gater
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Likes: 22
|
Post by gater on Jan 8, 2020 5:44:15 GMT
When I think of truth I think of temporary, conditional, and infinite. Temporary - Is it hot outside? yes but only for a few hours. Conditional - Is it hot outside? It depends on what you consider hot. Infinite - Something that is true now and has always been true. 2 plus 2 is 4 - ranging from the simple, to the complex nature of the Universe.
Can you think of other kinds? |
|
|
|
Post by kyloscythe91 on Jan 8, 2020 7:25:40 GMT
I'm not sure but there are true truth trajectories...a term I like to say a lot. I know you've already covered everything but I like to talk about truths of fighting manipulation with manipulation. Sorry for not saying much, you know but I thought I could help on trying to help you expand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 8, 2020 13:52:22 GMT
Spatial (territory, place, etc) - "x is truth iff ___ (place) has x, or x belongs to ___"
Modality - "x is truth iff x is possible", "x is truth iff x is necessity" (and so on; epistemic, doxastic...)
Commonness - "x is truth iff x is(isn't) intersubjective"; where "intersubjective" means 'each person can check it by himself'.
Uniqueness - "x is true iff there only one x, and x is unique"
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 9, 2020 4:55:09 GMT
When I think of truth I think of temporary, conditional, and infinite. Temporary - Is it hot outside? yes but only for a few hours. Conditional - Is it hot outside? It depends on what you consider hot. Infinite - Something that is true now and has always been true. 2 plus 2 is 4 - ranging from the simple, to the complex nature of the Universe.
Can you think of other kinds? Category, conceptualization, imaginary, deductive, addictive, inductive, positive, negative, false positive, false negative, classifaction....etc. The question negates itself as type becomes a set which contains all truths including itself, but must be empty of itself if you are to avoid a tautology (which you can't). "Type" is it's own type of truth, its intrinsic emptiness lies in that it must progress to further truths...but if it does so they truths become tautological and the set both contains itself and is empty of itself at the same time...like rings within rings. |
|
KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Jan 9, 2020 5:26:06 GMT
To me Truth isn't an abstract idea. Truth is a person.
|
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jan 9, 2020 7:59:34 GMT
Conditional - Is it hot outside? It depends on what you consider hot. Infinite - Something that is true now and has always been true. 2 plus 2 is 4 - ranging from the simple, to the complex nature of the Universe. Is this distinction so clear? 2 plus 2 is 11 in base 3. A statement in geometry may be true in one geometric system and false in another. Doesn't this extend to everything? Doesn't every truth depend on what axioms you are starting with when you think? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 14, 2020 23:28:26 GMT
Conditional - Is it hot outside? It depends on what you consider hot. Infinite - Something that is true now and has always been true. 2 plus 2 is 4 - ranging from the simple, to the complex nature of the Universe. Is this distinction so clear? 2 plus 2 is 11 in base 3. A statement in geometry may be true in one geometric system and false in another. Doesn't this extend to everything? Doesn't every truth depend on what axioms you are starting with when you think? Truth is all about the axioms you start with. I learned this in university a decade ago. I was tested on x philosophers and never studied except for about 15 minutes before the test. I memorized the axioms and just worked out their arguments from the axioms I studied. I still scored higher than those who studied all week. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jan 15, 2020 21:56:49 GMT
Is this distinction so clear? 2 plus 2 is 11 in base 3. A statement in geometry may be true in one geometric system and false in another. Doesn't this extend to everything? Doesn't every truth depend on what axioms you are starting with when you think? Truth is all about the axioms you start with. I learned this in university a decade ago. I was tested on x philosophers and never studied except for about 15 minutes before the test. I memorized the axioms and just worked out their arguments from the axioms I studied. I still scored higher than those who studied all week. Truth as against Doxa -- Opinion, belief, conjecture [Cf. Plato] -- is not an axiom or what can be constructed out of, or inferred from, axiom(s). What you achieved for your tests was Correctness, not the truths that the philosophers taught or wrote about. Philosophers have always sought true knowledge, not shortcuts (conjectures) and, aside from Spinoza who tried to realize Descartes' dream to create a deductive system, philosophers have engaged in investigative thinking and, in the process, have come up with some important insights in the objects of their thinking. What should be taught in schools (I know from experience as a teacher), should be the recapitulation of philosophical minds, which unfortunately many students cannot do and is not very suitable for testing. (In a graduate philosophy course on Existentialism, one day the teacher approached me to let me consider withdrawing from the course, since he had received various complaints from students that I was asking too many questions, thus participating in the quest... . N0 Way.....) |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 16, 2020 4:30:04 GMT
Truth is all about the axioms you start with. I learned this in university a decade ago. I was tested on x philosophers and never studied except for about 15 minutes before the test. I memorized the axioms and just worked out their arguments from the axioms I studied. I still scored higher than those who studied all week. Truth as against Doxa -- Opinion, belief, conjecture [Cf. Plato] -- is not an axiom or what can be constructed out of, or inferred from, axiom(s). What you achieved for your tests was Correctness, not the truths that the philosophers taught or wrote about. Philosophers have always sought true knowledge, not shortcuts (conjectures) and, aside from Spinoza who tried to realize Descartes' dream to create a deductive system, philosophers have engaged in investigative thinking and, in the process, have come up with some important insights in the objects of their thinking. What should be taught in schools (I know from experience as a teacher), should be the recapitulation of philosophical minds, which unfortunately many students cannot do and is not very suitable for testing. (In a graduate philosophy course on Existentialism, one day the teacher approached me to let me consider withdrawing from the course, since he had received various complaints from students that I was asking too many questions, thus participating in the quest... . N0 Way.....) Opinion is an axiom, as to determine that non truth exists requires a definition as to what opinion is and a loops results. In defining what truth is not you are defining what it is, at best you can assume contexts and have these contexts align with other contexts for a truth value. Now of course this applies to the statements being made right now, thus a self referentiality in context occurs. Truth is self evident as context, context is absolute. The education system is not built for inquisitive thinking, by default it originated in Austrian military indoctrination, if memory serves, thus it's foundational structure is rooted in memorization of assertions, not critical thinking. The best, but most difficult, means of learning is simple trial and error. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 19, 2020 8:11:00 GMT
To me Truth isn't an abstract idea. Truth is a person. I find your position interesting and shaky at the same time. It seems to be closely (maybe not closely as much as I think) to William Craig's position toward the Euthypro Dilemma. He said that in debates - (a) whether God will something, because He's good, or (b) something is good, because God will it, - (there's the third alternative) God (wants to) will something, because He's good (God's own nature is good). Many objected Craig's position, because he's not solved the problem. However, if he'd add that God is good as a person, that would be something different. So, we have to readdress our question to what is the difference between a human and a person? What makes a person to be a person? I see this position shaky, because ad hominem arguments are always hiding. This can be seen in an logical example. Let's say that someone (a) is true (T) aka we may write "Ta". To make any conclusions using Ta we have to know whether this a bears truth, or he has truth, or a is truth as what he is, or we uses truth? Pretty clear to choose that a is truth as what he is. Let's just say that "Snow is white" or "Ws". And almost everyone agrees that Ws. So, (~TavWs)&(~WsvTa) is true, because Ws is true, and Ta by definition. This equation is material, but what if it were intentional? Briefly, it's the same as to say there's a link between Ta and Ws, and if one happens, the other happens or doesn't not happen (or there is another functional link, i.e. in every even time when Ta happens Ws happens too). Could we see any? No. There are no such links. What other propositions Ta could make true? We might say that all its attributes, for example, all the parts of Ta is true by itself. Except Ta we can't rely on any other meaning as true, or false. It gives us nothing. Then we might start asking the same question that Socrates asked Euthyphro - what I described above, and the circle would begin again. |
|
KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Jan 19, 2020 20:06:03 GMT
xxxxxxxxx , On the contrary . . . Truth transcends context. Truth is absolute. Context is finite. Eugene 2.0 , This may be pedantic, but I think you might be conflating true with truth. Truth is absolute, but true is a relation to the Truth. Thats how I think in any case. I have fairly simple reasons for thinking that Truth is a person. Its what Jesus himself said. "I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life" He is truth incarnate. You also asked the question what is the difference between a human and a person. I believe the answer to this is that human is a particular while a person is a generality. All humans are persons but not all persons are human. An example being the persons of the Trinity. You have me at a disadvantage, I don't understand truth tables very well. That class was a long long time ago for me, and I don't think I've read Euthyphro either. The parts of Ta are not true by itself, but is Truth by itself. Everything that is true correlates itself around Ta, including Ws. I think. I guess I could be wrong or there's something I'm not understanding. Perhaps you could help me understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 19, 2020 20:32:13 GMT
xxxxxxxxx , On the contrary . . . Truth transcends context. Truth is absolute. Context is finite. Context is a loop, what we see as multiple contexts is time itself as multiplicity is finiteness, finiteness is the relation of one thing to another as the progression away from one thing to another. You can have 1 absolute context and have finite contexts as an approximation of the Context. To see the one context, from which all other contexts come is impossible unless perceiving through this context back at itself.
Absolute truth exists, relativity is an approximation of it.Eugene 2.0 , This may be pedantic, but I think you might be conflating true with truth. Truth is absolute, but true is a relation to the Truth. Thats how I think in any case. I have fairly simple reasons for thinking that Truth is a person. Its what Jesus himself said. "I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life" He is truth incarnate. You also asked the question what is the difference between a human and a person. I believe the answer to this is that human is a particular while a person is a generality. All humans are persons but not all persons are human. An example being the persons of the Trinity. You have me at a disadvantage, I don't understand truth tables very well. That class was a long long time ago for me, and I don't think I've read Euthyphro either. The parts of Ta are not true by itself, but is Truth by itself. Everything that is true correlates itself around Ta, including Ws. I think. I guess I could be wrong or there's something I'm not understanding. Perhaps you could help me understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 19, 2020 22:07:23 GMT
KGrimYour correction is accepted. Proliferation of the Truth is a high tunnel... this part is really deep. I mean... I can't even imagine Truth, while there are lots of truths are there (I mean "true" by saying "truths" with ordinary letter). You know, I'd like to continue this discussion for the Truth sake. I think there's a sense to do it. First of all, saying that "Truth is absolute" do you agree on "Absolute is Truth" (or "absolute is Truth")? And if this is so, then what do you think of something is absolute? Does absolute mean "everything", or "generalization", or "general inference", or "the last conclusion", or what? I'm really interested in that, because all these questions about what Truth means are driving me crazy. My mind is about to blow thinking all them. What I do think that we need to stay speechless about Truth. But - that is important - our speechless must stay as loud as possible! The second one, "I am the Truth". Yes, I also think that this place in Bible clearly demonstrates us what Jesus wanted to tell us, or God wanted to let us discover through Bible. Anyway, there are some dangers even inside Bible if we would be careless about taking all the words for granted. Recently the Pope proposed (or already done?) to change "Our Father" text in the row "...and lead us not into..." to "...and abandon us not into...". He mentioned to change it for more correct version of thinking. In Greece (aka in original text) "me εἰσενέγκῃς" which means something like "introduce", "to bring in", and so on... Why and what for I'm talking about it now? - I wanted to demonstrate by this example how hard even a word might be, so it's better for us not to take something just like this. The third one, a person or a human. Yes, the distinction may variations. In J. Margolis's "Persons and Minds" the author shows some attitudes on this question (person/human) as an example of percentage of spiritual and physically in our body. Sellars, for example, tried to differentiate this as the intention; he said a person is what must need to build the question "We (creatures) will or won't do type A actions under conditions C" (or "We will or won't do type A actions in case of some circumstances type C"). Strawson, for example, demonstrates that a person is a living creature that sees another creatures like oneself, seeing (similar) behaviour of the others. Usually, we separate persons from plain humans, because of not only some powerful intellectual skills, but for creativity, for progress in arts, and so on. Almost every famous person in science or art (till 90's, I guess) is a person. For the Euthyphro dilemma it might be very helpful, especially in the Craig's version that is kinda weak on the arbitrary point. Hence, God might be Truth, while His nature be truth? Or God is united and He is what His nature? "All humans are persons but not all persons are human" - this, and the previous statement of yours, is what I thought as reversed. This is because in Ukrainian these terms are almost inverted; what we call "person" is someone decent, someone who's not like everyone else, or he proved his uniqueness, while a human is anyone who has brains, and uses it. Surely, I had to rotate terms, but I didn't. About math logic - no there's no worry. Anyway there were nothing special and instructive there. All I wanted to say is what I asked above ("Absolute is Truth"). Any definition of Truth is quite poor.
|
|
KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Jan 19, 2020 23:37:06 GMT
Eugene 2.0The samurai Miyamoto Musashi is alleged to have said that "Truth is what it is and you must bend to its power or live a lie." I subscribe to that definition. The Truth simply is what it is. Now either the Absolute is the Truth, making it just a synonym from which we can infer that the Absolute is what it is or the Absolute is a property of the Truth which would mean that the Absolute is not Truth just as white is not a goose. I'm torn because I want to say that Truth transcends all things and that even the Absolute is just a property of the Truth, but then I want to define the Absolute as the eternal, unchanging, and final. If the absolute is the eternal, unchanging, and final then it cannot be the totality of creation for creation is in a constant flux of change and therefore must be the Creator. However, if we include the Creator but exclude creation do we have the absolute? Would we not need to include creation with the Creator to have the absolute? If that is so would that mean that the Creator alone is not sufficient to be the Absolute? And all this time I've been identifying the essence of Truth with the essence of God, but what if God even transcends Truth! I just don't know. The soul achieves union with God (the Truth?) in silence, yes I agree with you there. I don't think the Pope should be changing the text, the prayer is fine as it is. Often in the bible God's permission for something to happen is expressed as his action such as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart or the sending of deceiving spirits to wayward kings of Israel. I did not know that about the Ukraine. Learn something new every day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2020 20:37:04 GMT
Eugene 2.0 The samurai Miyamoto Musashi is alleged to have said that "Truth is what it is and you must bend to its power or live a lie." I subscribe to that definition. The Truth simply is what it is. Now either the Absolute is the Truth, making it just a synonym from which we can infer that the Absolute is what it is or the Absolute is a property of the Truth which would mean that the Absolute is not Truth just as white is not a goose. I'm torn because I want to say that Truth transcends all things and that even the Absolute is just a property of the Truth, but then I want to define the Absolute as the eternal, unchanging, and final. If the absolute is the eternal, unchanging, and final then it cannot be the totality of creation for creation is in a constant flux of change and therefore must be the Creator. However, if we include the Creator but exclude creation do we have the absolute? Would we not need to include creation with the Creator to have the absolute? If that is so would that mean that the Creator alone is not sufficient to be the Absolute? And all this time I've been identifying the essence of Truth with the essence of God, but what if God even transcends Truth! I just don't know. The soul achieves union with God (the Truth?) in silence, yes I agree with you there. I don't think the Pope should be changing the text, the prayer is fine as it is. Often in the bible God's permission for something to happen is expressed as his action such as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart or the sending of deceiving spirits to wayward kings of Israel. I did not know that about the Ukraine. Learn something new every day. That Miyamoto Musashi seems to be the cool guy, who is he? If I understood his phrase correctly "we ought not to twice meaning". This, as I'd say, sounds familiar to the famous Occam's words (actually, he didn't say that, but who cares?): "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity". However, there's still some troubles: A. If words are meaningless, then they don't represent anything; all the words (symbols) are what it is. For instance, "7" is not a number, but a numeral; this means that "7" has color, size, curveness, and so on. But then how we get "7" adding "3" to "4"? To get the numeral we need to add "1" (as a curve" to "1" (as another horizontal curve). B. If words have meaning, then taking word as it is we do not only take this (de dicto) word, but at the same time we're taking the thing it represents (de re). In this case it's easy to add "3" to "4" without any strange speculations. C. There's no way to understand something, or to claim that one understands, without being able to utter it (or to symbolize it). Conceptualization is the same as reasoning. A and C are contradictory, and taking A is to suppose that C is wrong. If we do, we cut at least a half of what we can do in math, or other fields. B and C, on the other hand, are consistent, and they both allows us to deal with unseen things. Some prefers A and not C to B and C. A and not C is enough for meaning that the powerful computers are almost the reasoning AI. B and C are an opposition to this view. What is the meaning of mine? I think that there's no truth if there's no agreement. I like when everything in peace and goodness. I like to feel like I'm an in Heaven. For me the Heaven is possible to arrange here, in this world, even without its stability. I know that it's enough hard to build, however, our mutual understanding each other, our sharing love to each other, our making gifts to each other, responsibilities to each other, care about each other, welcomeness or hospitality of each other, help to each other... all and much more of it is what can allow us to make the structure of our societies better. I'd like at least to witness such a society; isn't such a society wonderful! The cold truth is not for me. Even science must keep in mind an importance of warm relationship between people. |
|
