|
Post by Διαμονδ on Mar 29, 2018 22:34:47 GMT
What is Truth!? 2000 years ago, Pilate asked Jesus - "What is truth?"Many years passed and people continue to worry about this issue! What is Truth for you? Interesting is any view, not only religious! We will discuss!
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 29, 2018 22:57:43 GMT
Jesus basically answered him with what is truth in the verse before the question of what is the truth. John 18 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?”
Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
That verse means this verse... John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Mar 30, 2018 7:02:29 GMT
Jesus basically answered him with what is truth in the verse before the question of what is the truth. John 18 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” That verse means this verse... John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Interested in not only a religious perspective on this issue! What is the Truth for you?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 30, 2018 7:05:04 GMT
Like what else is true? Umm....we're alive today and we shape our future whether good or bad it all starts with us and what we want to give. Good always wins too Can't think of anything else right now hmm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 8:08:59 GMT
Statements which are factually correct.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 30, 2018 8:19:54 GMT
Statements which are factually correct. That was a good one! . Sometimes you give like "duh" answers I think
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 13:23:10 GMT
Jesus basically answered him with what is truth in the verse before the question of what is the truth. John 18 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” That verse means this verse... John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Elizabeth, what translation of the Bible are you using here?
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Apr 2, 2018 19:39:45 GMT
Statements which are factually correct. That was a good one! . Sometimes you give like "duh" answers I think Actually this isn't a "duh" answer, but rather is the correspondence theory of truth. For me, truth is relative and is what is reliable/trustworthy over the long term. Saying that a statement is factually correct assumes absolute truth which I don't believe in, so this is meaningless to me.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 2, 2018 21:44:44 GMT
Jesus basically answered him with what is truth in the verse before the question of what is the truth. John 18 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” That verse means this verse... John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Elizabeth, what translation of the Bible are you using here? NKJV
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 2, 2018 21:47:05 GMT
That was a good one! . Sometimes you give like "duh" answers I think Actually this isn't a "duh" answer, but rather is the correspondence theory of truth. For me, truth is relative and is what is reliable/trustworthy over the long term. Saying that a statement is factually correct assumes absolute truth which I don't believe in, so this is meaningless to me. Got confused. You mean absolute truth doesn't exist or it exists if it can be proven to still be truth over time?
|
|
Leebert
New Member
Posts: 27
Likes: 20
Age: 20
|
Post by Leebert on Apr 3, 2018 0:11:23 GMT
In my own view truth is the established ideas through social consent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 7:50:21 GMT
Actually this isn't a "duh" answer, but rather is the correspondence theory of truth. For me, truth is relative and is what is reliable/trustworthy over the long term. Saying that a statement is factually correct assumes absolute truth which I don't believe in, so this is meaningless to me. Got confused. You mean absolute truth doesn't exist or it exists if it can be proven to still be truth over time? I think he meant exactly what he'd meant: the truth is relative so fschmidt is relative too. Probably, his speech is to confuse you. It reminded me Theaethetus of Plato, where Greeks discussing of senses started to understand that our sensoring system is relative, but the case of that we might to hold 'relatively' as a solid notion. So, 'relatively' itself is a solid thing. I think that Einstein's known it, he's as dialectical as the ancient Sophists; so, often people didn't find something but make other people be confused, and how mastered it can be done, than more people will understand it as the truth. The more speaks the more sticks. Thus, buying news, media and sharing lie into ears of naive believers the ones get all they need - to work sheep on the shepherds. This practice was so common and old that even the ancient Egyptians knew it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 7:51:58 GMT
In my own view truth is the established ideas through social consent. So, through the history, right?
|
|
Leebert
New Member
Posts: 27
Likes: 20
Age: 20
|
Post by Leebert on Apr 3, 2018 8:24:01 GMT
In my own view truth is the established ideas through social consent. So, through the history, right? I don't fully understand what you meant by through history, but let me say this, there is no objective history and history is filled with interpretations even though the fact is there but some missing facts are the main obstacle of historians and thus it could create many interpretations, some interpretations might close to the truth and some might even stray from it. So history is history. Truth can be something as a fact of natural reality and it could be something that o socially constructed accepted morality through social consent For instance, 1. fire is hot (absolute truth) 2. fire is cold (absolute falsehood) 3. being devout of your religion indicates that you're a decent individual (this can be truth/false) it depends on what kind of society you lived in
4. Rebelling against God and deviate from its teaching means that you're an indecent individual (this can be truth/false) it depends on which kind of society you lived in
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 9:01:32 GMT
So, through the history, right? I don't fully understand what you meant by through history, but let me say this, there is no objective history and history is filled with interpretations even though the fact is there but some missing facts are the main obstacle of historians and thus it could create many interpretations, some interpretations might close to the truth and some might even stray from it. So history is history. Truth can be something as a fact of natural reality and it could be something that o socially constructed accepted morality through social consent For instance, 1. fire is hot (absolute truth) 2. fire is cold (absolute falsehood) 3. being devout of your religion indicates that you're a decent individual (this can be truth/false) it depends on what kind of society you lived in
4. Rebelling against God and deviate from its teaching means that you're an indecent individual (this can be truth/false) it depends on which kind of society you lived in I absolutely agree with you in this subject. Sorry me, for being not understandable. I wanted to say that social affairs is the history affairs of the society (or the community). Because, occasionally the society can be represented by many shared ways, and be grouped really differently. According to democracy, if they all are citizens and do exactly with laws, than their will makes everything clearly. But I think we should distinguish societies with the past and just grouped societies. Usually, a society with past is either a group with their common material things (estates, weapons, clothes... things which is belonging to traditions) and non-material, spiritual traditions. I uphold a modern liberal view on it, so I reckon own free choice is higher than traditions, but it's clearly to me that the groups wanting to stay in traditions also have their rights. That's why I was talking of the history as the subject of society which can be 'the truth' in our vision. Speaking of the nature of facts and its separating, yes you have showed it very well. I just want to add that the truth can be something that relates to material things as like we're saying about the right position of some parts, and it also can be understand as an extensional (comparing to an intentional) when we're speaking for example in the logic of statements. Such facts as in example 'fire is hot' are coherence truth, because notions and their senses inside the sentence are consolidated with each other. Everything else is just either relative, or gibberish (R. Carnap's 'Counter Metaphysics' deals with these questions in more detail manner). But, I also want to add because of the nature of meaning/sense (sometimes we can understand one instead of another. So, I'll be talking about the meaning understanding it like - something opposite to an referent of any notion or a sentence, but however transferring through it; for example, if someone says 'to the barricades!' it has no actual 'truth/false' categories, but it does has sense ('meaning' in my current speech). I want to say that history can be represented in just material things: documentary, decorative vases, buildings, shrines, pots... etc, but all these things, except documentary, can be just group together in straight coherent manner, and that's all. Most documentary facts can be interpreted according to your method, that has been descried upper. Besides, we can get many meanings, and anyway we can's get to the truth, because the truth won't be reached by the method. However, what should we do with moving of meanings? The one had told 'to the barricades', and everyone went to it, but there was no common parts, there was necessary no causes links between 'the one said: to the barricades' (P) and 'they moved to barricades' (Q), because we can get truly conjunctions: (P and not-Q), (not-P and Q). So, historians never be sure about real reasons of it. Anyway, we can see that in such circumstances may be the link. Such link is not extensional, but intentional meaning transferring. A meaning from 'to the barricades' was transported to 'they went to the barricades'. The nature of intentional logic is more shared today, because of topics in Western Philosophy of Consciousness - The Analytic Philosophy of Consciousness. There's an presupposition (or a theory?) of our consciousness building of meaning and their transportation from one situation to another. It's interesting too that some psychoanalytics like Jung have appeared right in the question of this having discussions of mythologies as the key to the nature of our consciousness. Please, I'm sorry for large letter, I hope you like it.
|
|