On Belief(s) and "Truth"... Please examine my philosophical thoughts

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi everyone, would you please kindly read my idea which is based on truth and beliefs.

Now I would like everyone to write down their date of birth on a piece of paper and the location of their birth and examine your basket of belief or statements that you currently hold true(this can be anything, eg earth shape etc).

Now having done that, I want you to think about everyone you know(this can be a famous thinker, teacher, brother what ever).

Great!

Lets get this show on the road, now I want you to ask your self, Is my DOB signification? For example, does my DOB play a major role for me in believing in such and such.. eg, Big Bang theory was only established during the 20th century.. So if you were born say in the 11th century AD, then you would not hold that belief so hence it becomes contingent(which I will discuss what the contingency principle states). For those who will say its an objective truth, put that aside.

It all depends on what you answer for your DOB, if yes then we have a problem, because if you were born at any "time", then your belief would be very different to what it is now.

What I figure out is most of you will answer NO, in that case, lets move forward!

Now since your DOB doesn't matter, then you must drop ALL those belief you currently hold that were based in your time line.

Next which is the scary part, now my next question is , do people play a major role in your belief.. eg would you be talking about general relativity or quantum mechanics, provided those men who pioneered this complex field of study?

Once again, it all depends on your answer, if its a yes then we have a problem if not then we must drop them all!

Now my final examination relies on your location, now pick any location in the universe and tell me if you arrive at the same belief you currently hold?

Once again, its as simple as a yes or no.

To wrap all this up, what I'm trying to do is to arrive at a collection of statements that are true at any "time", we can even go and say time does not exist, but either way time is not a big problem in my theory. Also assuming NO ONE exist, its only "you" and you are in any location in the universe.

So for example, I want you to think about this....

Imagine you came into "existence" right behind the sun, what are some true statements you can arrive at without actually researching it or studying something.

My Principle of contingency states that if things didn't have to be the way they are, hence its not a true statement.

Good Luck Smile

I have so far only arrive at one "true" statement which I will post later when I hear some statements from you.

Thanks once again!

Haider K

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,828 • Replies: 30

[+3] - AlwaysCurious - 12/01/2010As I understand your question, I get the sense you are hinting at the fact we accept reality from the perspective we are taught to interpret it at a given time, then reaffirm it through experience...

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89 wrote:

My Principle of contingency states that if things didn't have to be the way they are, hence its not a true statement.

Not only doesn't this make sense as a philosophical proposition, it doesn't even make sense as an English sentence.

1 Reply

@ikurwa89,

First of all, your post is really difficult to understand and doesnt makes much sense =)

ikurwa89 wrote:

It all depends on what you answer for your DOB, if yes then we have a problem, because if you were born at any "time", then your belief would be very different to what it is now.

This doesnt makes sense. You are basically saying that there is no possible time of birth which would lead a person to become who they are now, what is absurd. Its like saying its impossible for the person to be who they are, which is obviously false since they are.

This also applies to who else existed or where you were born.

I think you are trying to get to the age old "the whole of reality is an ilusion" conclusion. Well, while I dont agree with the path you took to get there, I agree with this conclusion, if its the one you were trying to get at. Im guessing your "true" statement is the existence of the self, that is, the old "I think therefore I am".

joefromchicago wrote:

ikurwa89 wrote:
My Principle of contingency states that if things didn't have to be the way they are, hence its not a true statement.

Not only doesn't this make sense as a philosophical proposition, it doesn't even make sense as an English sentence.

It cant make sense as a philosophical propostion if it does not make sense as an english sentence. (If we are talking english, that is)

1 Reply

@ikurwa89,

Read Rorty, you might like him:
"Truth is what is good for us to believe" (at a particular time and place).

0 Replies

...note that Rorty speaks on knowing with certainty, while Truth with capital T is designated with the term Absolute...not being able to be certain does not amount to say that there is no actual state of affairs in the World...

0 Replies

...in fact Truth is so compelling that it just is a contradiction in terms to say that we believe there is no Truth at all...same is to say in layman´s terms that we think is true that there is no Truth which is nonsense...of course to many this may sound like being picky, making an issue from a non issue and so on...well give it a second look because the embarrassment is quite serious and deserves better consideration...I guess what I am trying to point out regarding the human condition that has been so often invoked and used by pragmatists against Truth is that precisely that very same human condition by which we regard and measure our own existence does not, it may not, truly allows to have such a perspective upon truth...

...if it is the case that all that can be said on Truth, is that it regards whatever works for us, then is equally valid to say that whatever works given it really works, in our own measure is necessarily all the Truth we need...we did n´t (could n´t) ask for any more then that...so the "actual state" we could contain moment by moment is the true state "we live" and comprehend...not the case that its relative...also not the case that there is no Truth in it...I rather think that is the case that all which is truly experienced as Truthful regards Truth at least by representation...again, the same is to say, that the Truth we have is the "functional pattern" in short version of what TRUTH is...necessarily we cannot doubt Truth any more we could doubt ourselves existence, an unsustainable position given one wants to play the game with the cards on the table...

...to conclude, if for instance, I may justifiably consider, that the myself in me, in the end of the day, is just a bunch of well organized atoms by which an idea of the "I" emerges, then, equally, also must be reasonably justified to accept, that that by itself alone, does not destroy in any possible sense of the sense I can have, the TRUE EXPERIENCE of what "I" amounts to be...the Truth is there...it fits and it matches !!!

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Good try...note however that " a bunch of well organised atoms" is "what works" in 2010 ! Taking a mental trip backwards and forwards along the timeline suggests the paradigmatic nature of "existence".

1 Reply

@fresco,

I guess you meant to refer to the meaning of existence as we evaluate it...but did not realy mean to question the experience of existing which amounts to be true...and even the meaning as it goes in time step by step, from a deterministic perspective which as you know I seriously consider, refers to the true one possible experience which amounts to the existing itself! Happening...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

No..I do mean "existence" per se which I argue is NOT a priori to "relationships". This is a view which can be "understood" from a meditator's perspective in which the boundaries between"self" and "things" dissipate within a holistic dynamic web of relationship.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Yeah, I know all that...but note that you must question even the being there which in turn you realy cannot...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Although you cannot say what it is COUNSCIENCE is proof of TRUTH...in a "mystical" sense I could even dare the word witness or testimony of Truth...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I merely remark that the word "truth" is functional with respect to a particular contextual segmentation of "the whole". It is impossible to describe the meditator's transcendent position. We can merely "point" to it and say that "truth" does not apply because all contexts have dissipated.

Derrida remarked that the seeds of de-construction lie within the construction.
Your "self as atoms" construction has within it the issue that "selves" are conceivers of atoms". It is this resolution of construction/deconstruction which points to "the transcendent position".

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Honeslty, I didn't re-read my entry... I just couldn't be stuffed thinking about it anymore.. Its been eating me alive!

Fine, I'll turn it into something you will hopefully understand Smile

It states that if things are contigent then it's simple not a valid statement. Eg I didn't have to write this reply, hence when I'm looking for statements that are true regardless of time, location and people.. This can not be true!

1 Reply

@manored,

manored wrote:

First of all, your post is really difficult to understand and doesnt makes much sense =)

I totally understand lol, I guess its been stuck with me for so long I couldn't be bothered checking it.

ikurwa89 wrote:

It all depends on what you answer for your DOB, if yes then we have a problem, because if you were born at any "time", then your belief would be very different to what it is now.
This doesnt makes sense. You are basically saying that there is no possible time of birth which would lead a person to become who they are now, what is absurd. Its like saying its impossible for the person to be who they are, which is obviously false since they are.

What I'm asking you is to play around with your timeline(personal timeline) move it back and forth and see if your current believes survive? If they don't hence they are not "true", since it contigent.

This also applies to who else existed or where you were born.

Forgetting people, is the back bone to this thoery.

I think you are trying to get to the age old "the whole of reality is an ilusion" conclusion. Well, while I dont agree with the path you took to get there, I agree with this conclusion, if its the one you were trying to get at. Im guessing your "true" statement is the existence of the self, that is, the old "I think therefore I am".

No I'm not after the mind, because if the mind does not think it does not exist. Leave Solipism out of it. I'm being a skeptic towards objective truth and subjective truth. But NOT denying truth.

joefromchicago wrote:

ikurwa89 wrote:
My Principle of contingency states that if things didn't have to be the way they are, hence its not a true statement.

Not only doesn't this make sense as a philosophical proposition, it doesn't even make sense as an English sentence.

It cant make sense as a philosophical propostion if it does not make sense as an english sentence. (If we are talking english, that is)

Look it goes like this, I want you to ignore everyone you ever knew, and you came into "existence" at the heart of pluto.. What true statements can you arrive at?

I'm only after the statements that people tend to arrive at.

Thanks

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I'm not falling into the skeptic pitfall... I'm avoiding that by rejecting those criterias I have outlined.

All I want you is to arrive at statements that are true, by ignoring people, location and time.

Just do that, think about it!

1 Reply

@fresco,

I guess you misunderstood my aim...probably my fault...

...paying some attention one can see that what I am doing is that I am using pragmatism against itself...for instance when I say we are the belief at point X that we are a bunch of well organized atoms I am not saying we are such thing, but merely in the sense, that if it worked for us at point X to think so while nothing else did but that (a fact for whom it is a fact) then at point X it was true that such view was our one and only functional valid perspective upon Being and none other...our on be-ing there, our own experience of life, which it was true for what it was, and it did occur in the sense that we have conscience of it, give us the true measure of what we could and did believe, and such believe proved to be the one possible given no other survived in the be-ing there that we experience at such point in time...our own demise as truly knowing is not made of nothingness, but through belief, of somethingness instead !

...it does n´t matter one can say that there may be many other perspectives upon truth by a varied set of different observers...all that together were the valid functional set of perspectives that proved to exist each in its own context as perspective upon being given circumstances...they are valid in the sense that they truly existed and not others...they all account for the only possible description each person could have in particular at a given moment...
...what I am saying is that that and that alone is testimony of Truth...the something rather then nothing...the Be-ing there...proof of Being !

(...now, I think that this deserves some applause, given it is fully understood what it is said there...)

0 Replies

...you know what else Fresco...I would agree with you if it was the case that at the same time (simultaneity is important) you both agree that there is and there is n´t any Truth...

...the uncertainty in that statement would concern the demise of Logic itself...but such its not the case.

You must convey that when you postulate that it is TRUE that there is no Truth, you necessarily bind yourself to Truth...

...if it is the case that uncertainty in the Being, and not just in the knowing, exists, then both Being and not Being would be true state of affairs...
but if it is the case that it is certain that Being it is not, then how could it be certain ?
Certain for whom and in what sense ?
How, so strongly consistent then ???

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Pragmatism, if to negate it all instead of accepting it all, would equally kill the "Being in the knowing" as also in the not knowing...you would dwell with the uncertainty of Uncertainty as much as the certainty of Certainty...
(Cantor really took that path)
...we all end up with that question, discrete or continuum, finite or infinite ?

0 Replies

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89 wrote:

I'm not falling into the skeptic pitfall... I'm avoiding that by rejecting those criterias I have outlined.

All I want you is to arrive at statements that are true, by ignoring people, location and time.

Just do that, think about it!

I think you meant by ignoring in particular...otherwise I could n´t get what you are saying...

If you read my sequential set of answers you should have noticed that I just did what you asked for...Belief it is always true !

...I guess I might say with fair confidence that we know we Believe...

0 Replies

This kind of conclusion upon Belief makes me have allot more consideration for Theologians then I use to have in my youth...often I wonder for what kind of knowledge they achieve that "normal" Philosophers just don´t grasp...

Ratzinger its a good example of a monstrous intellect...
...mostly, is the reason why people don´t like him...
...he its not tangible in the popular sense...

0 Replies

On Belief(s) and "Truth"... Please examine my philosophical thoughts

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know