boagie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2007 10:49 am
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
Plato was deeply concerned with the difference between belief and truth.

What are some of your thoughts?


My thought would be that truth is a qualified reality,meaning apparent reality or ultimate reality-truth is things fall down.A belief does not need to be true or false to be held,it has no relation to truth.

"reality[truth]is to the individual perception,to the group reality[truth] is agreement." Time for my meds!
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 12:26 pm
@boagie,
I think it may be difficult to put a clear line of demarcation between truth and belief. On one hand, it may seem that belief and truth are on opposite ends of a line, and yet there is a great deal of overlap between them.

The main difference between belief and truth may well be that of perception: perception of what it means to know something, and perception of man's ability (or inability) to know something.

Intuitively, I would say that the more certainty that a person has about knowing "such-and-such" to be factual, the more likely they are to perceive "such-and-such" as a truth. Whereas, if a person perceives that there is information about "such-and-such" that they currently don't have, or are unable to obtain, but that could disprove "such-and-such"; then they might see their views on "such-and-such" as being a belief (many infinite and/or abstract concepts could well fall under the heading of belief): theory could be a very close synonym to belief.

So a truth may be nothing more than the highest level of belief: a level reserved for those beliefs that are perceived to fulfill the criteria of knowing everything there is to know about said belief, and knowing that everything about said belief is factual. But the future always threatens to reveal facts and human misperceptions that may well relegate a truth to simple belief status, or may well change it to an outright lie or error.
0 Replies
 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 12:37 pm
@Aristoddler,
Smile What does one have to do with the other? Because you believe something it obviously does not make it true:eek: Because evolutionary biology is true, you do not have to believe it Very Happy Look at all them creationists!!

Smile Is not this the best understanding we can have of truth, that it is of the relation between subject and object. Truth is relational understanding/knowledge. Through said understanding I believe I cannot independently fly. I would say that is truth, relative to myself as subject and the thin air as object, it is my belief, my judgement of that said relation between subject and object, and it is true.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 06:49 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Smile What does one have to do with the other?


Truth relies on agreement.

Agreement relies on belief.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 07:17 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Truth relies on agreement.:eek:

Agreement relies on belief.
:eek:

Perplexity,Smile

Certainly agreement is essential for the group to conclude truth. This needs further examination though, belief, and agreement are not a guarantee of truth, simply a guarantee of group thought, which is far from infallible.


"A Lone Voice Does Not Make One Wrong." Dr Laura :eek:
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 07:54 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Truth relies on agreement.

Agreement relies on belief.


And yet, truth has usually started with an individual speaking out against the agreements of a group; and what the group believed or held to be the truth.

It seems that if something is actually the truth, it is so independent of agreement. If something is actually a truth, there can and should be agreement; however if something is held to be the truth simply because it is agreed upon, it is nothing more than a popular view. It seems that history has shown us that the truth and the convictions of belief have always had to withstand being unpopular.
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 11:53 am
@boagie,
Infallible truth is a belief.

Agreement is fallible.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 12:12 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Infallible truth is a belief.

Agreement is fallible.


perplexity,Smile

"Infalliable truth is belief."If belief is falliable are we not just playing with semantics here, it seems to me to come too nonsense. On an individual level reason counts upon the clearity of perception, both are falliable but its the best that can be done. Actually infalliablity is like perfection, in that it does not exist.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 01:46 pm
@boagie,
In so far as belief does not rely on agreement, belief is not therefore fallible.

Infallibility infers absolute agreement, eternally.

What then happens is that as soon as somebody claims an infallible truth somebody else comes along with an alternative infallibility, etc.

Nonsense indeed.
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 09:07 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
In so far as belief does not rely on agreement, belief is not therefore fallible.

Infallibility infers absolute agreement, eternally.

What then happens is that as soon as somebody claims an infallible truth somebody else comes along with an alternative infallibility, etc.

Nonsense indeed.



But doesn't it seem a bit wrong to attribute either infallibility or fallibility to truth: isn't that like saying that the circumference of the earth is fallible, because Eratosthenes' calculations were a bit off (mostly due to the limits of his measuring devices, rather than his calculations). I would think that it is only appropriate to apply fallibility to intellect and reason.

Through the ages, there have been many calculations of the circumference of the earth (as well as a period where some, not all, believed the earth to be flat); before the current age, with the help of much more accurate measuring devices, the circumference has been determined to be 24,901.55 miles around the equator and 24,859.82 miles through the poles. But regardless of the past human calculations/views of the Earth's circumference, the actual truth of the Earth's circumference was always there, unchanged by man's fallible intellect and reason.

And though truth doesn't seem to have any significance (some may even postulate existence) outside of intellect and reason, it also doesn't seem to be dependent on intellect and reason. It can only make sense that intellect and reason go about ascertaining the truth, not creating the truth: intellect and reason creating the truth would truly make the truth too ethereal and meaningless. Social convention may label some view as the truth, and thereby create a type of "working knowledge;" but the actual truth is still independent of this "working knowledge," even if the "working knowledge" is correct.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 10:48 am
@Isa,
"Actual truth" is infallible truth in drag, a belief.

"... for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so:..."

(Hamlet Prince of Denmark, Act 2, Scene 2 )


Dictionaries attribute fallibility to people, directly or indirectly.

"What a piece of work is man!"
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 03:48 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
"Actual truth" is infallible truth in drag, a belief.

"... for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so:..."

(Hamlet Prince of Denmark, Act 2, Scene 2 )


Dictionaries attribute fallibility to people, directly or indirectly.

"What a piece of work is man!"



The forceps of our minds are clumsy forceps, and crush the truth a little in taking hold of it. --H.G. Wells
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 05:38 pm
@Isa,
One more quote:

"When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless." -- Bertrand Russell, "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?"
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 08:31 pm
@Isa,
Truth relies on agreement.

Agreement is actual.
0 Replies
 
l0ck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 10:41 pm
@de Silentio,
theres no conclusive evidence anything exists beyond the mind
but we dont have to believe that do we? No
and most of us don't
belief is a choice made by the individual
but it seems that truth is what we believe it is
then our reality's are that as well
consciousness seems to be inter-connected because large groups of people believe the same things
awareness however is very separated because belief and truth are still separated
but i can honestly say awareness wants to heighten and we can see that by changes in the environment and changes in beliefs
take this forum for example
or the internet, it exists does it not?
its a brand new reality we consciously created
and its entire purpose is to heighten our awareness
why has this come into formation?
think of how the internet will forever change the truth and the beliefs
we as separated beings now with the internet have the chance to compare our reality's with each other and expand our beliefs
and that can only lead to heightened awareness
think of how that will change the environment once awareness reaches the point where belief and truth intersect
Justin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 11:00 pm
@de Silentio,
I just got into that a bit in another forum and it's funny, because truth and belief are also two different schools of thought. Truth - Philosophy and Religion - Belief. This is the difference between thinking with the brain or thinking with the mind. I agree with you here l0c. Here
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 06:55 am
@l0ck,
To illustrate:

Scientific axioms are beliefs, infallible truth imposed upon the indivudual, indoctrinated not chosen, as with religious belief in the middle ages.

Truth relies on such an agreement. In order to agree we convene to agree on what an agreement is. To play the game of logical science one is obliged to abide by the creed of science, and this applies if you do but agree with yourself.

Perception is all about agreement, pattern recognition.
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 09:12 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
To illustrate:

Scientific axioms are beliefs, infallible truth imposed upon the indivudual, indoctrinated not chosen, as with religious belief in the middle ages.

Truth relies on such an agreement. In order to agree we convene to agree on what an agreement is. To play the game of logical science one is obliged to abide by the creed of science, and this applies if you do but agree with yourself.

Perception is all about agreement, pattern recognition.


Firstly; just because someone/some group attempts to impose their will on the masses, by doing it in the name of, or misusing, something that would otherwise be considered a positive virtue/concept (faith, science, peace, justice, love, "the betterment of mankind" etc.); does not mean that heinous abuse is inherent in that virtue. It just means that evil, greedy, power hungry humans will do, say, and use anything to get what they want. Just look at any dictator/tyrant, to see if this isn't the case: in other forms of government, it may be more subtle, but just as true.

Secondly; we should never concede to behaving like a herd of ignorant cows being led to the slaughter. Whatever "powers" you may perceive that are trying to influence/impose their beliefs/infallible truths on you, the only real power they have over you, is the power you give them. The worst thing about becoming an "ignorant cow" isn't loosing the power of free thought; it is that it empowers the very group that is being abusive: Nazi Germany would not have happened if enough people would have refused to become "ignorant cows". We do not have to "agree" with anything we know to be wrong.

Thirdly; to accept that truth is nothing more than something that is agreed upon, or worse yet something that one is forced to agree with, relegates "truth" to being nothing more than the most powerful dogma. What is the purpose of philosophy, reason, logic, free will; if the only truly important thing to achieving "truth" is having the power to force other people to agree with your dogma? And though I agree that this dogmatic jihad has, and does go on; I refuse to accept that this dogmatic jihad has anything to do with an honest pursuit of what is actually the Truth, other than just being another obstacle.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 11:46 am
@Isa,
"Truth" is a word.

For the word to be meaningful we have to agree what it means.


Isa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 01:07 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
"Truth" is a word.

For the word to be meaningful we have to agree what it means.




If "Truth" is just a word
Then there can be no sense of "Truth" without the word,
So why did anyone have to develope/coin the word "Truth" to begin with?

Even if we all agreed that the word "Truth" meant anything that Tyrant A would say; it seems that we would not really have agreed upon what the essence of "Truth" is, but rather we would now have to come up with a new word that would convey the meaning of the concept that we currently us the word truth for.

You're right; semantics and the essence of something always seem to be at odds.
 

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
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/20/2019 at 02:26:23