What is the Truth of philosophy?

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Sentience wrote:

Well, you know you exist (I think therefore I am), it's the only thing you CAN know exists, but the thing is that what if the definition of bachelor your using is actually a schizophrenic illusion?

We can never know we exist, nor prove it... Rather, people form relationships, forms of relationships having the purpose of recognition and realization... We are realized today when we can say tomorrow that we were, so we must survive, and this, social forms help us to do... But in another fashion they remind us that we exist when we are recognized, as for example, when people we know say hello, or through formal behavior, like praying together, saluting an officer, or driving to work at rush hour... Our forms help us to survive in a physical sense, and remind us that we live, as when others see us, and relate to us spiritually, and tell us we are important, some bodies...

Why do you think that I do not know I exist? I believe I exist, it is true that I exist, and, as Descartes showed, my belief that I exist is fully justified.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Sentience wrote:

Rather than that, I believe that we must accept everything as having the possibility of being untrue, however remote.

Well yes, with the exception of the truth that that all bachelors are unmarried males. I don't see how it is possible that is untrue, do you?

Will you ever get over the physical definition of truth??? You cannot define the thing by examples, but you must tell the world something essential of the thing in itself, if it is a thing...

You mean that it is not true that all bachelors are unmarried males? If not, then just what do you mean? No one has given a "physical definition" of truth so far as I can tell because that notion make no sense. "Truth" is an abstract concept, and cannot be "physically defined" whatever that happens to mean. By the way, it is true that water turns to ice when its temperature is lowered, but to point that out is not to say anything about the essential nature of water, although, of course, the nature of water is an important part of the explanation of why it is true that water turns to ice.

You are giving an example of some thing that is true to tell what truth is...If you were talking about a single form, of a dog or a cat, what might be said true of the form might be true of any individual of the class... And that is one example of truth out of an infinite number of forms... Bachalor as a certain class which you have used as an example of all truth is like taking a single dog and saying some thing true of the whole class based upon that single example... You have it backwards... In the identification of a thing one takes many examples and abstracts the concept because a single example only shares the general characteristics of the class, and differs in specifics; and the class of bachelors and dogs and cats are finite, and truth as a moral form is infinte with infinite examples... When you have said a single true thing you have said a single true thing which tells you very little of truth as a moral form representing an infinite number of objects and infinites....

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

Sentience wrote:

Well, you know you exist (I think therefore I am), it's the only thing you CAN know exists, but the thing is that what if the definition of bachelor your using is actually a schizophrenic illusion?

We can never know we exist, nor prove it... Rather, people form relationships, forms of relationships having the purpose of recognition and realization... We are realized today when we can say tomorrow that we were, so we must survive, and this, social forms help us to do... But in another fashion they remind us that we exist when we are recognized, as for example, when people we know say hello, or through formal behavior, like praying together, saluting an officer, or driving to work at rush hour... Our forms help us to survive in a physical sense, and remind us that we live, as when others see us, and relate to us spiritually, and tell us we are important, some bodies...

Why do you think that I do not know I exist? I believe I exist, it is true that I exist, and, as Descartes showed, my belief that I exist is fully justified.

To know a thing means to prove it, and we can prove rocks exist, but the particular form of our individual existence is life, and life does not have the permanance, nor the immutability of a rock... So while we can say subjectively that we exist we can only say it while we live, and since life is an infinite, no true thing can be said of it... We could say humanity exists with rather more evidence, and no certain proof, because in the end, life will be erased from the universe as though it never did exist...

Life as a word referencing an infinite is a meaning without a being, and even while life is all meaning it still stands without objective proof, and people sense this infinite nature of life is finite which they can neither accept nor deny, and yet, we do have our ways of dealling with it.... We have our forms which help us to secure our lives, and we have our formal behavior which helps to remind us that we really do matter, that we mean something to others, and are a part of something bigger than ourselves which ties us into the existence of humanity rather than reminding us constantly that we are doomed to die...

If you say you exist, then prove it objectively because thought is a subjective experience you have only seldom shown traces of... You do not exist because you think... You only think you exist...It is more correct to say that we think by way of forms, and build social forms out of our thought, and through our forms survive, and get our sense of meaning...

0 Replies

@paul s,

Quote:

I have heard someone say that philosophy is the search for Truth.

I have also heard only one explanation of The Truth that I can accept. Before I tell what it is , could I hear everyone's opinion on this matter?

"Truth" with a capital "T" has "meaning" in the realms of esotericism, spirituality and religion. At one time the activity we call "philosophy" encompassed such topics, but now, mimicking the methods of what we call "science", it more usually attempts to investigate the foundations of these and other realms, by a process of analytical deconstruction, usually delimited by the use of language. Such philosophical activity has been described as mostly Geschwatz (idle chatter) by philosophers of language such as Wittgenstein and Heidegger.

Both "Truth" and "truth" draw their spectrum of meanings from the contexts within which the words are utilised. Since "words" are social acquisitions, this implies that their contextual use is subject to social agreement, as do any descriptions of "reality" itself.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Sentience wrote:

Rather than that, I believe that we must accept everything as having the possibility of being untrue, however remote.

Well yes, with the exception of the truth that that all bachelors are unmarried males. I don't see how it is possible that is untrue, do you?

Will you ever get over the physical definition of truth??? You cannot define the thing by examples, but you must tell the world something essential of the thing in itself, if it is a thing...

You mean that it is not true that all bachelors are unmarried males? If not, then just what do you mean? No one has given a "physical definition" of truth so far as I can tell because that notion make no sense. "Truth" is an abstract concept, and cannot be "physically defined" whatever that happens to mean. By the way, it is true that water turns to ice when its temperature is lowered, but to point that out is not to say anything about the essential nature of water, although, of course, the nature of water is an important part of the explanation of why it is true that water turns to ice.

You are giving an example of some thing that is true to tell what truth is...If you were talking about a single form, of a dog or a cat, what might be said true of the form might be true of any individual of the class... And that is one example of truth out of an infinite number of forms... Bachalor as a certain class which you have used as an example of all truth is like taking a single dog and saying some thing true of the whole class based upon that single example... You have it backwards... In the identification of a thing one takes many examples and abstracts the concept because a single example only shares the general characteristics of the class, and differs in specifics; and the class of bachelors and dogs and cats are finite, and truth as a moral form is infinte with infinite examples... When you have said a single true thing you have said a single true thing which tells you very little of truth as a moral form representing an infinite number of objects and infinites....

No, I am giving you an example of what is true in order to show you that there are true statements, and that my example is an example of one of them. I did not think that this thread was about defining truth. What makes you think it is?

However, a good start to understanding what truth is (and what all truths have in common that make them true) is Aristotle's: "To say what is true is to say that what is, is; and to say that what is not, is not". A long time ago Plato pointed out that presenting examples of the application of a concept is not the same thing as giving a definition of the concept. The question, "What is X" is therefore, ambiguous: it might mean: 1. What things are X?, or it might mean, 2. what is the definition of "X"?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Both "Truth" and "truth" draw their spectrum of meanings from the contexts within which the words are utilised. Since "words" are social acquisitions, this implies that their contextual use is subject to social agreement, as do any descriptions of "reality" itself.

In the sense that this conclusion is transcendent of general philosophy, it is a candidate for "Truth". Smile

3 Replies

@fresco,

ROFL. I'm exhausted for the evening, so please take my comment as the delirious statement it should be understood as (and not as outright disagreement), but...you are so poking the bear in the zoo! Twisted Evil

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Good !

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Both "Truth" and "truth" draw their spectrum of meanings from the contexts within which the words are utilised. Since "words" are social acquisitions, this implies that their contextual use is subject to social agreement, as do any descriptions of "reality" itself.

In the sense that this conclusion is transcendent of general philosophy, it is a candidate for "Truth".

Although it is true that the word "truth" has a number of different meanings, for example, "Esmeralda is true to me", or "the archer took true aim on the target", I thought we were talking about propositional truth of the kind, "It is true that Obama is the president of the United States". Weren't we?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Sentience wrote:

Rather than that, I believe that we must accept everything as having the possibility of being untrue, however remote.

Well yes, with the exception of the truth that that all bachelors are unmarried males. I don't see how it is possible that is untrue, do you?

Will you ever get over the physical definition of truth??? You cannot define the thing by examples, but you must tell the world something essential of the thing in itself, if it is a thing...

You mean that it is not true that all bachelors are unmarried males? If not, then just what do you mean? No one has given a "physical definition" of truth so far as I can tell because that notion make no sense. "Truth" is an abstract concept, and cannot be "physically defined" whatever that happens to mean. By the way, it is true that water turns to ice when its temperature is lowered, but to point that out is not to say anything about the essential nature of water, although, of course, the nature of water is an important part of the explanation of why it is true that water turns to ice.

You are giving an example of some thing that is true to tell what truth is...If you were talking about a single form, of a dog or a cat, what might be said true of the form might be true of any individual of the class... And that is one example of truth out of an infinite number of forms... Bachalor as a certain class which you have used as an example of all truth is like taking a single dog and saying some thing true of the whole class based upon that single example... You have it backwards... In the identification of a thing one takes many examples and abstracts the concept because a single example only shares the general characteristics of the class, and differs in specifics; and the class of bachelors and dogs and cats are finite, and truth as a moral form is infinte with infinite examples... When you have said a single true thing you have said a single true thing which tells you very little of truth as a moral form representing an infinite number of objects and infinites....

No, I am giving you an example of what is true in order to show you that there are true statements, and that my example is an example of one of them. I did not think that this thread was about defining truth. What makes you think it is?

However, a good start to understanding what truth is (and what all truths have in common that make them true) is Aristotle's: "To say what is true is to say that what is, is; and to say that what is not, is not". A long time ago Plato pointed out that presenting examples of the application of a concept is not the same thing as giving a definition of the concept. The question, "What is X" is therefore, ambiguous: it might mean: 1. What things are X?, or it might mean, 2. what is the definition of "X"?

You are not giving an example of truth as a concept, but a true statement which represents two classes, truth, and statements... But I would not dfine a whole class by an example of one, and Aristotle as much misses the point for he gives a single example of a true statement of finite reality... You give a statement, and he makes a general statement, each about physical reality and you leave the infinites of moral reality untouched... You have not defined the concept with an example for a concept is arrived at by many examples, all equally true to the concept, with the concept true to them...And with physical forms there can be some verification, but what of moral forms??? Is love true if it cannot be verified by a certain objective standard??? You and Aristotle agree that telling truth is making a verifyable statement which is true in regard to a finite objective reality... Plato says as much of forms, that forms must be true to the object conceived... What of truth as a form of relationship which people clearly need, but having no objective verification... What of all the infinite concepts, the concepts we each hold subjectively of infinites, like love, or virtue, liberty, or justice... We build social forms in order to make our quasi definitions of these infinites into reality, and then complain when our reality is not true to our quasi definition...

Truth is itself an infinite concept, and concept of an infinite... Only in a physical sense can we at all be certain, and only by analogy can any of our concepts be justified... I am not saying the concept is useless, but it is nearly so since it cannot be defined except in the backwards way you have tried to do... By example...

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Both "Truth" and "truth" draw their spectrum of meanings from the contexts within which the words are utilised. Since "words" are social acquisitions, this implies that their contextual use is subject to social agreement, as do any descriptions of "reality" itself.

In the sense that this conclusion is transcendent of general philosophy, it is a candidate for "Truth".

To say social agreement says that truth is a form of relationship, and this much is true of every concept since we relate through our concepts and sometimes build social forms out of emphatic forms which also allow us to relate, in a physical sense...

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

fresco wrote:

Both "Truth" and "truth" draw their spectrum of meanings from the contexts within which the words are utilised. Since "words" are social acquisitions, this implies that their contextual use is subject to social agreement, as do any descriptions of "reality" itself.

In the sense that this conclusion is transcendent of general philosophy, it is a candidate for "Truth".

Although it is true that the word "truth" has a number of different meanings, for example, "Esmeralda is true to me", or "the archer took true aim on the target", I thought we were talking about propositional truth of the kind, "It is true that Obama is the president of the United States". Weren't we?

No! it was looking for a general definition out of specific examples...

1 Reply

@Fido,

No, you CAN know you exist, because there is a 'you' in question to exist to question your own existence. It's the only thing you CAN know for sure. This was Descartes's main point. You might exist as a pink elephant, but you still exist. You're correct in that you can't prove it though, but then again, they can't prove theirs to you either.

1 Reply

@Sentience,

Sentience wrote:

No, you CAN know you exist, because there is a 'you' in question to exist to question your own existence. It's the only thing you CAN know for sure. This was Descartes's main point. You might exist as a pink elephant, but you still exist. You're correct in that you can't prove it though, but then again, they can't prove theirs to you either.

If what you say is true, why did Descartes feel the need to answer a question with an answer so obvious??? In fact, you do not prove you exist by defining existence to fit your subjective experience of reality which can in no sense be verified... Why not say: I exist, because I feel I exist... The same could then be said of God and pink elephants and any notion which crosses your mind...

What seems to us the most objective truth is to all others a subjective rendering... We cannot prove we exist, but through our forms we are reasured that we do exist, and when our forms work, they also help us to achieve our continued life, which is our particular form of existence... Testimony, which is what we have in regard to our existence is not proof, but is evidence...

0 Replies

@Fido,

Quote:

No! it was looking for a general definition out of specific examples...

...they aren't listening ! Smile

Quote:

To say social agreement says that truth is a form of relationship, and this much is true of every concept since we relate through our concepts and sometimes build social forms out of emphatic forms which also allow us to relate, in a physical sense...

...no...."truth" is "what works within a particular relationship". If "I "say to "my wife" that "X is an idiot" , and she agrees with me, than that agreement is just as much an example of "truth" as say, that most of "us" (the non-colour-blind) agree that "blood is red". My quotation marks signify the use of concepts in relationship to other concepts, NOT people or things in relationship. Note that "I", "my wife" and"physicality" etc are all concepts having no independent existence in themselves.

But none of this is the "Truth of philosophy", it is one philosophical position on "truth".

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
No! it was looking for a general definition out of specific examples...

...they aren't listening !

Quote:
To say social agreement says that truth is a form of relationship, and this much is true of every concept since we relate through our concepts and sometimes build social forms out of emphatic forms which also allow us to relate, in a physical sense...

...no...."truth" is "what works within a particular relationship". If "I "say to "my wife" that "X is an idiot" , and she agrees with me, than that agreement is just as much an example of "truth" as say, that most of "us" (the non-colour-blind) agree that "blood is red". My quotation marks signify the use of concepts in relationship to other concepts, NOT people or things in relationship. Note that "I", "my wife" and"physicality" etc are all concepts having no independent existence in themselves.

But none of this is the "Truth of philosophy", it is one philosophical position on "truth".

Now let me get this straight. If in 1400 you said to a friend, the world is flat, and if he agreed with you, then it was true that the world in 1400 was flat. Could you tell me what happened between then and now? There must have been a tremendous catastrophic event when the world changed it shape from flat to round. And there are no reports of such an immense event taking place. It is amazing that anyone could have even survived such a thing! I am simply amazed!

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

One last time: the use of the word "truth" has nothing to do with "objective reality" unless you are a naive realist. It has everything to do with consensual agreement.
The scenario of any two people discussing the shape of the earth THEN would only have been in cases of agreement or disagreement prior to Columbus's voyage or similar practical problems. Most of the time "truth" did not apply. Nobody asked questions about the shape of the earth!.

Only "philosophers" from our era with nothing better to do could invent a scenario where "two friends were discussing the shape of the earth in 1400" for no apparent reason !

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
No! it was looking for a general definition out of specific examples...

...they aren't listening !

Quote:
To say social agreement says that truth is a form of relationship, and this much is true of every concept since we relate through our concepts and sometimes build social forms out of emphatic forms which also allow us to relate, in a physical sense...

...no...."truth" is "what works within a particular relationship". If "I "say to "my wife" that "X is an idiot" , and she agrees with me, than that agreement is just as much an example of "truth" as say, that most of "us" (the non-colour-blind) agree that "blood is red". My quotation marks signify the use of concepts in relationship to other concepts, NOT people or things in relationship. Note that "I", "my wife" and"physicality" etc are all concepts having no independent existence in themselves.

But none of this is the "Truth of philosophy", it is one philosophical position on "truth".

Must disagree... All forms, including truth are forms of relationship... As classifications, no form stands alone, but in a certain relationship to others, and because forms point to a certain reality we share, they are also forms of relationship for human beings... In the example above of a marriage, which is a social and moral form, truth is always an element because trust is essential as it is in any form of relationship... If people cannot tell truth it is often becaue they cannot discern the truth, and such a relationship is burdened and at a disavantage compared to other forms.... Truth as knowledge gives power...Power should contribute to survival...

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

One last time: the use of the word "truth" has nothing to do with "objective reality" unless you are a naive realist. It has everything to do with consensual agreement.
The scenario of any two people discussing the shape of the earth THEN would only have been in cases of agreement or disagreement prior to Columbus's voyage or similar practical problems. Most of the time "truth" did not apply. Nobody asked questions about the shape of the earth!.

Only "philosophers" from our era with nothing better to do could invent a scenario where "two friends were discussing the shape of the earth in 1400" for no apparent reason !

But, isn't it true that people did believe that the world was flat in 1400? So, if (as it seems) your view is that their consensual belief that the world was flat means that the world was flat in 1400, and if in your view, our consensual belief in 2010 that the world is round means that the world is round in 2010, I was naturally wondering when the world changed it shape from flat to round, and how it happened that there were no reports of such a stupendous cosmic event.

But, on the other hand, if all you are saying really is not that the actual shape of the Earth changed sometime between 1400 and now, but only that the consensual beliefs changed between then and now, then there really was no cosmic event, and the only event was a change of belief. In which case, of course, there would have been no such cosmic event to report. I hope you see what I am arguing. It is simply that if you are right then it is simply amazing not merely that there are not reports of the change in shape of the Earth, but that there were even any people left on Earth. But if I am right, and it was only the beliefs about the shape of Earth changed, and not the actual shape of the Earth, then it is understandable that there were no such reports, and it is understandable that there were still people alive after the change of belief. Now, what do you think is more likely: that there was a change of the actual shape of Earth, or that there was only a change in the belief about the shape of the Earth? Any views about that?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

You don't get it do you ! They didn't "believe" anything at all about the shape of the earth because the issue was never raised! Did you believe in "global warming" in 1990 ? Presumably the phenomenon was going on then but nobody had "thinged" it. And for all we know that "belief" could also die a death if social attitudes change.

2 Replies

What is the Truth of philosophy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know