Philosopher's Corner: What is Truth?

[Mise]

That's only a truth because that's how we define two, one, and greater than.

Yeah, exactly. If you prefer, "blue is blue" is a 'stronger' truth than "the sky is blue".

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Truth is not an illusion

(that looked weird when I typed it)

 

[Bill3000]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Thread over.

More explicitly, this is an academic subject in which what one should do is look over the academic consensus of what truth is, not randomly discuss. It isn't something that layman can simply define, as it already has been defined rigorously by people who know their stuff. A thread like this is like a thread entitled, "How old is the Earth?" - because people at Civfanatics are not, in general, philosophers, and are thus not qualified to answer the question.

 

[Brighteye]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Thread over.

More explicitly, this is an academic subject in which what one should do is look over the academic consensus of what truth is, not randomly discuss. It isn't something that layman can simply define, as it already has been defined rigorously by people who know their stuff. A thread like this is like a thread entitled, "How old is the Earth?" - because people at Civfanatics are not, in general, philosophers, and are thus not qualified to answer the question.

This is philosophy. It is simply abuot thinking, logic and debate. It's ridiculous to tell us all that academics know better than we do about these things: we all have faculties of reason, and philosophy is merely about applying them.

Philosophy is therefore perhaps the only academic discipline in which no knowledge is required. We can all be philosophers simply by choosing to discuss philosophical questions.
What else distinguishes a layman from an academic? Is it that the academic can parrot endless examples of what other people thought? That means nothing to me. What matters is whether he can refine ideas, discuss new ones and find the flaws in ideas here.
That is something he may be better at, but on which he certainly has no monopoly.

 

[warpus]

Absolute Truth is the one state of reality.

Our truth is an interpretation of that based on our perception.

Ahh but according to quantum physics and the heisenberg uncertainty principle truth exists in a state of flux = no absolute truth.

I would say that only trivial truths are absolute.. such as.. 2+2=4 and "We live on a planet"

 

[punkbass2000]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Thread over.

More explicitly, this is an academic subject in which what one should do is look over the academic consensus of what truth is, not randomly discuss. It isn't something that layman can simply define, as it already has been defined rigorously by people who know their stuff. A thread like this is like a thread entitled, "How old is the Earth?" - because people at Civfanatics are not, in general, philosophers, and are thus not qualified to answer the question.

Only philosophers may discuss truth? We can't decide for ourselves?

 

[Lotus49]

I must report that I have come to know (not just think/believe/speculate) that there is only one Truth, and you either know Him, or you don't. This inexorable conclusion is the result of my entire lifetime's deep philosophical thought, indeed with the primary intention of seeking the ultimate truth. Alas, truth CAN be known, and be shared - all you have to do is turn to the one that has/is it.

Otherwise, you can speculate and spin your wheels until you're blue in the face. For the pure gain that comes from that experience (thinking it all out carefully - exploring), that can be a healthy exercise. But if you really seek and desire the Truth strongly enough, in the end you see there is only one source, and you will accept Him. That is the only way you can be connected to Truth, and you must be content to be shown more gradually over time, when you are ready. It takes time, patience, and faith. Faith - in that you are being led by one that is looking out for your best interest. It is here that most fail, because they are deceived into thinking something else is the case.

Thus it's all about humility - something which flies in the face of a great calculating and deep thinking mind. A humble position... but if that is indeed the reality, once you realize it, if you refuse to accept it - you are no longer a philosopher, but a fool.

 

[colontos]

Some people have been hinting at the language issue. For example "two is larger than one" is only true because of what the words "two," "one," and "larger" mean. Change the definition and you change the truth. This is a central argument of post-modernism and deconstructionism.

So what then is the relationship between signifier and signified? Does reality only consist of the signifiers we use to represent it (and thus is completely mutable)? What really "is" the signified? Does the signified (the noumena, if you will) really exist somewhere, and if so, can we ever access or perceive it? Or are all of these questions a meaningless exercise when solid A=A reality is staring us right in the face?

 

[punkbass2000]

Or are all of these questions a meaningless exercise when solid A=A reality is staring us right in the face?

Depends how hungry you are.