Truth is a choice

Dispute is a strong word, but i do have reservations. i suppose that i would say that i'd like to ask you to qualify some of your statements before agreeing/disagreeing with them.

my questions lead into a few different tangents:

1) Why, and to what degree would you say belief(s) is/are chosen, and how?

2) In those exceptional moments when incoherency is not an objection to the appearance of possibly contradictory perceptions as fact, why is belief less effective? And is there anything that privileges belief over accident from a third-party perspective?

3) In your formulation, is belief a substitute for empirical coherency, or a necessary component for coherency in general, etc? And in either or each case is belief an ornamental facade braced against the structure of facts, or a necessary component of perception apriori?

Since you started the thread and Razzy the old fox over there as thrown a very nice set of questions from its weekend suit pocket Cyr I would like to have some feedback from you on this...

Truth is life, and yes, it can be framed as a choice, but make the wrong one and people, sometimes ourselves, ends up dead....

Just to qualify my post, i don't mean to say that i can't imagine scenarios wherein your statements are appropriate. But i require some (more generalized) clarifications regarding them before i can assent to buying them wholesale.

I think what you say is true and it's true to say that it's what you think is true ( to you)

Isn't there a a more simple and clearer way to state what you you are asserting?

Obscurity doesn't equate to profundity.

This is a problem all you Philo posters seem to experience.

On the contrary, there is nothing obscure about what Cyracuz has posted. His post contains no jargon, or even unorthodox usage. If anything, the poster has sketched the ideas at hand with too broad a brush. But ambiguity is not the same as obscurity.

I've asked the OP to clarify certain aspects of the ideas presented, not because i view the ideas as obscure, but because they seem to me unfocused. i'm a former-Philo poster: do my questions seem more obscure to you because of it?

Razzleg

To use your wording; belief is a necessary component for coherency in general.

It is true that a "black" man is not bioligically inferior to a "white" man. That is not a matter of choice, even though the desicion to undertake the scientific inquiry that revealed this fact was a choice someone made at some point.
But the truth that every human should have equal rights is a matter of choice. It is true because we have combined a set of facts and other beliefs and formed a statement that we don't care to dispute. You cannot find any empirical fact to support this claim, and you cannot find any to disprove it. In such a situation, the only thing we have to go by is choice.

I am not saying that belief is less effective, merely that there is no justification for belief other than what we want the truth to be.

So, for instance, tens of thousands of children die every day from hunger and illnesses that are simple to cure with our knowledge. This is fact, and it is true.
And we, who have the power to do something about this, have chosen to believe that it is not our responsibility. That is why we name our efforts to help charity.
The choice is made over generations, within a social context, but also on an individual basis. Everything that Gandhi accomplished began with a choice he made not to accept the way things were around him. His individual choice became the choice of many, and even today people choose to embrace his beliefs and hold them for true.

True. But neither does simplicity or clarity.

But I can try to make the statement clearer.
Any truth that is not also a fact, is a matter of choice.

Fil
I thought you had me on ignore after failing to account for some problems with your logic that I pointed out in another post, and I was very fine with that.

So be it...I just felt curious to see the nonsense you would brought up this time...

To claim that is true that there is no Truth is immediately self contradictory and a display of stupidity that leaves no doubts...the best some people could do to protect their own views on this would be to be sceptical...but then they insist...
How can any theory against truth have hope to be validated in any possible sense if from the beginning undermines and cripples any possibility of achieving that ?
The funny part on this entire nonsensical approach is the degree of certainty that they seam to display to claim what they claim upon Truth...oh dear it could n´t get any funnier than that if it was meant as joke, but unfortunately its a fact that there are such movements of thought with a reasonably large number of adepts !

Fil
Please take your belief and your claims, that you still fail to back up with anything resembling logical reasoning, and move yourself away from my threads, unless you have coherent, reasonable arguments founded in logical thinking, which you are willing to discuss rather than just believe blindly despite every demonstration of the flaws in your reasoning. This is what I was asking you for when you put me on ignore. Classical denial commonly seen in religiou fanatics.
I have no interest in your zealous ramblings.

If you wish to accept this challenge, please demonstrate how it is not correct to say that "any truth that is not also a fact is a matter of choice".

So if one person believes that God exists, and another person believes God does not exist, then you think that God both does and does not exist? What other contradictions do you believe are true?

kennet
According the one who believes in god, he exists, to him that don't he/it doesn't. And since you cannot give any evidence either way; since you can only establish metaphysical "landscapes" in which this concept may or may not make sense, the truth of it comes down to individual preference.

And besides, no one can really dispute the existence of "god" as a concept. The argument is wether or not this concept has any relevance in reality. So I fail to see the contradiction, as I am talking about what our measure of truth is, not about the truth value of individual statements. Wouldn't you agree that both the person who believes in god and the one who doesn't, hold their beliefs by choice?

If you could read the above remark with any care you immediately would notice the contradiction implicit in your belief, which was for you to claim :

It is TRUE that there is no Truth.

1 - So how can it be true that there is no Truth, or that truth is relative, which is the same to say there is no truth, but just belief...how do you justify that ???

...the best you can do to support your claim is doubt Cyr...straight forward clear thinking. Top that !

Show me where in this thread I made that claim. I said it is a matter of choice what is the truth in some cases.

Elsewhere I have said that I don't believe it is meaningful to speak of absolute truth, but that is another discussion.

No !
This is a matter of you being honest to your readers who are unable to distinguish knowing from Being...

1 - Is your belief that is there or is there not an actual state of affairs for things in a given frame of Space/Time ?

...if you think not, then please clearly explain how is it that you can claim that your belief that there is no truth is actually true once nothing including thoughts concerning Truth cannot refer to any actual state of Truthfulness ???

...it seams to me that your claim is upon our capacity on certainly knowing what is to be Truth, which is a very different issue and further away from the claim your Thread brings about...

Honesty and frontal approach is not much to ask or is it ?

I am not about to start defending statements you say I have made, but fail to reveal where.

You do not possess the conceptual framework to comprehend how I percieve these matters. You have demonstrated that explicitly.



Apparently it is. You are a curious phenomenon.