perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 01:43 pm
@Isa,
Isa wrote:
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?


We say "true" to denote agreement.

The definitions of "truth"

Truth - Definitions from Dictionary.com

and "true"

true - Definitions from Dictionary.com

all require some sort of agreement or actuality.

This is how the word is actually used.
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:05 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
We say "true" to denote agreement.

The definitions of "truth"

Truth - Definitions from Dictionary.com

and "true"

true - Definitions from Dictionary.com

all require some sort of agreement or actuality.

This is how the word is actually used.


This is true (sorry), these are some of the connotations of the words "true" & "truth;" however, you really need to be careful not to fall into this trap of looking for the meaning pea in a semantic shell game. All of the connotations conveyed in statements like: her love is true. . ., he truly cared. . . , his work was true to the original. . . , he is a truthful man. . .; do not convey the meaning or the denotation of the term "The Truth", required when it is used as a philosophical term.

The denotation of the word "Truth", as used philosophically, would be in the sense of: "1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth."


In the philosophical sense, the phrase:

He tried to find out the "agreed upon meaning of a matter"

does not come close to conveying the intended use of the term "Truth" in the statement:

He tried to find out the truth.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 05:33 am
@Isa,
A truth you try find is a truth yet to be agreed.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 05:21 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
Plato was deeply concerned with the difference between belief and truth.

What are some of your thoughts?


Some beliefs are true, and some are false.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 05:26 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
Plato was deeply concerned with the difference between belief and truth.

What are some of your thoughts?


Some beliefs are true, and some are false. I used to believe that Rio de Janeiro is the capital of Brazil. That is false. Now I believe that Brasilia is the capital of Brazil. And that is true.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 10:47 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Some beliefs are true, and some are false. I used to believe that Rio de Janeiro is the capital of Brazil. That is false. Now I believe that Brasilia is the capital of Brazil. And that is true.


Beware of loose logic.

If you used to believe that Rio de Janeiro is the capital of Brazil but that is false, the truth could be that you used to believe that Brazilia is the capital of Brazil, which was false before Brazilia was built, when Rio de Jeneiro was the Capital of Brazil, which is true.

While belief is not immune from truth,
a truth is not immune from disbelief.

There is no truth exept to rely on belief, though belief does not rely on truth.

That is the crucial difference.
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 07:31 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Beware of loose logic.

If you used to believe that Rio de Janeiro is the capital of Brazil but that is false, the truth could be that you used to believe that Brazilia is the capital of Brazil, which was false before Brazilia was built, when Rio de Jeneiro was the Capital of Brazil, which is true.

While belief is not immune from truth,
a truth is not immune from disbelief.

There is no truth exept to rely on belief, though belief does not rely on truth.

That is the crucial difference.


Actually, belief does rely on truth. A belief is simply a view that one holds that, at this point, has not been proven or disproved. Once there is sufficient proof to prove that a belief is true, that belief becomes a truth. Once there is sufficient proof to disprove a belief, that belief becomes a fallacy.

If one believes a fallacy, it is not a belief, it is a delusion. In that I am not Jesus Christ, if I would believe that I was Jesus Christ, that would not be a belief, that would be a delusion.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 03:47 pm
@Isa,
By definition a belief is held for want of truth to rely on:

"confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof"

Belief - Definitions from Dictionary.com

What may or may not eventually turn out to be true or false is alternatively called uncertainty, which is nothing to rely on, nor what we usually call belief.

To the contrary, we credit the strength of belief in terms of certainty.

The requisite reliance is actual, not theoretical.
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 05:36 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
By definition a belief is held for want of truth to rely on:

"confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof"

Belief - Definitions from Dictionary.com

What may or may not eventually turn out to be true or false is alternatively called uncertainty, which is nothing to rely on, nor what we usually call belief.

To the contrary, we credit the strength of belief in terms of certainty.

The requisite reliance is actual, not theoretical.


I would have to agree with you.

" . . . we credit the strength of belief in terms of certainty." The more certain one is of a view, the stronger the belief; correct? 100% certain of a view would seem to imply that it is an accepted fact: a truth. 99% certain of a view would seem to imply a very strong belief; with a 1% chance of being wrong: but even with a chance of being wrong, I would not qualify that as an uncertainty.

I was not saying that a belief is something that a person has no idea whether or not it is true; rather that one cannot be 100% certain that it is true.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 05:53 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Beware of loose logic.

If you used to believe that Rio de Janeiro is the capital of Brazil but that is false, the truth could be that you used to believe that Brazilia is the capital of Brazil, which was false before Brazilia was built, when Rio de Jeneiro was the Capital of Brazil, which is true.

While belief is not immune from truth,
a truth is not immune from disbelief.

There is no truth exept to rely on belief, though belief does not rely on truth.

That is the crucial difference.


Yes. It is true that I believed that Rio was the capital. But what I believed, namely that Rio was the capital, was false. A simple distinction: (1) whether it is true that I believed that Rio was the capital: (2) Whether it was true that Rio was the capital.

The answer to (1) is, yes. The answer to (2) is no.

No problem.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 06:38 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Yes. It is true that I believed that Rio was the capital. But what I believed, namely that Rio was the capital, was false. A simple distinction: (1) whether it is true that I believed that Rio was the capital: (2) Whether it was true that Rio was the capital.

The answer to (1) is, yes. The answer to (2) is no.

No problem.


The problem is the truth, that Rio was the Capital.

While the truth changes, belief craves uniformity.

Smile
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 04:27 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
The problem is the truth, that Rio was the Capital.

While the truth changes, belief craves uniformity.

Smile


But truth doesn't change. For example, the truth that it rains in New York City on July 11th, 1941 at 2 pm in Central Park if true, is true a million years ago, is true on July 11th, 1941 at 2 pm in Central Park , and is true a million year from now.

But a belief may be either true, or it may be false.
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 05:41 pm
@de Silentio,
A refusal to change the mind is not a refusal of the truth to change.
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 07:24 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
A refusal to change the mind is not a refusal of the truth to change.


Is this then true until you change your mind? Or has the truth changed, but not your mind?
0 Replies
 
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 07:41 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
A refusal to change the mind is not a refusal of the truth to change.


But if the truth changes, but not the minds, how can it be a truth without the agreement of minds? This would imply that the truth is independent of agreement.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 11:54 am
@Isa,
The nearest we get to irrefutability is to say that everything changes, hence the corollary: Nothing is permanent, which is thus indeed averse to agreement; in order to agree belief beseeches perpetuity, better than nothing so to speak.

None the less, the truth of change runs away along with time, faster than we know how to chase it. We therefore believe to force the truth to stand still for long enough to discuss.
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 01:49 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
The nearest we get to irrefutability is to say that everything changes, hence the corollary: Nothing is permanent, which is thus indeed averse to agreement; in order to agree belief beseeches perpetuity, better than nothing so to speak.

None the less, the truth of change runs away along with time, faster than we know how to chase it. We therefore believe to force the truth to stand still for long enough to discuss.


None the less, the truth of change runs away along with time, faster than we know how to chase it. We therefore believe to force the truth to stand still for long enough to discuss.[/quote]

Very eloquently put. However, it is difficult to fully accept any statement that seems to turn in on itself: ie. "It is absolutely true, that nothing is absolutely true."

So as far as irrefutability goes, I will have to go with:

"Truth is truth, to the end of reckoning." -William Shakespeare "Measure for Measure", Act 5 scene 1
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 06:31 pm
@de Silentio,
So nothing is absolute, before the proof to be so?

"Long enough" I say, to reckon before the end.

:p
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2007 12:00 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
A refusal to change the mind is not a refusal of the truth to change.


Excuse me, but how can truth refuse anything? Truth isn't a person. I can change my mind about what I believe is true. But what has that to do with what is true?
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2007 01:55 am
@kennethamy,
The truth is nothing more or less than what is proved, and thus approved as actual fact.

A "truth" claimed or assumed but not approved is thus indeed the responsiblity of the claimant, not for the truth itself to answer to, in so far as there ever was a truth itself.

None the less, belief routinely cheats, pretending to be true for want of the proof.
 

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 3
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 03:47:47