Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 09:10 pm
CI... you gotta stop sneaking around here! You keep popping up these little comments inbetween my posts! How do you do that? Razz Then I'm going back to look at other things and I suddenly see you snuck another little comment in there! Goodness!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 09:18 pm
I"m usually sneaking around in the background to see if anybody provides something with a bit of new nugget to latch on to. Most of it seems like circular rehash. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 09:18 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Hepz, you say that "Truth is what it is...." I prefer to say that Reality is what it is. As I've argued many times "truth" is the passing value we grant to propositions about the nature of Reality.
Also, it doesn't really matter (except perhaps in the context of the political aggressions of religion in America) whether or not you or I "believe" in Evolution; it is NOT a religious faith.
It is a theoretical scheme by which scientists order and integrate findings from various scientific fields, etc. biology, archaeology, geology, physiology, genetics....Think of evolution not in terms of a "theory OF evolution", but as an organizing scheme, as "Evolutionary Theory". It has absolutely nothing to do with religion and should never address its concerns.
I like Annie's version of "truth" as "experience." Mystics sometimes have presentiments of the nature of Reality which are extra rational (neither rational nor irrational). They are like unspoken/unspeakable, but intuited, propositions about Reality.


JL... Umm... I don't think I did use evolution to address the concerns of religion? Please correct me if I'm wrong on that... Hmm... As far as truth being the passing value we grant to propositions about the nature of reality, well I disagree because if truth is experiential then God IS real. No doubt about it. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 09:20 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I"m usually sneaking around in the background to see if anybody provides something with a bit of new nugget to latch on to. Most of it seems like circular rehash. Sorry.


It's ok. I was just picking on you. That has happened to me with you a lot though. I just now found your second comment from when we were talking earlier about the end of the world. I was like... HUH??
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 09:25 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Again: truth is in the eye of the beholder. Reality is what each individual perceives it to be.


Let me just say this. I believe that differnt people perceive different things to be truth. However, I don't believe that just because someone perceives it as truth means it is or would be to me.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 09:27 pm
You are correct; perception and truth are different animals.
0 Replies
 
queen annie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 08:59 am
hephzibah wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Again: truth is in the eye of the beholder. Reality is what each individual perceives it to be.


Let me just say this. I believe that differnt people perceive different things to be truth. However, I don't believe that just because someone perceives it as truth means it is or would be to me.

But this sort of 'truth' could also be termed (in the manner we are debating/defining these ideas): 'authenticity,' don't you think? Perhaps?


What I mean is:
An individual's personal integrity--with self and in all manner of dealings with other people--even to the point of a livelihood and lifestyle chosen freely according to what makes them truly happy and productive--that is 'truth.' But it is unique personal truth, based on perception as well as experience, and so really it comes down to making one's 'reality' as 'real' as possible in one's unique sphere...

Kinda like 'To thine own self be true.'

Question
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 09:39 am
Annie, another semantic point: I distinguish between "truth" and "truthful." The former indicates (for me) the accuracy of a statement about the world (a true statement), and the latter indicates the sincerity of a statement. I may be truthful (sincere or authentic) in a statement to you, but I may be wrong regarding the truth value of the statement.
(I try to be truthful with people, and I try to know the truth about things: two distinct things).
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 09:40 am
Quote:
What I mean is:
An individual's personal integrity--with self and in all manner of dealings with other people--even to the point of a livelihood and lifestyle chosen freely according to what makes them truly happy and productive--that is 'truth.' But it is unique personal truth, based on perception as well as experience, and so really it comes down to making one's 'reality' as 'real' as possible in one's unique sphere...

Kinda like 'To thine own self be true.'


Yes, I can see what you are saying, and if the world were a place where everyone had integrity, and dealt fairly with others this would be a very good concept. Unfortunately though the world is not. "To thine own self be true..." At what cost?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 09:23 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Again: truth is in the eye of the beholder. Reality is what each individual perceives it to be.
Joe Sixpack gots a frend whut's schithzofrenic. His'n reality's skeery - reel skeery.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 10:31 am
A good quote:

"Does belief make itself the adversity to truth? Can truth be the great adversity to belief? Is so, which race would you choose to run?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 10:36 am
Did you perhaps mean to use the word adversary?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 10:38 am
No. That's not how the quote goes.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 11:25 am
Sometimes beliefs (useful fictions) are more functional than some "truths." But on the average, I prefer beliefs that are "true"--keeping in mind that virtually all truths are only provisionally so.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 11:27 am
Diest TKO wrote:
No. That's not how the quote goes.


I suggest that you provide a link to the quote at another source, because that's crap English.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 11:40 am
No. "Adversary" would be to give human traits to the word were as "adversity" implies a some action.

The Quote is from Thomas Paine (Founder of Deism). I don't see what your objection is. tHe meaning is quite clear and relevant ot the topic?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 12:01 pm
0 Replies
 
void123
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2014 01:01 am
@neologist,
a circular argument
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2014 05:33 am
@void123,
Perhaps you're not aware of this but the last activity on this thread was 7 years ago. You seem to be going around this forum posting comments on inactive threads. If you check the datestamp, you'll notice this and other of your posts are on threads that are many years old.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2014 08:06 am
@Ragman,
True Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is truth?
  3. » Page 18
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 12:18:59