1. Joined
    14 Aug '06
    Moves
    8788
    26 Aug '06 18:01
    Heres some questions to think about. (1) What is real? What is truth? Define them witout citing synonyms please. (2) Can truth about reality be known? (3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we are not sure about the first 3 questions, and why?

    I would also prefer if posters stick to value theory debate, and not get off on too many tangents. Thank you, I appreciate your time and your input.
  2. Joined
    13 Apr '06
    Moves
    24617
    26 Aug '06 20:55
    you know none of this can be proved, are you just wanting attention?
  3. Joined
    12 Jun '05
    Moves
    14671
    26 Aug '06 21:11
    Originally posted by ngeisler88
    Heres some questions to think about. (1) What is real? What is truth? Define them witout citing synonyms please. (2) Can truth about reality be known? (3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we a ...[text shortened]... debate, and not get off on too many tangents. Thank you, I appreciate your time and your input.
    If you are genuinely interested, here's a decent philosophy primer on various theories of truth.

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm

    But if you just want people to say "goddunit", then say so.
  4. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    26 Aug '06 21:26
    Originally posted by ngeisler88
    Heres some questions to think about. (1) What is real? What is truth? Define them witout citing synonyms please. (2) Can truth about reality be known? (3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we a ...[text shortened]... debate, and not get off on too many tangents. Thank you, I appreciate your time and your input.
    who cares? those are dumb questions
  5. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    26 Aug '06 21:54
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=truth
  6. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    26 Aug '06 22:01
    Isn't that what Pilate ask Jesus?
  7. Joined
    14 Aug '06
    Moves
    8788
    27 Aug '06 01:50
    Originally posted by mazziewag
    you know none of this can be proved, are you just wanting attention?
    Not to seem rude, but I will be critical of your statement.

    You say none of this can be proven, which I am assuming you refer to my post about truth - obvious I know. So basically what your saying is that you can't know what truth is. Then you cant believe in anything with absolute certainty because it must be 100% true in order to foll under the category of truth, which is something you say we cant know. Hopefully, that is understandable, but that is the logical conclusion of what your saying.

    However, and heres where I have contention with your response, is that you seem to know that "none" of this can be proven. None is a strong word, inferring no possible way - obvious I know. So you seem to know with absolute certainity that you cant know something to be true with absolute certainty, though you seem to believe that is true. So then what your saying is that you cant know truth, none of it can be proven, there are no absolutes to weight it against blablabla..... Therefore according to your logic, "there are no absolutes about truth," except that statemen which is an absolute and because you said it, I'm assuming you believe that to be true.

    Do you see the flaw with your logic in that simple attempt of refutation? Whether you like it or not, that is the logical conclusion of what youre saying. And basically your statement is self-defeating, because you must truthfully know that none of this [truth talk] can be proven, meaning you cant truthfully know anything.....but somehow you know that.
  8. Joined
    14 Aug '06
    Moves
    8788
    27 Aug '06 02:12
    Originally posted by mazziewag
    you know none of this can be proved, are you just wanting attention?
    Uhmm, yeah, the last comment I responded to under this post was probably long and confusing.

    But Mazziewag or any other people for that matter, if you really are interested in what I'm saying or would like it explained better, then please send me a message.
  9. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    27 Aug '06 02:20
    TRUTHfully, this forum is boreing. i believe in that.
  10. Joined
    14 Aug '06
    Moves
    8788
    27 Aug '06 02:42
    Originally posted by dottewell
    If you are genuinely interested, here's a decent philosophy primer on various theories of truth.

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm

    But if you just want people to say "goddunit", then say so.
    Yeah, thats some deep stuff. Thank you for your reference, although I do find some fault on what they are presenting/claiming...but it is definitely intriguing.

    However the main purpose of my post, although not mentioned (my own fault), is to just see what other people truthfully think about truth. I already have formulated and opinion through personal investigation, so more resources is not really what I am looking for, although that site did make me think. So what I really wanted, Dottewell, was to hear what you think it means, your understanding and viewpoint of it right now, not necessarily what others have presented.

    Thanks for your reference, but I hoped that cleared things up.
  11. Joined
    14 Aug '06
    Moves
    8788
    27 Aug '06 02:52
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=truth
    Yeah I think that is the most easy and obvious answer, but what do you really believe is true or false about what people present and define as truth? Because a simple dictionary definition doesnt satisy.

    The purpose of my post was to get people to think and post what is their answer to those 4 questions. Yeah, it's deep I guess, but I posted this really to analyze my own own views on "truth" to see how they compare to others.

    So what do you think people?
  12. Joined
    12 Jun '05
    Moves
    14671
    27 Aug '06 02:531 edit
    Originally posted by ngeisler88
    Yeah, thats some deep stuff. Thank you for your reference, although I do find some fault on what they are presenting/claiming...but it is definitely intriguing.

    However the main purpose of my post, although not mentioned (my own fault), is to just see what other people truthfully think about truth. I already have formulated and opinion through person ...[text shortened]... ly what others have presented.

    Thanks for your reference, but I hoped that cleared things up.
    My point in posting the link was to make sure you were aware there were several theories of truth which either answer or at least address your questions.

    If you really want to know, my own approach to the matter is Wittgensteinian. I think any "metaphysical dicussion" of truth is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept, and how it functions in our language. I think your questions can be answered either trivially, or are meaningless. I think when you start imagining truth as some "thing", you are going terribly wrong. I think the important and meaningful questions about truth are along the lines of "How do we work out if X is true" or even "Is X true"?

    Please don't bracket me with relativists; this is something quite different.

    Anyway, I won't be any use in the discussion you want to have.
  13. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    27 Aug '06 03:03
    Originally posted by ngeisler88
    Heres some questions to think about. (1) What is real? What is truth? Define them witout citing synonyms please. (2) Can truth about reality be known? (3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we a ...[text shortened]... debate, and not get off on too many tangents. Thank you, I appreciate your time and your input.
    I support a neo-classical correspondence theory of truth: roughly, truth lies in the satisfaction of a correspondence relation between a structured proposition and a fact.

    Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we are not sure about the first 3 questions, and why?

    These are silly questions.

    --------------------------------------------
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
  14. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    27 Aug '06 03:45
    Originally posted by ngeisler88
    Heres some questions to think about. (1) What is real? What is truth? Define them witout citing synonyms please. (2) Can truth about reality be known? (3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we a ...[text shortened]... debate, and not get off on too many tangents. Thank you, I appreciate your time and your input.
    "Real" and "Truth" are words. Artificial labels we put on artificial things - mere constructs of our brains.
  15. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    27 Aug '06 04:325 edits
    Originally posted by ngeisler88
    Do you see the flaw with your logic in that simple attempt of refutation?

    I don't, and I'm a pretty sharp guy. What is the flaw? Analytically derive a contradiction from his statement, not from a strawman portrayal of his statement. Then I'll see it, if it's there.


    Whether you like it or not, that is the logical conclusion of what youre saying.

    Actually, it's only the logical conclusion of a strawman portrayal of skepticism. I don't believe it can be derived from his actual claim.


    And basically your statement is self-defeating, because you must truthfully know that none of this [truth talk] can be proven, meaning you cant truthfully know anything.....but somehow you know that.

    This is a non-sequitur, again rooted in your misconception of the nature of skepticism and your equivocation on the term "know."
Back to Top