BEARERS OF THE TRUTH....

najmelliw said:

Truth is, as stated, a perception.

I have tried to hang onto the mellifluous comments on this post. It seems we are talking all around the 'truth'.

Does anyone believe there are absolutes? Undeniable truths. It seems some posters liken truth to opinion. I wonder if any of you will comment on najmelliw's statement.

I don't think perception has anything to do with truth, unless it gets credit for shadowing and distorting truth.

When I started the Cross burning/flag burning thread, I had the absolute truth of the fact that the two are undeniably two inanimate items. Setting fire to two inanimate items, in absolute terms, should be considered equal.
Yet, people and then judges, have assigned differing values on the burning of these items.

Interested to hear comments on truth in this context.

LG, You know very well that any issue concerning religion or politics are inbedded with emotion which influences one's thinking. Trying to arrive a any one truth is an impossible task. There will never be 100 percent agreement as to what truth is. c.i.

BTW, remember what happened in Florida during the last election? Some argued that dented chads should be counted, while some said it must be completely punched through for it to be counted. What is the truth? c.i.

(thanks old/new friends for welcomes)

Lash Goth:
Agreed.

Hazlitt:
Yes on the frustration. Reading some philosophy books (Ken Wilbur) helped me by distinguishing some terminology.

c.i. Agree with both your posts about 100% truth (absolute truth requires infinite knowledge)

Here is what I think (or am regurgitating from that Wilbur book):
Individuals can arrive at Truth based on objective observations. The 'CAN' in this sentence is the first variable which can dilute/diverge the Truth (using colors here to dilute it to T r u t h ). This dilution depends on a person's ability to observe the facts, or deduce from evidence, or whatever.
[The story of the elephant in the dark cave...I may think it is a pillar or a big snake, or I may be able to determine it is an elephant....]

The second variable arises when a person has to convey this Truth . Depending on their defence mechanisms, the potential for advantage/disadvantage of a given truth, they may/may not come clean. This second variable is subjective, based on each person's truthfulness. I may want to tell other people the elephant is a pillar to keep it for myself. (tritely visualized T rut h)

The 3rd variable arises when groups of people (with varying amounts of power) interact with other groups. This subjective group activity has to do with Justness. Since unfortunately the dilution/tainting often has already happened before, it gets aggrandised in the groupthink frenzy and cause larger scale issues, like social strife and racism (in cheezy connotation: t RUT h)


Democracy is all the rage, but not if some citizens become more equal than others (by virtue of access to truth, without the virtue of truthfulness and subsequently without Justice)

The 'truth' would have been to conduct that election as all others before it. You put the ballot in the machine. It does it's job. If you did not vote correctly, as recognised by the machine, the vote is not counted.

Here is what I think (or am regurgitating from that Wilbur book):
Individuals can arrive at Truth based on objective observations. The 'CAN' in this sentence is the first variable which can dilute/diverge the Truth (using colors here to dilute it to T r u t h ). This dilution depends on a person's ability to observe the facts, or deduce from evidence, or whatever.
[The story of the elephant in the dark cave...I may think it is a pillar or a big snake, or I may be able to determine it is an elephant....]

The second variable arises when a person has to convey this Truth . Depending on their defence mechanisms, the potential for advantage/disadvantage of a given truth, they may/may not come clean. This second variable is subjective, based on each person's truthfulness. I may want to tell other people the elephant is a pillar to keep it for myself. (tritely visualized T rut h)

The 3rd variable arises when groups of people (with varying amounts of power) interact with other groups. This subjective group activity has to do with Justness. Since unfortunately the dilution/tainting often has already happened before, it gets aggrandised in the groupthink frenzy and cause larger scale issues, like social strife and racism (in cheezy connotation: t RUT h)

Reminiscent of Clinton describing his thoughts on the word 'is'.

But LG, there were different interpretations what truth is. "If you voted correctly" is a subjective truth, depending on who's doing the interpretation of what constitutes a valid vote. You and I may agree what constitutes a vote, but many others will disagree. c.i.

A valid vote, in the context of our discussion, is decided by the machine. It follows the rules set forth in voting. If the voting rules were followed, and recorded by the machine...voila--valid.

Lash, You evidently missed my previous post. I said I agree with you on what constitutes a vote. c.i.

I wasn't nipping at your heels, c.i. Just clarifying my absolute, here. Wondering if anyone disagrees...

I still can't remember what sent the country off into Chad Land. A court, no doubt?

Lash Goth,
Please elaborate...

gravy--nice to meet you.

I was discussing the 'absoluteness' of the voting process, and where we 'went off into Chad Land' in FL.

It is my contention that there are many absolutes in this world, and we are taken off track when we enforce the will of emotion.

I think FL should've counted the correctly cast votes and called it a day. I was trying to remember what propelled our nation into taking any other path. I think it was the Gore team going to court, and asking a court to intervene. Is this correct?

Likewise.


Seems reasonable to me.


Agreed, if adding a mandated statewide recount when results are within the margin of error . In that example, everyone got very excited about controlling the 'truth' by all means necessary, including surgical county counts, legal jousting, running out the clock, etc.

The truth was somewhere between impregnated and dangling chads, and the closer you looked the harder it got. Then the 9 'wise' folk said enough is enough we pick this guy...

To be frank, though, I was asking for elaboration on your (dissmissive?) post about my (verbose?) comment on truth, truthfulness, and Justice.

To be frank, though, I was asking for elaboration on your (dissmissive?) post about my (verbose?) comment on truth, truthfulness, and Justice.


dearie-- You read something into my post that was not there. I was commenting on the nature of most of the posts. They headed in all manner of shadowy, philosophical paths. I was asking for some point-blank answers to a couple of pointed questions.

self-esteem crisis averted...defence mechanisms back to defcon-1.

It is nice to seek clarification to arrive at a common truth.

Heck, They even had a "judge" counting those chad-dented votes. Makes you wonder how 'smart' they are. c.i.

Lash Goth,


I haven't read much work on the subject of truth (apart from this thread), but I do have an opinon.
Truth as we know it or use it is subjective. While there may very well be absolute truths out there, they become subjective the moment we try to analyze them, simply because we are what we are.
But what is an absolute truth in your opinion? And why do you believe that truth is absolute? I'm not saying I know the absolute truth regarding the subject at hand, you know...
Hmm, getting credit for being shadowy and distorting truth. And then an extensive discussion concerning voting? Is this really the philosphy and debate section of the forum, or did I accidentely wind up in the politics section?

Naj.

naj, Voting ballots is only an example of how "truth" becomes distorted. As you say, truth is very subjective, and different people see truth differently. c.i.

Thanks for the response. I wasn't trying to commandeer the thread, but I was trying to point to a widely known example of a truth that I believed had been distorted. It happened to be political.

I thought all of the discussion about playing around with the word, 'truth' was a good example of people looking all around truth, instead of looking at it squarely. I certainly don't discount your views or those of others who differ from mine. I just wanted to illustrate and question my view, using others' statements as an example.

I do realize that many of the contributors are students of philosophy, and come to this discussion from that angle. I come to the discussion with a simplistic, unstudied, straight-forward view of truth, and was interested to see how my views compared.

c.i.,
I know! Was being cheeky with the voting issue

Lash,
Sounds like we both have an unstudied straight-forward view of truth! It's hard to look at truth squarely you know... It's a slippery thing, truth, indeed it is. One moment you think you've got it, and the next it's gone again.
But I'm still curious as to what you feel is an absolute truth?
I'm a student of philosophy at the moment (literally at an university), but it's not an easy way of thinking about issues, reading interactions such as these are a great help and are of great interest too!

Naj.