What is truth?

[Arising_uk]

As to validity, there is nothing in his message that would be indicative that, that is not what he meant. If you seek clarification, simply ask. But then...

How about this bit "If a mental thought or an utterance is valid, then it is true."?

And of course because 'you' believe there can be no creator, there can't be. ...

I don't believe there can be no creator. I believe that there is no evidence for the creator that the theist posits, I also believe that Kant had it right and its the Noumenon.

You atheists, blow my mind, i.e., because you only know of particular religions, and you can find some fault within them, that insults your intelligence, you jump to conclusions that there can be no creator, thus giving credence to those religions, as the only possibly ones worth considering, so as to denounce the possibility of a creator. Their being logically incorrect, in some cases, does not necessitate there being no creator. This point however, doesn't mean there is one either! Flip a coin.

See above.

Tell me about the fool that kills off their children, lazily not wanting to conserve, because mankind shall implode anyway, then hides behind their corpses, in the face of his/her/its own nuclear annihilation, such that they would kill yet another child, to prevent it, Asinking_uk. ...

Says the childless man on the moralistic high-horse who would kill all the other children on Earth when he could save them and tells his imaginary children that its okay that he is not going to save them and that they are going to die because Man deserves to die.

Please tell me more! I know, it's because you see circular dictionaries, that another's meaning is necessarily contained in your response, and that NLP is the cure all, and that your credentials give you the right...

Okay, since you so asked nicely; dictionaries are a late event in the history of language, as such meaning was around before they were invented, this means that meaning does not reside in a dictionary and if you'd ever read one and followed the words you would find out that they are essentially self-referring with respect to meaning. I do not say another's meaning is contained in my response, and neither does NLP, what we both say is that when communicating with a language the meaning of one's words lies in the response they get, as Language is a process. Now meaning itself lies in thoughts but thoughts and not necessarily language, it often is but I call these 'thinks' as one is using 'voice' as another in one's head, so if one has a thought, i.e. a sequence or scenario of images/sights, feelings, sounds, smells and tastes and wishes to communicate it to another using language, i.e. words, they it behooves one to remember that the words one picks to express them may well not have the same associations that the hearer has with them, as such "The meaning of one's words is the response they get." is a fairly good presupposition to hold in mind when communicating. Thanks for asking.

"The epitome of selfishness!"

You forgot fear. Save your pet psycho-babble for yourself, you need it.

[yiostheoy]

What ever I say is true, is necessarily true, because I am god, yes the one you all have worshiped all throughout history, so kneel before me, your true god.
You are out of your mind! You cannot prove you are god!
It looks like we have another crack pot in here!

I am guessing that you are on the crack pipe.

[SpheresOfBalance]

As to validity, there is nothing in his message that would be indicative that, that is not what he meant. If you seek clarification, simply ask. But then...

How about this bit "If a mental thought or an utterance is valid, then it is true."?
What did he/she leave out, in their haste? Or are you actually that shallow to believe that what they said is the fullest extent of what they have to say on the subject?

And of course because 'you' believe there can be no creator, there can't be. ...

I don't believe there can be no creator. I believe that there is no evidence for the creator that the theist posits, I also believe that Kant had it right and its the Noumenon.
Noumena have been instrumental in the formulation of many theories of the day. Once noumena, now phenomena.

You atheists, blow my mind, i.e., because you only know of particular religions, and you can find some fault within them, that insults your intelligence, you jump to conclusions that there can be no creator, thus giving credence to those religions, as the only possibly ones worth considering, so as to denounce the possibility of a creator. Their being logically incorrect, in some cases, does not necessitate there being no creator. This point however, doesn't mean there is one either! Flip a coin.[/color]

See above.

Tell me about the fool that kills off their children, lazily not wanting to conserve, because mankind shall implode anyway, then hides behind their corpses, in the face of his/her/its own nuclear annihilation, such that they would kill yet another child, to prevent it, Asinking_uk. ...

Says the childless man on the moralistic high-horse who would kill all the other children on Earth when he could save them and tells his imaginary children that its okay that he is not going to save them and that they are going to die because Man deserves to die.
Could you be more delusional, as I created no nuclear weapons, thus I could kill no one with them, I have none. And how you could possibly know that my 4 children don't exist, really places your comment where it belongs. You can put words in my mouth all you want, I said I'd play no part! As usual you delusional state is as clear as day.

Please tell me more! I know, it's because you see circular dictionaries, that another's meaning is necessarily contained in your response, and that NLP is the cure all, and that your credentials give you the right...

Okay, since you so asked nicely; dictionaries are a late event in the history of language, as such meaning was around before they were invented,
Not necessarily true for some words.

this means that meaning does not reside in a dictionary
Not true at all, without asking anyone, or looking it up in any type of dictionary, or any other type reference material, what does xerophthalmia mean? According to you meaning is contained in your mind, not the dictionary, so tell me what it is. If you somehow know it, let me know, because I'm sure you don't know the meaning of every word in the dictionary. And how else could one know it? Of course the dictionary. IN FACT, A DICTIONARY IS A "REFERENCE" BOOK. One refers to it, if they require knowledge of it. And like I told you, before printed dictionaries there were written dictionaries, before then, they were passed down by word of mouth. No newborn is born with the meaning of any word in their minds, let alone all of them. In all cases they are taught using "reference" material whether from people, books, or electronic databases, etc, all of which are in fact dictionaries/encyclopedias, etc, so to speak.

dictionary [dik-shuh-ner-ee]
noun, plural dictionaries.
1. a book, optical disc, mobile device, or online lexical resource (such as Dictionary.com ) containing a selection of the words of a language, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, derived forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language; lexicon; glossary. Print dictionaries of various sizes, ranging from small pocket dictionaries to multivolume books, usually sort entries alphabetically, as do typical CD or DVD dictionary applications, allowing one to browse through the terms in sequence. All electronic dictionaries, whether online or installed on a device, can provide immediate, direct access to a search term, its meanings, and ancillary information:
an unabridged dictionary of English; a Japanese-English dictionary.

and if you'd ever read one and followed the words you would find out that they are essentially self-referring with respect to meaning.
I guess you are having seriously problems with the word "synonym?" And the idea that one requires words so as to teach other words. Yes, believe it or not, language is required in order to teach language.

I do not say another's meaning is contained in my response, and neither does NLP, what we both say is that when communicating with a language the meaning of one's words lies in the response they get, as Language is a process.
You've just shot yourself in the foot with contradiction, it's either a process or it's final with the first words uttered. No one here in this forum, or very few, write an encyclopedia worth of information, yet you don't even wait for the "process" to begin before you jump to conclusions. It's only obvious that things are left out, that many are as brief as possible believing that some things are self evident, relying on the other to understand. Such that your persnickety snipes are grossly premature, not even an attempt to negotiate a "process" at all.

Now meaning itself lies in thoughts but thoughts and not necessarily language, it often is but I call these 'thinks' as one is using 'voice' as another in one's head, so if one has a thought, i.e. a sequence or scenario of images/sights, feelings, sounds, smells and tastes and wishes to communicate it to another using language, i.e. words, they it behooves one to remember that the words one picks to express them may well not have the same associations that the hearer has with them,
In such a case it behooves the one responding to seek clarity before sniping the unsuspecting originator. So in your case often your "process" is nastiness first, as if you're the supreme inquisitor. Not a very good "process."

as such "The meaning of one's words is the response they get."
Again this is your presupposition that you are the only one to make that call, as if your knowledge of your/our language is superior to all others, as if you are necessarily correct. As I said originally, your long version of what meaning conveyance/language/conversation entails, especially civilly, was right on the money. But this shortened version, that you believed so brilliant, such that it was once part of your signature, or was it your profile, is really just a testament, along with your "my certs gives me the 'right'," of your ego, your conceit, as if you are the king/queen/it of language comprehension. This is not very becoming, IMHO, of someone as old and as educated as you claim, especially in philosophy, where one should understand how often ones meaning can be, at first, elusive. especially in such a text based forum.

is a fairly good presupposition to hold in mind when communicating.
Ditto! In such cases, with such understanding, one shouldn't then smite another before seeking clarity. Else they seem to not be very well versed in philosophy. The Socratic Method a sure fired way of being very effectual in such situations as this forum presents. All things/people considered I, at least, believe this is the best way to proceed.

Thanks for asking.
Old ground, had your explanation quite a long time ago, it's your arrogance in spite of your understanding that I have a problem with. You do not exemplify the state of this so called understanding, such that you actually employ a process.

"The epitome of selfishness!"

You forgot fear. Save your pet psycho-babble for yourself, you need it.
Your denial, thus projection, evidence of your fear, thus your self serving characterizations!

[SpheresOfBalance]

What ever I say is true, is necessarily true, because I am god, yes the one you all have worshiped all throughout history, so kneel before me, your true god.
You are out of your mind! You cannot prove you are god!
It looks like we have another crack pot in here!

I am guessing that you are on the crack pipe.

And to think that I've supported your sorry ass.

I'm such a child, always lying, misquoting people, because I fear actually formulating a valid argument, that stands on it's own, something that I can feel secure supporting, as if I'm actually a capable fully functioning human being. I think I'll just kill myself, I'm such a loser, a poser, a moron. I have nothing to live for. Please, can someone help me?

There there little one, it's OK. That you're a liar a poser and an idiot is not your fault at all, it's all determinism, that you find your life worthless. It's OK don't cry! Stick around here if you're not banned, and I'm sure that you'll eventually learn something. I'll take you under my wing, take care of you, save you from yourself. No worries help has arrived!

Do you really find this type infantile crap entertaining? Really? You should really grow up my friend.

[yiostheoy]

I'm such a child, always lying, misquoting people, because I fear actually formulating a valid argument, that stands on it's own, something that I can feel secure supporting, as if I'm actually a capable fully functioning human being. I think I'll just kill myself, I'm such a loser, a poser, a moron. I have nothing to live for. Please, can someone help me?

There there little one, it's OK. That you're a liar a poser and an idiot is not your fault at all, it's all determinism, that you find your life worthless. It's OK don't cry! Stick around here if you're not banned, and I'm sure that you'll eventually learn something. I'll take you under my wing, take care of you, save you from yourself. No worries help has arrived!

Do you really find this type infantile crap entertaining? Really? You should really grow up my friend.

Watch out about that tough talk about suicide -- you might accidentally do it.

[ken]

You seem to be trying to morph a subjective definition of truth (truth is relative) with an objective definition (truth is absolute).

Yes you are right. I was coming from relative truth perspective. You have continually objected to my suggestion of what truth is, so I asked you to clarify, unsuccessfully I might add, and to explain what truth is. Until you do that I have no idea what you consider truth to be, so my definition could forever be wrong in your eyes.

If you had stated earlier that, from your perspective and in this context, truth is absolute, then I could have come from a different perspective.

Like I said, argumentum populum is a fallacy and not a criterion of truth in any way.

I have already agreed with your last sentence, and explained why I agree with it. I am not sure why you continue to repeat it.

I was, obviously, coming from the subjective perspective of 'truth'. I was merely stating that 'truth', like every other word and like language itself, is solely a human made concept, i.e., a subject view of what is around them. Subjective truth comes from the way humans look at and see things. If all humans are agreeing, then more relative truth is known. ONLY because there is no person disagreeing with this "truth". Therefore from the subjective truth it is only when ALL human beings agree, then that, what is in agreement, is what this truth is. This truth is changeable.

I was coming from relative truth perspective because there is no such physical thing as truth. "Truth", like every other human made concept, is just a human made construct of everything around them. In fact everything is relative to the observer. If ALL observers are seeing the same and thus are in agreement, then there is no in disagreement.

Obviously objective truth, i.e., absolute truth, is not changeable. Absolute truth can only be discovered, seen and known by being able to look from everything's perspective. I have already discussed this also. Although admittedly clumsily. I have even suggested confusion in humans is caused by looking at these two completely different definitions of truth.

If, and only when, humans put into context and explain what perspective they are coming from, only then will confusion be eliminated.

[ken]

... So, there needs to be a proviso added to 'the truth is that with which we all could agree on,' and that proviso is, as long as we remain open to the fact that the truth could change...

In fact the truth can never change. Only humans can change their minds as to what is true, which bears absolutely no reflection upon any particular truth, rather only the current human ability/inability to find and recognize the absolute truth of any matter. Make no mistake, actual real truths/facts, are concrete, absolute, they are never aqueous, never subject to interpretation.

For instance, what ever actually happened, prior to human existence, that allowed for human existence, happened, it is the absolute truth. It doesn't matter that many different humans have many different theories, that they represent as absolutely true, as it has absolutely no bearing on what actually transpired. That all of humanity may be ignorant of what transpired, is simply a testament of our current abilities/inabilities to reconcile the actual truth of that particular matter, nothing more. So it's what humans "believe" are truths that change, because they weren't actually truths.

Obviously absolute truth can never change, so there is no disagreement from me there. However relative truth can always change. For example some of the things that believe are true will change. Unless of course you only believe in "actual real truths/facts".

[yiostheoy]

There are some people who believe truth is relative and subjective. These are now called relativists.

Others believe truth is absolute and objective. These are now called Empiricists.

They'll never agree.

[SpheresOfBalance]

... So, there needs to be a proviso added to 'the truth is that with which we all could agree on,' and that proviso is, as long as we remain open to the fact that the truth could change...

In fact the truth can never change. Only humans can change their minds as to what is true, which bears absolutely no reflection upon any particular truth, rather only the current human ability/inability to find and recognize the absolute truth of any matter. Make no mistake, actual real truths/facts, are concrete, absolute, they are never aqueous, never subject to interpretation.

For instance, what ever actually happened, prior to human existence, that allowed for human existence, happened, it is the absolute truth. It doesn't matter that many different humans have many different theories, that they represent as absolutely true, as it has absolutely no bearing on what actually transpired. That all of humanity may be ignorant of what transpired, is simply a testament of our current abilities/inabilities to reconcile the actual truth of that particular matter, nothing more. So it's what humans "believe" are truths that change, because they weren't actually truths.

Obviously absolute truth can never change, so there is no disagreement from me there. However relative truth can always change. For example some of the things that believe are true will change. Unless of course you only believe in "actual real truths/facts".

I see that there is no such thing as relative truth, simply because humans can be mistaken or lie about what is and what is not true. That someone believes something is true that is not, bears no reflection on truth, rather the ignorance of that person.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm such a child, always lying, misquoting people, because I fear actually formulating a valid argument, that stands on it's own, something that I can feel secure supporting, as if I'm actually a capable fully functioning human being. I think I'll just kill myself, I'm such a loser, a poser, a moron. I have nothing to live for. Please, can someone help me?

There there little one, it's OK. That you're a liar a poser and an idiot is not your fault at all, it's all determinism, that you find your life worthless. It's OK don't cry! Stick around here if you're not banned, and I'm sure that you'll eventually learn something. I'll take you under my wing, take care of you, save you from yourself. No worries help has arrived!

Do you really find this type infantile crap entertaining? Really? You should really grow up my friend.

Watch out about that tough talk about suicide -- you might accidentally do it.

You're a child and a fool. What part of California, I used to live in the bay area. Luckily I never bumped into you, else I would have probably puked.

[SpheresOfBalance]

There are some people who believe truth is relative and subjective. These are now called relativists.

Others believe truth is absolute and objective. These are now called Empiricists.

They'll never agree.

Partially true, it should have read:

There are some people who "believe" truth is relative and subjective. These are now called relativists.

Others "know" truth is absolute and objective. These are now called Empiricists.

Now it's correct!

The empiricists have it right! The rest are ignorant! But then ignorance is bliss so they say. Knowledge, on the other hand, makes things complicated.

[ken]

There are some people who believe truth is relative and subjective. These are now called relativists.

Others believe truth is absolute and objective. These are now called Empiricists.

They'll never agree.

And that is the reason they will never agree. The power of beliefs will always prevent people from seeing the actual real truth. The truth here is that both truths exist and to believe in one only is extremely foolish. In fact to believe in absolutely anything, besides in Self, is absolutely foolish.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There are some people who believe truth is relative and subjective. These are now called relativists.

Others believe truth is absolute and objective. These are now called Empiricists.

They'll never agree.

And that is the reason they will never agree. The power of beliefs will always prevent people from seeing the actual real truth. The truth here is that both truths exist and to believe in one only is extremely foolish. In fact to believe in absolutely anything, besides in Self, is absolutely foolish.

Truth does not exist. It only has any kind of ontological status between what is perceived and what is actual. As such it cannot be absolute only relative.


The truth in not "OUT THERE".

[Dontaskme]

Truth does not exist. It only has any kind of ontological status between what is perceived and what is actual. As such it cannot be absolute only relative.


The truth in not "OUT THERE".

If there is no [out there] there can be no [in there]

Therefore the idea that it is relative is false and not truth.

[yiostheoy]

There are some people who believe truth is relative and subjective. These are now called relativists.

Others believe truth is absolute and objective. These are now called Empiricists.

They'll never agree.

And that is the reason they will never agree. The power of beliefs will always prevent people from seeing the actual real truth. The truth here is that both truths exist and to believe in one only is extremely foolish. In fact to believe in absolutely anything, besides in Self, is absolutely foolish.

Most if not all the philosophy books I have read condemn relativism as immoral and valueless.

That is why I also condemn it. It is nothing more than Sophistry.