Truth and Belief

@Billy phil,

Billy wrote:

am i the only one getting lost here?

Kinda, although I'll admit this thread has really gotten wrapped around the axle. Wow that's new! :rolleyes:

BrightNoon wrote:

Truly, I believe that truth is an idea, not reality, except in that, as an idea, it is a part of reality, just like ping pong paddles, the theory of calculus, the city of Calcutta or anything existent. In other words, there is no truth.

I'm sure I'm getting this wrong, but I'll ask the question anyway: So if something is an idea, it can't exist? Ideas and concepts don't exist? I think I get what you're saying - ideas/concepts are just that - but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist.

Love is a concept, so is 'speed' and happy. Because 'truth' is a concept or idea, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Did I miss the boat?

------

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Hi all,

Truth is a relation, a relation between an object and a subject, the experiece of that relation is reality. The physical world is object to you as subject, the experience of object through sensation is truth relative to your own biology, thus, apparent reality is a biological readout. That which is impenetrable is only considered so, relative to the density of your own biology or its level of impenetrablity, all truth is relative to biology. That which is hot, is only found so relative to the wisdom of the body and the process of the understanding, all meaning is the property of a subject thus, all truth, is subjective.

2 Replies

@boagie,

I'd like to add/reiterate a point here I think very, very important about this whole issue. I'm not sure it refutes or disputes anything said here, but there's an itch at the back of my head that tells me it needs be emphasized. In advance, I'll thank you all for your tolerance on my babbling and welcome input:
--------------

Regarding the Dog Next Door...

There are facts, there are truths, about this thing (even if the 'fact' or 'truth' is that there is no dog, or that he's not a dog at all). The nature, composition, genesis, behavior, existence and effects which I perceive are indeed subjective - as, of course, are those concepts I have of this thing are subjective.

But there exists answers (read: truth) of any fact, any thing and any perception that explains what it is. For all things we perceive, there is somewhere outside our perceptions, truth about what it is we're perceiving. Perhaps what we're perceiving is a hallucination, perhaps we only have "part picture" in a true sense. In any case, there is some truth - some explanation void of subjective interpretations - regarding any perception, concept or explanation.

Now, if I say "all perception of truth is subjective therefore there is no truth", what I'm saying is (in this sense) "If I don't know it, it doesn't exist at all", which strikes me as egotistic in the extreme. That input, that impression came from somewhere; it may only have just a *stub* of truth in it, but even for that stub of evidence or sensory input, there is an explanation. Even if we don't fully know it.

So yea, our relationship to all we encounter, our filters, our mental and emotional subjectiveness all conjures up the nature of perceptional meaning, but this does not preclude the possibility (likelyhood) that some 'truth' exists about what it is perceived.

I think this an important distinction:

It acknowledges that even if flawed, even if completely subjectified, the truth about any notion likely does exist (All perceptions have some basis - even if grossly misconstrued - in reality)

It helps to place us on the path of working to understand; of striving - where appropriate - to get passed our subjective corruptions (utility, correlate support)

It smacks the ego that says "If I can't know it, it's not knowable" - which isn't just an ego that exists at the center of its own universe, but denies any semblence of truth to everyone - which is both counterproductive and counter intuitive (Rational; that there is existence of explanations/truth outside the mind)

It gives credit where credit is due; namely, that (as I believe) any truth we adhere to most-wholeheartedly about any phenomena, likely has some aspect of 'absolute truth'; if even only just a smidge (all sensory input has some basis)

It's logically inconsistent to admit to perceptional flaws and say, "Therefore I cannot know". Admitted flaws and perceptional constructs, once admitted, are just as likely - within this reasoning alone - to be true, as false (rational)

Completely objectivity, complete truth and absolute facts - all these high-minded holy-grails, on any person, place, thing, phenomena rationally must exist at least in some small, infinitesimal part. Even if we're seeing an opposite echo, a thoroughly-corrupted mental copy, that too has its explanation. Even if we're not aware of it.

Hope this has some pale echo of truth to it; but being a product ov my own head at 5:30am, it is therefore all the more subject to my relational construct :perplexed:

Thanks for listening

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

kennethamy,

'iconoclast' is some letters strung together to make a word, an avatar for a person of another name who contributes to a philosophy site, but even his real name is not who he is - which is a far more complex conscious bio-physical reality, and even that is to identify him as an individual, seperate from the physical reality he is in and made up of.

thus, the relation between 'iconoclast' and the fact of these letters appearing on your screen is quite distant - the vast majority of it assumed in your belief:

the point is, it's as true to say that stardust is the cause of these letters appearing on your screen - it's just a different path through the infinite library of information that is reality.

iconoclast - or stardust!

You are confusing the name with the thing (you). The name does not matter. But you, whatever you are named, wrote this post.
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hi all,

all truth, is subjective.

I don't know what it means to say that all truth is subjective, but if you just mean that what we think is true is true (which is the only interpretation I can put on that now) then you must be wrong; since I have often made mistakes, and thought a statement was true when it turned out to be false.
span.span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil,

We are all the centre of our own universe, and the distinction between apparent reality and that of ultimate reality, one knowable on some level the other quite out of our reach, both these situtations are due to the abilities and limitations of our senses. There seems little doubt that the unknown is what supports the known, but it is inescapable that apparent reality is defined by our biology, apparent reality being a biological readout of both our sense perception and the process of our understanding. Ego has nothing to do with direct experience through sensation, apparent reality is effect, is reaction to stimulus, and again apparent reality is biological defined. All meaning is the property of a subject, truth then is subjective, the unknown to, that which is presently out of the range of our senses, if we became able to precieve this formally unknown stimulus it would again be subject to our biology thus, would become apparent reality.Truth again is the relation between subject and object, belief however is not of necessity linked to the truth, one can believe whatever one wishes to, popular religion is the best example I would think.:brickwall:

1 Reply

@boagie,

Hey Boagie,

I think we're very close to the same track, with just one wee difference.

boagie wrote:

... All meaning is the property of a subject, truth then is subjective, the unknown to, that which is presently out of the range of our senses, if we became able to precieve this formally unknown stimulus it would again be subject to our biology thus, would become apparent reality..

You're quite right here; however, is there not truth (read: known or unknown facts about <anything>) that lie outside our perceptions?

If this is true, on any level, then we can't say "... truth is the relation between subject and object"; rather, "... any truth we hold is that relation between... "

It may sound nitpicky, but I think its important to acknowledge.

Thanks Smile

2 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Hey Boagie,

I think we're very close to the same track, with just one wee difference.

You're quite right here; however, is there not truth (read: known or unknown facts about <anything>) that lie outside our perceptions?

If this is true, on any level, then we can't say "... truth is the relation between subject and object"; rather, "... any truth we hold is that relation between... "

It may sound nitpicky, but I think its important to acknowledge.

Thanks

If someone says that the cat is on the mat, how would the truth of that be a relation held between the subject and the object. What sort of relation would that be, and what (who?) would be the subject? Could you clear that up?

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Hey Boagie,

I think we're very close to the same track, with just one wee difference.
You're quite right here; however, is there not truth (read: known or unknown facts about <anything>) that lie outside our perceptions?

If this is true, on any level, then we can't say "... truth is the relation between subject and object"; rather, "... any truth we hold is that relation between... "

It may sound nitpicky, but I think its important to acknowledge.

Thanks

Kehthil,

I think I understand your point, ultimate reality is a given state or condition in your view, and this is truth whether we know it or not----am I reading you right. The fact is truth is meaning, unprecieved stimulus is not effecting our biology nor our process of understanding, there is simply nothing to be said for the unknown accept that it is, unknown. All truth, all meaning, is of the value judgement of the relation between subject and object, and truth can only belong to a conscious subject not its object. That which lies outside the realm of our perception is not available to us for evaluation, and truth is just that, the evaluation of the relation between subject and object.

0 Replies

@de Silentio,

"What did Plato say through Socrates on these matters? In Gorgias, Socrates says knowledge and belief are not the same for you can have a false belief but not a false knowledge. Thus Plato is distinguishing belief from reason.

Truth is what a philosopher (lover of wisdom) attains to, and the only way to truth is through the dialectic. He says this in Parmenides, but it is seen throughout the dialogues as the way Socrates gets his band of me to the truth. Of course, we know from Plato's most famous work, The Republic, that he Forms (which I think he sees as archetypes) are an ultimate reality thus ultimate truths. The philosopher works the dialectic to remember those Forms.

Plato's distinction between belief and truth assumes that reason is the highest form of human endeavor and through that we reach the truth, whereas mere belief, untested by rational faculty is prone to inaccuracy and falsehood.

My own thoughts on this is to question the assumption that Reason is our ultimate endeavor and to ask why the Socratics were compelled to disprove or repress the Pre-Socratics and epic poets. There are "facts" to use as a starting point to see that the world of the Homeric epics were untamed, rules often by tyranny and constantly at war. We hear much the same in Herodotus and Thucydides histories. Reason seems a way of Democratic society and gave order, good or bad, to the polis. Certainly I don't believe the sole purpose was social order, because there is a propensity in people to question and test their own beliefs and knowledge. This, IMHO, is the greatest value in Plato's Socratic Dialogues, "The value of questioning." A favorite quote of mine, one I live by is:

" "...e patient towards all that is unsolved in your heart, and to learn to love the questions ... Do not now seek [or require] the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them...Live the questions now. Perhaps then, without hardly noticing, you will live along some distant day into the answers." ~ Rilke

S.

1 Reply

@Stringfellow,

Stringfellow wrote:

"What did Plato say through Socrates on these matters? In Gorgias, Socrates says knowledge and belief are not the same for you can have a false belief but not a false knowledge. Thus Plato is distinguishing belief from reason.

Truth is what a philosopher (lover of wisdom) attains to, and the only way to truth is through the dialectic. He says this in Parmenides, but it is seen throughout the dialogues as the way Socrates gets his band of me to the truth. Of course, we know from Plato's most famous work, The Republic, that he Forms (which I think he sees as archetypes) are an ultimate reality thus ultimate truths. The philosopher works the dialectic to remember those Forms.

Plato's distinction between belief and truth assumes that reason is the highest form of human endeavor and through that we reach the truth, whereas mere belief, untested by rational faculty is prone to inaccuracy and falsehood.

My own thoughts on this is to question the assumption that Reason is our ultimate endeavor and to ask why the Socratics were compelled to disprove or repress the Pre-Socratics and epic poets. There are "facts" to use as a starting point to see that the world of the Homeric epics were untamed, rules often by tyranny and constantly at war. We hear much the same in Herodotus and Thucydides histories. Reason seems a way of Democratic society and gave order, good or bad, to the polis. Certainly I don't believe the sole purpose was social order, because there is a propensity in people to question and test their own beliefs and knowledge. This, IMHO, is the greatest value in Plato's Socratic Dialogues, "The value of questioning." A favorite quote of mine, one I live by is:

" "...e patient towards all that is unsolved in your heart, and to learn to love the questions ... Do not now seek [or require] the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them...Live the questions now. Perhaps then, without hardly noticing, you will live along some distant day into the answers." ~ Rilke

S.

But whether Plato is right or wrong about reason, isn't it still true that you cannot have false knowledge, but you can have false beliefs? No one can know that 2+2=5, but someone can believe that 2+2=5. If the basis of Plato's view that there is that distinction between knowledge and belief is wrong, that need not mean that his belief that there is a distinction between knowledge and belief is wrong. A false premise may still lead logically to a true conclusion.

0 Replies

@de Silentio,

RE: Truth and Belief ... What are some of your thoughts?

My thoughts are that Truth is one of the Forms or archetypes and as such is immutable. Belief on the other hand can and will change as it is psychological and as such can point toward the Forms, but not fully realize them. And even our knowledge changes as we can see if we take an historic view of what is "known." This then brings a distinction between what "is" and what is known and begs a metaphysical question.

In ancient times, the Atomists proposed their theories and it was only in the past 100 years that we began to make a real attempt at explaining what they intimated. Just recently, Einstein's E=MC(2) formuila was proven by three European Physicists and a supercomputer. And what do they tell us? That the basic "substance of the universe (known as of now) is 95% energy. Now that doesn't mean the atomists had it figured out, but it does show how belief can point to some ultimate truth. And yes the fact is that 2+2=5 had it's part in determining the result the scientists acheived, for without it the computer they used could not have calculated the answer. Smile

S.

1 Reply

@Stringfellow,

Stringfellow wrote:

RE: Truth and Belief ... What are some of your thoughts?

My thoughts are that Truth is one of the Forms or archetypes and as such is immutable. Belief on the other hand can and will change as it is psychological and as such can point toward the Forms, but not fully realize them. And even our knowledge changes as we can see if we take an historic view of what is "known." This then brings a distinction between what "is" and what is known and begs a metaphysical question.

In ancient times, the Atomists proposed their theories and it was only in the past 100 years that we began to make a real attempt at explaining what they intimated. Just recently, Einstein's E=MC(2) formuila was proven by three European Physicists and a supercomputer. And what do they tell us? That the basic "substance of the universe (known as of now) is 95% energy. Now that doesn't mean the atomists had it figured out, but it does show how belief can point to some ultimate truth. And yes the fact is that 2+2=5 had it's part in determining the result the scientists acheived, for without it the computer they used could not have calculated the answer.

S.

all truth is based on faith. All decisions are take at point A based on personal inclination as opposed to rational decision. We decide our opinions then justify them. discuss that! :whoa-dude:

2 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

all truth is based on faith. All decisions are take at point A based on personal inclination as opposed to rational decision. We decide our opinions then justify them. discuss that! :whoa-dude:

Do you think that faith is a kind of evidence that truth is based on, so that if I have faith that God exists, that is evidence that God exists?
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

all truth is based on faith. All decisions are take at point A based on personal inclination as opposed to rational decision. We decide our opinions then justify them. discuss that! :whoa-dude:

I think Plato would say truth is not based on faith but exists a priori. Rather our belief is based on [T]ruth. I am recalling here Plato's famous concept of "remembering" truths (such as geometry and the like), and he shares this in his recount of the Myth of Er at the End of Book X of his Republic. Granted this is his belief, but I think that would be his position.

Taking the idea that philosophy, reason, et al, are psychological at best, (or logic of the living if you will), I agree you have a point about truth being based on faith, or belief if you like. But how do we distinguish what we know from what is. I think I know what Aristotle would say, but I'd like to dig a little deeper into my Big Book of Plato before trying to make an effort at what he might say.

kennethamy wrote:

But whether Plato is right or wrong about reason, isn't it still true that you cannot have false knowledge, but you can have false beliefs?

I agree with this as far as remedial mathematics goes. My knowledge of Algebra and higher math has left my head so I can't say if there is some point at which basic math can be questioned. Euclid has held strong for 2300 years and I'm not going to question him.

S.

2 Replies

@Stringfellow,

There is no logical way to chose logic as your system of thought and belief.

0 Replies

@Stringfellow,

Stringfellow wrote:

I agree with this as far as remedial mathematics goes. My knowledge of Algebra and higher math has left my head so I can't say if there is some point at which basic math can be questioned. Euclid has held strong for 2300 years and I'm not going to question him.

S.

I really don't see what that has to do with it. I cannot know that Quito is the capital of Bolivia, because it isn't. But I can believe that Quito is the capital of Bolivia even it it isn't. The issue has nothing especially to do with math of any kind.
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#[URL="javascript:void(0)"]000000[/URL]; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

I really don't see what that has to do with it. I cannot know that Quito is the capital of Bolivia, because it isn't. But I can believe that Quito is the capital of Bolivia even it it isn't. The issue has nothing especially to do with math of any kind.

Regardless of whether it's math or world capitals, the form of the statement brings an easy answer to your question which you have in fact already answered. But there is a larger question which I have tried to imply given the original query of the thread. It just appears you and I are pointing in different directions of the inquiry.

S.

1 Reply

@Stringfellow,

Stringfellow wrote:

Regardless of whether it's math or world capitals, the form of the statement brings an easy answer to your question which you have in fact already answered. But there is a larger question which I have tried to imply given the original query of the thread. It just appears you and I are pointing in different directions of the inquiry.

S.

I don't understand your allusion. But as long as you agree there is an important distinction between believing and knowing, and that part of the distinction is the one I point to, I am content.
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

0 Replies

@de Silentio,

Statements are true or false based on their content. Arguments are valid or invalid based on their form. That's logic. I'm saying logic deals with true and false as they concern fact. But they are in the province of reason which is part of our psychology and it is IMHO hubris to think that our reason points to the Truth or certainty of things we cannot know. Here I mean ontology. This is a truth Socrates dealt with when he used his dialectic to try and pin down Justice, Truth, Beauty, Love, etc.,. But his tact was the dialectic and the dialectic tries to nail something down to knowledge, which again is psychological. The question of Truth as it stands ontologically is something we can only point to with some rational certainty. It is the allusion. And personally, I agree with Nietzsche that the dialectic is a weapon used when no other weapon is left. It is best used by lawyers, not philosophers, and personally leaves me mistrustful as to all metaphysical questions. I leave you to your path of inquiry and me to mine.

1 Reply

Truth and Belief

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know