kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 02:57 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:

kennethamy wrote:


Should read: My biggest problem is that truth MERELY becomes conscequential to action or practical thought.


Would you please explain the problem? I don't understand it?


Please clarify what you don't understand in the problem so I can try to effectively answer you.
[/quote]

What does it mean for truth to become consequential to action or thought? If I think something, or it I do something, isn't it true that I am thinking or doing that thing? How is truth consequential to my doing or thinking that thing? Best give an example or two.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 05:49 am
@de Silentio,
The "control paradigm" is suggested by those "holistic philosophers" like Fritjof Capra, who argue that "science" hitherto has been an anthropocentric and chauvinist process which has sacrificed large scale stability for small scale limited control. (Species dominance) Obviously this could be termed an ecological and political isssue, but stepping back from my own ecological scepticism, I think there is an argument for the interplay between "science" and "social issues", such that "philosophy of science" or epistemology in general,would be negligent for not taking it into account.

As regards the dominance or a-priority of "the word", I am influenced (1)by the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (language determines thought),(2) the cryptic one-liner of Heidegger ("language speaks the man"), and (3) Maturana's analysis that all "observation" is "description". (The third is the most counter-intuitive and like Heidegger cannot be adequately appreciated without the framework of descriptions of the "praxis of living").
0 Replies
 
salima
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jul, 2010 08:41 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi All!

Truth is a lie!

Kind regards.
Mark...


are you really richrf resurrected?
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 09:57 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

But the nature of truth isn't an empirical matter, it's a matter of definition.


You are simply assuming that there are only two possibilities: an empirical matter or a definitional matter. That assumption needs examination. Philosophical issue like, what is truth, is not an empirical matter, and it is not a definitional matter (at least not in the way you seem to mean it). It is a conceptual matter. It is nothing that can be satisfactorily answered simply by giving an arbitrary definition. Let me ask you: you are interested in the problem of free will. Is the nature of free will an empirical matter? No? Well then, it must be a matter of definition, so that all we need do is define "free will" (as we please) and we have solved the issue. Right? Then why all the posts. Why not simply define "free will" a put an end to it?
0 Replies
 
paul s
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:31 am
Truth is 'what is' exactly as it is.

If you want to be able to see 'what is' exactly as it is you have to open your eyes and get rid of karma by practicing love. Besides agony, love is the only way to get rid of karma.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 07:36 pm
@de Silentio,
Let me repeat the principle: facts are little theories. They rest on presuppositions and result in interpretations.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2011 07:38 pm
@de Silentio,
Let me repeat the principle: facts are little theories. They rest on presuppositions and result in interpretations.
Can we say that "raw" facts are mythical? They are all "cooked" in cultural presuppositions.
0 Replies
 
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 08:42 am
@fresco,
Depends on which truth you're referring to. There are essestially 2, there's the absolute truth (which is what is what really is), and personal truth (which is what we believe to be true). We all know our personal truths, and we believe them to be the absolute truths, which is just the perceived absolute truth. Since everything at it's very core is only based on faith and perceptions, it's possible that everything we know is wrong. It's not very probably, but the possibility is still there.

So to answer your question, I know my personal truth, but I do not know if that's the absolute truth. I can only 'believe' that I know.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 08:57 am
@Chights47,
What we believe to be true its only true in the sense that we believe it, and thus, that to the extent of what we ask and expect of it, it works...the problem is not if it is or it is not true, the problem it is what it is to be true and where, once all it is absolutely true in its rightful place...
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 09:14 am
@paul s,
paul s wrote:
Truth is 'what is' exactly as it is.

If you want to be able to see 'what is' exactly as it is you have to open your eyes and get rid of by practicing love. Besides agony, love is the only way to get rid of karma.
Very esoteric!

'You' are in the truth. "Agony", "love", and "karma" are concepts which perform 2 functions: 1) they cover up "the truth" of your 'Be'-ing by entangling you in the conceptual representations and 2) they remind you that underneath the conceptual representations is the 'truth' which you haven't uncovered yet. 'You' are in the 'truth', not in the concepts. You can only post what you've posted if you've 'looked in the mirror' and have seen your 'self'. To cover up what you've seen with "agony", "love", "karma", and provide a recipe, "If you want to be able to see 'what is' exactly as it is you have to open your eyes and get rid of by practicing love." is to perpetuate the cover-up.

You are the source of your beliefs, your concepts, your theories, and your conjecture. It is your beliefs, your concepts, your theories, and your conjecture that stops you from getting to the truth.

Again, I say, 'You' are in the truth. If you never get to the bottom of the truth, you never get to know who you are.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 10:39 am
@Dasein,
There´s no "bottom" or "up" for Truth ! ...nothing is out of its grasp...all is be-ing and all is TRUE !
BEING !
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 02:44 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
There´s no "bottom" or "up" for Truth! ...nothing is out of its grasp...all is be-ing and all is TRUE !
BEING !
Truth is not a 'thing' capable of having a grasp! Let me give you an example of what I've been talking about.

Sometimes when humans, 'Be'-ing, look in the mirror and catch a glimpse of their 'self', 'Be'-ing-there', they have a religious experience and then they will call it 'soul' or 'spirit'. They will then go on to say that they have a soul or they have spirit.

In the past (and in the present) people have used the mis-representation of 'Be'-ing-there' as a way to hold the salvation (life in the afterlife) of the one (having or remembering the experience) hostage. The Aztecs had bloody sacrifices, the knights had wars with Muslims in the holy land, and Osama Bin Ladin mis-appropriated Islam for his own purposes.

The source of religion is who we are 'Be'-ing. Religion comes from us, it is not a collection of concepts, theories, conjecture, or ritualistic beliefs. Underneath the concepts, theories, conjecture, and ritual beliefs is 'truth'. 'Truth' is coming face-to-face with 'Be'-ing-there'.

I suspect that religion was 'invented' by people like Thomas Aquinas, you, and I (people who thought about 'Be'-ing-there') except in their time they had to 'hide' their thinking in the robes of monks for their own survival.

Most religion is an “outside-in” experience. People go to church to remind themselves of 'Be'-ing-there' and call it something else. The funny thing is that they use the rest of the week to cover up 'Be'-ing-there' and call it 'guilt'. It is 'guilt' because they instinctively know that they are no longer 'Be'-ing-there'.

So, at the “bottom” of the truth of religion is 'you', 'Be'-ing-there'. At the “bottom” of the truth of religion is what I call 'freedom'. 'Be'-ing-there' is freedom.

Anthropology, psychology, philosophy, theology, etc. are all religions that cover up 'Be'-ing-there'. You can't believe what I'm saying to know what I'm talking about. You have to have the experience of 'Be'-ing-there' to get to the 'bottom' of all these 'ologies' and find out that 'you' are in the truth.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 03:45 pm

I just have to ask , what is with this " Be ", "ing " thing , I've tried but don't get it

anybody care to explain
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 05:03 pm
@north,
Here is a post I made in another discussion. It might help you.

'Be'-ing is where your concepts of 'being' and 'non-being' happen. 'Being' and 'non-being' are identities which you have constructed. 'You' are not an identity. 'You' is where the 'constructed identities' happen.

It's kind of like sitting down at the dining room table. You see the salt and pepper, you see the silverware, the dishes, the food, and the participants (including yourself) and you can talk about the things on the table and in the room.

However, if you were able to step away from 'you' sitting at the table, the dining room, the house, the country, the planet, and past the universe, you would get an idea of what 'Be'-ing is.

Now that you have an idea of 'Be'-ing, you can step back into 'you' at the dining room table and realize that all of your representations are representations of 'you', 'Be'-ing. Now you have the choice of whether you want to keep 'representing' you 'Be'-ing or if you want to authentically 'Be' who you are instead of being the representations (concepts, theories, conjecture).
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 05:25 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:

Here is a post I made in another discussion. It might help you.

'Be'-ing is where your concepts of 'being' and 'non-being' happen. 'Being' and 'non-being' are identities which you have constructed. 'You' are not an identity. 'You' is where the 'constructed identities' happen.

It's kind of like sitting down at the dining room table. You see the salt and pepper, you see the silverware, the dishes, the food, and the participants (including yourself) and you can talk about the things on the table and in the room.

However, if you were able to step away from 'you' sitting at the table, the dining room, the house, the country, the planet, and past the universe, you would get an idea of what 'Be'-ing is.

Now that you have an idea of 'Be'-ing, you can step back into 'you' at the dining room table and realize that all of your representations are representations of 'you', 'Be'-ing. Now you have the choice of whether you want to keep 'representing' you 'Be'-ing or if you want to authentically 'Be' who you are instead of being the representations (concepts, theories, conjecture).


okay I see your point , to BE is to be who you are , which for me is a growing learning Human Being

of which is neither , a concept , theory or conjecture

and as-well doesn't take me away from the truth of the table setting
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 06:33 pm
@north,
north wrote:
okay I see your point , to BE is to be who you are , which for me is a growing learning Human Being

of which is neither , a concept , theory or conjecture

and as-well doesn't take me away from the truth of the table setting
"Growing", "learning", and "Human Being" are conceptual representations of an identity you have created. I contend that "growing" and "learning" have more to do with practicing what you have memorized and has nothing to do with 'Be'-ing.

There is no incremental "growing" and "learning". Historically, "growing" and "learning" infer that there is something "missing" that needs to be added on to make you whole and complete. They also infer that you need something added on to you to make you worthy of something. You are whole just the way you are. Otherwise, it would be impossible to have this conversation. You are not the sum of the parts, you are the 'whole' where the parts show up.

'Be'-ing-there is who you are. Being is a conceptual representation of some 'thing' that shows up in the world as in Human Being.

Sorry to say that there is no better way to represent 'Be'-ing-there. You will have to think it through for your 'self' and discard what's not 'Be'-ing-there. Trust your 'self' to know when you uncover it. Nobody can do it for you.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 06:42 pm
@Dasein,
Quote:
Truth is not a 'thing' capable of having a grasp! Let me give you an example of what I've been talking about.


Agreed...I thought you understood what was meant...Truth is the state or condition of Being from be-ing...there´s nothing out of it !
(thinking and conjecturing included)
...now please don´t evade the issue...
0 Replies
 
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 08:59 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

What we believe to be true its only true in the sense that we believe it, and thus, that to the extent of what we ask and expect of it, it works...


I completely agree, to an extent. Our beliefs only extend as far as our "evidence" that it's true. Because we cannot acheive 100% proof, we can never really grasp it. Lets take the Christian faith as an example. There are many that believe in it and it works for them in this world. Does this belief also extend into an after life though? They believe that if you follow their guildlines then you'll get into heaven, if not, then you'll go to hell. Does really mean that all non-believers will go to hell? From the perception of the non-believer, does a christian go to a place called heaven while they just rot in the ground and there existence is just snuffed? Does belief in something create it just to make it true? If 2 different truths conflict which is really true, are we just alone in our minds and the creators of everything we see so that whatever truth we wish is that? If that's the case then what happens if we change our minds?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

..the problem is not if it is or it is not true, the problem it is what it is to be true and where, once all it is absolutely true in its rightful place...


I agree with the "what" but the "where" confuses me. If something is absolutely true, then where actually wouldn't matter. I don't think that it would even be a factor, because if something is absolutely true, then it would be true everywhere, not just in one place. It actually think that it would aslo be the same for the perceived absolute truth (unless there comes a time where it's disproven).
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 09:47 pm
@Chights47,
1 - Mind that I said true in the sense that we believe it...that is, it is true that we have such and such beliefs...I am almost mystically implying their are necessary in the historical process, in the "axis of order"...

2 - The where matters because there is a chain of categorical priority´s in the order of what comes first and what comes next, at least phenomenologically speaking...For instance Donald Duck it is a true cartoon but it is not a true person...that there is a difference between a cartoon and a person does n´t make Donald Duck less real...context provides to order the need of the "where" is it to be true... and there you later get the what from the overall interaction...
0 Replies
 
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 12:45 pm
@fresco,
truth is a quality of a statement that is not false
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
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. » What is truth ?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 12:15:20