Reply Thu 26 Oct, 2006 07:36 pm
Plato was deeply concerned with the difference between belief and truth.

What are some of your thoughts?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 28,077 • Replies: 340
No top replies

 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Oct, 2006 07:47 pm
@de Silentio,
I think that Plato should have got over it by now.
0 Replies
 
Justin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 08:23 am
@de Silentio,
I haven't spent any time reading any of Plato philosophy but if your mind accepts something as belief, it seem that it would be your truth. What the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve.
0 Replies
 
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 05:02 pm
@de Silentio,
I think Plato realized that his thoughts were taken as gospel by many people, and thought it would be amusing to instill foolish philosophies into their minds.

I believe it, so it must be truth...stupidity.
pilgrimshost
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2006 10:59 am
@Aristoddler,
Anything can saticfy the need for truth, belief is so crucial to ourselfs that it isnt even important what it is in. To claim that one doesnt believe anything at all is a clear contradiction in terms. Therefore truth is definatly subjective and its only criteriar is that one acsepts it as truth. To eventually discover that a 'truth' is in fact not so or even the doubt of this certanty is raised can cause a critical imballance to the equilibrium; thus the void will need to be filled, with an answer to the dilema what is the 'truth'. I think it is never the issue weather it is fact or not but if it saticfys our understanding of our environment it will serve its purpose perfectly. So this is probably the absolute destiction of what makes us Human.
0 Replies
 
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2006 04:09 pm
@de Silentio,
truth is what fact is.

belief is what one chooses to percieve as the truth.

broken is what my shift button is right now.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 02:34 am
@de Silentio,
I perceive that comprehension differs.

The fact is that online dictionaries were already available:

Truth

Belief


-- RH.
0 Replies
 
pilgrimshost
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 05:05 am
@de Silentio,
Well actually the 'known' truth or fact of something is always later changed, altered or differs from the original 'fact' or truth of something. Regardless of what it is. So a deffinition of the word is not actually satisfactory, as the understood meaning is constructed as a tool for use in itself, as meanings of words also change in time also. Ultimatly its the mind or the personal self that dissides the creates something to be true, then in the future, something else either takes its place or it has a new set of 'truths' linked to it.
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 03:47 am
@de Silentio,
How do we know this then, that the fact of something past is always changed later?

To be sure of a doubt such as that I'd have to know the truth of the past in order to compare it with my own recollection of it, in which case on which basis am I to trust my version as opposed to yours or his?

It was always rather self evident to me anyway that the present is always changing, so how come then that the past would rather be fixed, forever unchanged? Seems unfair to me, for the past to be so dead and done.

As I have opined before, if there is such a thing as free will, then there is no such thing as a fixed, pre determined reality. Logically there would rather be an infinite number of possible realities, and therefore an infinite number of previous realities also to be taken into consideration, for free will is the mother of perception, hence the invention of reality, just as much as determinisim is the deaf dumb and blind bastard son of it.

And before some mother ****** brother of a straw man attempts to announce as if on my behalf that this is somehow a "belief" of mine, allow me please to declare in advance that it is no such thing. My conclusion is rationally arrived at, according to the best available information and method, the modern alternatives to truth and belief, to be preferred if only because of their improved feasibility.

Information permits me at least to calculate a probablity. Truth and belief were never nearly so generous.

Give Plato a break. Let him be. ... doesn't do to speak ill the dead, no longer here to answer to us.

Guys go philosphical when some mean bitch gets the better of them. That is the way of it. C'est la vie.

--- RH.
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 04:08 pm
@de Silentio,
I only used Plato as an example.

Any named or unnamed man of philosophy in those times could have swayed the masses with pseudo-intellectual thoughts, if he so chose to do so.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 12:17 am
@Aristoddler,
Aristoddler wrote:

....Any named or unnamed man of philosophy in those times could have swayed the masses with pseudo-intellectual thoughts, if he so chose to do so.


Really?

Is this true, or more of a belief?

Without knowing too much about the information technology in action 2000 years before the invention of the printing press, I am wondering how it happened, in terms of the general believing.
0 Replies
 
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Nov, 2006 10:40 pm
@de Silentio,
It's an assumption.

My assumption.


And without the printing press, I would assume that word of mouth would be the most common method of media so to speak...which would also lead me to assume that his origianl words of wisdom were incredibly misconstrued by the time they did get to printed form.
So this leads me to wonder what he really said?
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 03:13 am
@de Silentio,
How good it would be on the odd occasion if they'd stop to wonder what I'd really said, today or the day before.

Two thousand years after the event, why worry?

"...All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest, hmmmm, li, lie lie,..."

(Paul Simon)



pilgrimshost
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 05:07 am
@perplexity,
Religion, the hub of belief is descovered to be of alternative origins from which it supposedly began and thus is not 'true'. Science gets 'updated', it has flaws (gaps) that are 'covered' over by 'theories' and not then true indeed. The Universe itself is the 'Great unknown'. Every fact about it is just theories an insignificant race on an insignificant world in an insignificant galaxy has devised to try and understand it. Isnt it strange that any so called certanty is subject to be questioned? Logic is not universal as many things that defy logical principles seem to exist, so itself is not a rule. Words have no fact in them that can be drawn apon as truth to an existance or proper meaning; Psykic-is it actually true to exist as the definition proclaims: telekanesis, extra terrestorals, Reserection, omnipresence, God, Reincarnation. So if a word has a meaning it also is subject to change.

Facts are often just the majority opinion. History, science religion ect.Such as the origin of the pyrimids, or the purpose of stone henge.

Therefore; Belief=fact. truth=myth. Smile
freaky monkey
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Nov, 2006 04:35 pm
@pilgrimshost,
It's certainly true to say that science gets "updated" with noticeable examples such as string theory, relativity, quantum mechanics, macro and micro evolution etc. However, 1 + 1 =2. Is this a truth and if so can it or will it ever change? Is mathematics the ultimate truth?
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 02:57 am
@freaky monkey,
pilgrimsHost wrote:
Belief=fact. truth=myth.


That is nice.

You could say that I do believe that there is some truth to it.

Truth and belief are narrative issues, both of them, all about the telling of stories.


freaky_monkey wrote:
However, 1 + 1 =2. Is this a truth and if so can it or will it ever change?


1 + 1 =2 is obviously not a truth.

How come they fall for such a silly nonsense?

The scientific equation, the notion of identical equity is one of the most absurd yet one of the most persistent fallacies. In so far as it is possible to experience the separation of entities as if to suppose to propose a set of two or more, the entitites may therefore be similar enough to compare for ordinary purposes, but it is equally axiomatic that the entities are are therefore separate and different, not absolutely indentical.

It is contrary to ordinary experience to propose even that anything stays the same as compared to itself for two conseqential seconds in a row, let alone as compared to anything apart. That is simply not how life is.

Stuff moves, Everything changes, all the time. Come and go. Live and die, divided in order to multiply.

freaky_monkey wrote:

Is mathematics the ultimate truth?


To sophisticatedly investigate an opinion of the inadequacy of abstract conception one might also refer to Albert Einstern's chum, , whose wonderful irony was to invoke mathematics as if to mock the very flesh of itself that we feed upon.

The truer it gets, the more absurd it is.

--- RH.
0 Replies
 
freaky monkey
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 12:40 pm
@de Silentio,
"1 + 1 =2 is obviously not a truth." Obviously educational standards are as high as ever!
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 03:52 am
@de Silentio,
Pronouns are profoundly deceptive, not truthful.
When the disingenuous are presented with a pronoun they rather take it as an open opportunity to deliberately misinterpret.

If I say that "this is that" or that "that is not this", it may be as absolutly true as I want it to be to me, but it would not be wise or polite to expect to mean as much to you.

My wife annoys with this on a daily basis, the use of pronouns to refer to whatever she had in her head but which is yet to require a five minute interrogation to catch up with what whatever she thought she was on about.

"Pattern-recognition is a throwing away of information.
Any device that can lose information can generalize."
---(W Ross Ashby)

For as far as I am then concerned, for instance, "God" is the ulitimate pronoun, to the extent that it takes forever and a day to work out what exactly the word would mean, blessed with a Capital Letter or otherwise.

--- RH.

0 Replies
 
freaky monkey
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 04:02 am
@de Silentio,
"1 + 1 =2 is obviously not a truth". non sequitur!
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Jan, 2007 12:05 pm
@freaky monkey,
freaky monkey,

Pragmatism,utterly necessary for the continuation of life as we know it.Truth,that's very very funny!! Nietzsche:There are no facts only interpretations.Help!!They are coming to my room again!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Truth and Belief
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/20/2019 at 04:33:27