Truth and Belief

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.

'Truth' requires 'belief' as existence requires Perspective.

But by 'belief/thought/ego' we'd have no notions of Truth whatsoever.

I don't know how existence require perspective, but there were germs in the 15th century as there are now, but no one believed it.

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 ***** gets the better of them. That is the way of it. C'est la vie.

--- RH.

No one 'believed' it since no one knew it since there were no germs in the 15th century.
Germs were not yet perceived, defined. Germs did not yet exist.
Illness was, then, caused (another 15th century concept, 'causality'..) by demons, witches, evil spirits, god's displeasure, bad karma, etc... Just ask any 15th century physician, layman, priest...

Germs did not exist in the 15th century? Then what caused the Black Death? I think you must mean that germs were not believed to exist in the 15th century. But that, of course, does not mean they did not exist. Before there were people, there were stars, and the Sun. But, no one believed that the Sun and the stars existed. But they existed, nevertheless.

Sorry, science does not support your assertions.
First, 'belief' has nothing to do with it. It's all about perception/observation.
It makes no difference whether you 'believe' what you see or not. The point is that you 'see' it, perceive it.
Second, though i'm not going into all the science involved (you can do your own research if interested, there's more good science every day), I will ask you, though, for any indisputable evidence in support of your claim. Any evidence at all. And, if you somehow find something from then and happen to find a germ on it, that only shows that there is something, Now!, that you identify as a 'germ'. Had they seen it then, they might have called it 'Satan's thumbprint', and that would be what it was, for them! For you, Now, it might be a germ, because 'germs' have become a part of existence when first observed. Definition/observation is existence. There was no dark side of the moon 'till the 60s!

But what that means is only that they believed it was Satan's thumbprint, not of course that is was Satan's thumbprint. And, of course, I believe it was a germ, but, in fact, it was a germ.

The germ theory of disease has been confirmed over and over again, and, in fact, germs have been seen under a microscope.

Of course there was a dark side of the Moon before the 60's and everyone knew about it.

Why do you think that definition/observation is existence?

Whose definition or observation?

Do you think that before you observed your parents they did not exist?

Or do you think that your great-great-grandparents did not exist because no one you have known have observed them?

"But when [we] express only the copy or the likeness and not the eternal things themselves, the need only be likely and analogous to the former words. As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates,amidst the many opinions about ...the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough is we adduce probabilities...and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and inquire no further." (Tim. 29c)

'Believers' often accept their 'beliefs' as 'facts, while contrasting 'beliefs' of others are seen as 'delusions'.
What makes your understanding/belief any more 'fact' than theirs? They thought their 'beliefs' facts just as you seem to.
A 'fact' is equivalent to a 'belief'!


Only recently. Once observed, they are brought into existence.
That witches caused crop failure and disease was proven over and over again, also!

All people ...and germs took over the job?

Did you read and understand the links that I was generous enough to provide for your edification?
It appears not...
Sorry...

But...

For me beliefs are all related to the material world of effect and are all fear based. as I let all my beliefs go the symptoms in the body disapeared, where I now enjoy excellent health, a clear mind, with good eye sight, not needing to wear glasses. Knowledge can only be gained from understanding cause, any normal person can do this, where the effect world is very complex, because it is governed by the five senses

I believe that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. How is that fear-based?
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }