personal truth

[Skepdick]

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.

Perhaps if you stopped giving your attention to me and focused it on the point it might work better?

Use it, don't use it.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Yes. I think they want to attach the dignity of a solid, objective truth to a mere opinion. And in this case, it's an opinion that others find reason to doubt...because otherwise, why call it a "personal truth," instead of just "truth"?

The "personal" part is supposed to shield the claim and give it immunity from inspection for its actual truth value. It's supposed to lift the claim above criticism...but does nothing to prove it's actually true, even if the person speaking it genuinely believes it.

[Immanuel Can]

...flaws in your personality....

Ad hominem. Boring. Not responding.

[Terrapin Station]

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.

Facts are states of affairs, or "ways that things are" or "what's the case." A problem if we say that facts in this sense are true is that falsehoods can't be the same sort of thing--there isn't a way that things aren't that is somehow instantiated (an instantiation would be a way that things are, not a way that they're not). In order to talk about fictions, fantasies, etc. we need to be talking about statements that people make, things they imagine, etc., that are contrary to what obtains independent of those statements or imaginings. But that's not the same sort of thing as what facts are (aside from it being a fact that someone imagines whatever they do, for example). Most facts obtain if any people exist or not. That's not the case with falsehoods, fictions, fantasies. So if we make the truth modality a name for, or at least a property of facts, we're stuck with making the falsehood modality a name for, or at least a property of, a very different sort of thing. But that doesn't really make sense when we're talking about modalities.

Re the judgment I'm talking about, I'm talking about for example, someone thinking (the meaning "behind") "The cat is on the mat," and then making a judgment, based on what they've observed, if there is a cat on a mat to "match" that meaning (this is an example if we're using correspondence). If they judge, "Yes, there is a cat on the mat to 'match' the meaning of the sentence 'The cat is on the mat'," then they assign "T" (true) to the sentence "The cat is on the mat." Otherwise they assign "F" (false). Of course, this reads kind of absurdly oversimple, but that's because we can't literally write meanings, observations, etc. We have to write the words (the text strings) correlated to those things.

[Sculptor]

...flaws in your personality....

Ad hominem. Boring. Not responding.

Two points.
first is that my comments are an observation and in no way an ad hominem. THe flaw is a common human flaw. You are perfetly capable of understanding the point, by recognising my observation. You do not have to accept it to understand the point.
The second point is that you yourself harbour a personal truth of the kind I ma talking about:
Such as your personal truth in the existence of god.

[Immanuel Can]

* 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.

A word of clarification, if you would be so kind.

Does this mean, "What a person thinks claim X means is subjective," or "The actual object to which claim X refers is subjective"?

[Terrapin Station]

* 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.

A word of clarification, if you would be so kind.

Does this mean, "What a person thinks claim X means is subjective," or "The actual object to which claim X refers is subjective"?

Not the object. The meaning, including what a term, sentence, etc. is taken to refer to.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

For fuck sake. Another wanky woke Americanism that's stinking up the planet.
Something is either true or it isn't!
'My' truth, 'your' truth, 'zir's' truth. Go fuck yourselves.

[Walker]

For fuck sake. Another wanky woke Americanism that's stinking up the planet.
Something is either true or it isn't!
'My' truth, 'your' truth, 'zir's' truth. Go fuck yourselves.

Reality is the whole elephant, whether zoo'ed or wild. A human body cannot see the whole elephant and can touch even less than it sees. The seeing is merely impersonally witnessing a portion of the elephant. The broader the view, the more of the elephant that is witnessed, but the whole elephant is not seen because it always has another side, at least when alive.

Now, by this point don’t get all agitated and violent over the form, but obviously the part of the elephant that can be touched is the “personal truth.” The degree of personal depends on the reachable, touchable part of the elephant for any particular person.

For some reason, ripe for inquiry, philosophers get more preoccupied with the ever-present, unseen other side of the elephant*, than with whatever portion of the elephant that is touchable.

The reason for the preoccupation could be a reaction to being stuck in a rut on the wrong end of the elephant, pinned on the wall like Prufrock, or like that funny silhouette of a zookeeper blasted onto the zoo wall … which is not to exclude other causes to be stuck in a rut, such as nihilism.


* Expressed as the question, where do we go from here, which the Alan Parsons Project lyrically attempted to partially answer, and thus fell short of philosophy.

[Sculptor]

...flaws in your personality....

Ad hominem. Boring. Not responding.

Face the truth. We are all flawed, and is is easier for another to point out those flaws to you.
I have to say that you are verifying my assertion by your response.

[Immanuel Can]

* 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.

A word of clarification, if you would be so kind.

Does this mean, "What a person thinks claim X means is subjective," or "The actual object to which claim X refers is subjective"?

Not the object. The meaning, including what a term, sentence, etc. is taken to refer to.

I thought that. But I didn't want to assume it without asking, and I realized that others might be reading you differently. Thanks.

[DPMartin]

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.

yea you're right i was out there, it could be from another discussion we had.

[DPMartin]

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.

Facts are states of affairs, or "ways that things are" or "what's the case." A problem if we say that facts in this sense are true is that falsehoods can't be the same sort of thing--there isn't a way that things aren't that is somehow instantiated (an instantiation would be a way that things are, not a way that they're not). In order to talk about fictions, fantasies, etc. we need to be talking about statements that people make, things they imagine, etc., that are contrary to what obtains independent of those statements or imaginings. But that's not the same sort of thing as what facts are (aside from it being a fact that someone imagines whatever they do, for example). Most facts obtain if any people exist or not. That's not the case with falsehoods, fictions, fantasies. So if we make the truth modality a name for, or at least a property of facts, we're stuck with making the falsehood modality a name for, or at least a property of, a very different sort of thing. But that doesn't really make sense when we're talking about modalities.

sorry don't recollect talking about modalities, though to you this may seem to apply. is seems you may have gone the long way to say in the case of truth there is truth, facts if you will, and lies.

in which case the "personal truth" can promote the belief in lies. and if one is correct about what one believes or thinks then they see that as truth. they become facts as in the fact is this is what one thinks. maybe you don't do this, i hope, but the many do.

Re the judgment I'm talking about, I'm talking about for example, someone thinking (the meaning "behind") "The cat is on the mat," and then making a judgment, based on what they've observed, if there is a cat on a mat to "match" that meaning (this is an example if we're using correspondence). If they judge, "Yes, there is a cat on the mat to 'match' the meaning of the sentence 'The cat is on the mat'," then they assign "T" (true) to the sentence "The cat is on the mat." Otherwise they assign "F" (false). Of course, this reads kind of absurdly oversimple, but that's because we can't literally write meanings, observations, etc. We have to write the words (the text strings) correlated to those things.

that's not really judgement though i can see how you see it that way, its acknowledgment. one can see or hear the truth and acknowledge or deny. one doesn't judge whether or not some thing is true or a fact, one acknowledges or denies the truth because the truth is the truth without judgement.

[DPMartin]

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.

Yes. I think they want to attach the dignity of a solid, objective truth to a mere opinion. And in this case, it's an opinion that others find reason to doubt...because otherwise, why call it a "personal truth," instead of just "truth"?

The "personal" part is supposed to shield the claim and give it immunity from inspection for its actual truth value. It's supposed to lift the claim above criticism...but does nothing to prove it's actually true, even if the person speaking it genuinely believes it.

preach it brother

[Terrapin Station]

that's not really judgement though i can see how you see it that way, its acknowledgment. one can see or hear the truth and acknowledge or deny. one doesn't judge whether or not some thing is true or a fact, one acknowledges or denies the truth because the truth is the truth without judgement.

It's a judgment or assessment, and fairly vague at that, because meaning is not at all the same sort of thing as what we're assessing a "match" to. The cat being on the mat, and the observation of the same, isn't the same thing as the meaning of "The cat is on the mat," which is rather a unique sort of associative act that we perform.