fictional. It is not compatible with the general understanding of what is meant by 'absolute truth'. What makes you think that all truths emanate from absolute truth? How could you detect an absolute truth if you came across one? Or even an ordinary truth for that matter?
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:36 am
by Ginkgo
A_Seagull wrote:
Your definition : " 'Absolute Truth' as I defined it, is the One Truth that binds all other truths of the world, and from where all truths emanate from." seems to me to be entirely fictional. It is not compatible with the general understanding of what is meant by 'absolute truth'. What makes you think that all truths emanate from absolute truth? How could you detect an absolute truth if you came across one? Or even an ordinary truth for that matter?
I tend to agree. Many things can be pass as "absolute truth", we can find such things in truth tables, ethical theories, axioms, tautologies and so on. What makes something an absolute truth is the ability of the composer to drawn on a number of unrelated logically distinct ideas and claim they are united as one truth in a higher reality. The only way this higher reality can be identified is by way of definition; they are all united under one. This can never be demonstrated in any way.
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:58 am
by uwot
A_Seagull wrote:'Truth' is a label that denotes certainty of belief.
Philosophers since Plato, have traditionally held that knowledge is justified, true belief. In that analysis, 'truth' is just any state of the world that is the case. Whatever the truth about the world, we put what we see and hear into a context. Some people forget that they are working within a context and rather than understand that any evidence that doesn't contradict that context is simply consistent, they believe it to be supporting that context. It's the problem of induction, no amount of evidence will ever prove a context. The 'Truth' is we see and hear things, we do not know the 'Truth' about what is causing those sensations.
A_Seagull wrote:'Absolute truth' is a label that denotes certainty of the certainty of the belief.
And certainty is a consequence of utility and self-consistency within a paradigm. It is the confidence that further investigation around that belief will not change it.
Same thing really. The thing about paradigms is that they can and do change. What you know is that all the evidence supports, or is at least consistent with the paradigm. While it may be possible for us to invent a paradigm that accounts for every conceivable experience, arguably 'The lord works in mysterious ways.' already does that, it is impossible to predict the unpredictable. You simply cannot say that the universe will never behave in a way that is at odds with any given paradigm. We cannot know the whole, or absolute truth.
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:58 am
by Ginkgo
Yes, I think the idea of "absolute truth" has a certain Platonic ring about it. This can be expressed as an absolute truth that all other truths participate. This absolute truth serves to unify all other truths, must itself be a truth and therefore belong to the category of of truthful things. We can see that this type of metaphsic is going to lead to an infinite regress. So yes, context very important.
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:40 am
by A_Seagull
uwot wrote:A_Seagull wrote:'Truth' is a label that denotes certainty of belief.
Philosophers since Plato, have traditionally held that knowledge is justified, true belief. In that analysis, 'truth' is just any state of the world that is the case. Whatever the truth about the world, we put what we see and hear into a context. Some people forget that they are working within a context and rather than understand that any evidence that doesn't contradict that context is simply consistent, they believe it to be supporting that context. It's the problem of induction, no amount of evidence will ever prove a context. The 'Truth' is we see and hear things, we do not know the 'Truth' about what is causing those sensations.
I think it would be more accurate if you had started "Some philosophers since Plato....."
I do not see how your " 'truth' is just any state of the world that is the case." follows from "knowledge is justified, true belief" .
Neither do I accept that "knowledge is justified, true belief" is a useful notion for either knowledge or truth.
A_Seagull wrote:'Absolute truth' is a label that denotes certainty of the certainty of the belief.
And certainty is a consequence of utility and self-consistency within a paradigm. It is the confidence that further investigation around that belief will not change it.
Same thing really. The thing about paradigms is that they can and do change. What you know is that all the evidence supports, or is at least consistent with the paradigm. While it may be possible for us to invent a paradigm that accounts for every conceivable experience, arguably 'The lord works in mysterious ways.' already does that, it is impossible to predict the unpredictable. You simply cannot say that the universe will never behave in a way that is at odds with any given paradigm. We cannot know the whole, or absolute truth.
The thing about paradigms is that it allows one to realise that ones perception of the world can change, if one instead adheres to some ethereal 'truth' then one is deluded into thinking that ones perception can never change.
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:41 pm
by uwot
A_Seagull wrote:
I think it would be more accurate if you had started "Some philosophers since Plato....."
Perhaps, but I think most philosophers have accepted that definition of knowledge. Where they differ is in how, or if, belief is justified.
A_Seagull wrote:I do not see how your " 'truth' is just any state of the world that is the case." follows from "knowledge is justified, true belief" .
It's not my truth, and it doesn't. I think it is a necessary truth that there are some possible statements about the world that are true. They don't follow from anything, they just 'are'. Apart from contingent truths, 'my name is uwot' for example, and analytic truths, 'all bachelors are unmarried' and so on, I am not convinced there is much we can know beyond Parmenides' "Being is" and Malebranche's tidying up of the Cogito, 'there are experiences'.
A_Seagull wrote:Neither do I accept that "knowledge is justified, true belief" is a useful notion for either knowledge or truth.
That is entirely your prerogative.
A_Seagull wrote:The thing about paradigms is that it allows one to realise that ones perception of the world can change, if one instead adheres to some ethereal 'truth' then one is deluded into thinking that ones perception can never change.
Indeed; I think dogmatism in any form is a bad thing.
Re: Truth vs. Paradigm
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:21 pm
by Wyman
Seagull wrote
'Absolute truth' is a label that denotes certainty of the certainty of the belief.
OK, then, why not 'certainty of the certainty of the certainty of the belief?' Is there a word you use for a state in which you have 'no doubt' (which is what I take 'free from doubt' to mean in you quote of the defintition). I mean, if you had absolutely no doubt of something, then you wouldn't need to go back and make sure that you were certain of your certainty, would you?