What Is Truth?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
He didn't respond because the question was wrong. Pilate asked in search of the 'what' of truth, when the 'Who' of truth was standing before him.

Thats a very valid point. From the Christian perspective, there might be no "what" of truth only a "who" of truth which is Jesus. All other truth, it seems to follow that logic, would be coming out of Jesus, as an overflowing cup of water. Truth about reality, morality, etc can be only seen if rooted in Jesus...

Hmm, interesting, so maybe its depending on what religiously you believe to even definie philosophically what you believe, further than the what or the who...I think that makes sense.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Is one's view of the nature of truth something that can be either true or false? If so, does that create any extra complication?

Yes, thats creates a huge complication and the reason for these questions and this debate....

What is the "truth" about "truth"? Which I know sounds funny, but is and interesting aspect. And please dont even bother pointing a finger at me saying im using circular logic in my question because what I'm saying is that truth implies itself and meets it own requirements...and its not necessary to argue about non-essentials.

But if you still have contention look up some of the rules of logic, specifically "simplification" and "absorption", probably will be with the other basic rules of argumentation and logic such as "modus ponens" or "modus tollens".

Originally posted by scottishinnz
"Real" and "Truth" are words. Artificial labels we put on artificial things - mere constructs of our brains.

Ok then, if I could ask a fw questions, then what is the defining line between something being a "word" implying being artificial and between something being more than a "word".

Or is it just that "artificial" is just a word, a mere construct of our brain. And is the fragment "a mere construct of our brain" just a "word," implying being "artificial," implying being "a mere construct of our brain.

It just seems that your logic reduces everything to meaninglessness....but the problem with that is that "everything is meaningless" except that sentence that "everything is meaningless" which is in fact the exclusion and is meaningful.

Illogical, I'm sorry. But I'm open to your defense.

Originally posted by ngeisler88
Thank you! I appreciate your concise answers, which if you read my other posts on this topic is something I struggle with! lol.

But the reason why you failed to answer the questions in the best manner was in your answer of what is truth. Then later to restate your definition that truth is "just a word", and "truth about what"? blablabla....youve got n ...[text shortened]... specifically around what you think truth is, and what you think truth is in relation to.

I think that you may have a bit of trouble with reality yourself.


Good luck in your search for whatever you are looking for. . .i suggest maybe building a computer, the biggest computer ever devised.



I'm done with this thread.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
[b]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 wha ...[text shortened]... your misconception of the nature of skepticism and your equivocation on the term "know."

First of all, I am already biased against you for one reason. You term things as "strawman portrayal of his statement" without defining it (because maybe I'm unintelligent or something but I dont know what that means) or giving warrants for your claim. If you notice, almost all my posts give reason and evidence. You simply have brushed my refutations off as "strawman portrayal of skepticism" without defining what that is or even tellin me why; you simply just state it as fact.

Secondly, skepticism has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, or in the way I presented what I said. I am not a skeptic at all, because if i see a valid point I agree with it or entail some spin-off. I only refute those posts I find illogical. Once again, I am not a "true" skeptic at all who doubts everything, because then I would have to even doubt skepticism, pretty much seld-defeating.....and I am simply not doubting and refuting every post.....but moving on.

Thirdly, dont point a finger saying that I am equivocating things ie the term know, for two reasons. Firstly, Im fine with defining it so here it is, to know something is to be assured of that something/fact beyond reasonable doubt for belief. Now this is not saying that whatever you know, you believe to be true. I can know something, but believe it is false, therefore storing it away in my brain as a falsifyable fact, because I know it can be or already has been proven false. My second reason, is - talk about equivocation ie being ambiguous and unclear! Look at your own lack of defining terms and giving clear evidence. Sorry DoctorScribbles but you are guilty of what you are accusing...(any maybe I am too lol) But nevertheless, hopefully that cleared things up so I am conscious clear now.

Finally, now finally, to actually get to the part of me restating my previous response...it is as follows.

That other guy said "none of this (truth talk) can be proven". Well can he prove his statement to be true that no truth talk can be proven. If he succeeds to prove it, he negates his own sentence, because he must hold the logic of his own statement against himself to be valid ie it must fulfill its own requirements (making my questions and refutations valid and sound). And if he fails to prove it, then he still makes my questions and refutations valid and sound (meaning they can be proven, and because he proved it to be true, making them valid and sound {may seem circular, but is not, because I am simply having mine fulfill their own requirements; if they didnt then they would be invalid, but they are not}).

To give an example its like asking someone on your vacation in a foreign land, "Do you speak any English?" and there response being "No, I am sorry. I speak absolutely no English whatsoever."
Untrue and illogical! of course.

Hopefully I have made my standpoint clear.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
I think that you may have a bit of trouble with reality yourself.


Good luck in your search for whatever you are looking for. . .i suggest maybe building a computer, the biggest computer ever devised.



I'm done with this thread.

Lol, nice comment to lighten the mood of this dreay thread.

hmm. once again you people fail to give warrants for your claim even in that "simple statement" that he thinks that I may have a bit of trouble with reality myself.

Also, if he would have read a few of my first responses to peoples attempts of answering my questions, he would have discovered what I am looking for and trying to get out of this thread.

*twittle* *twittle* I guess I'll just twittle my thumbs, until somebody actually takes a coherent stance against me. (Nonetheless, I am thankful for a few previous coherent answers by people, though as a whole, I think you guys are missing the mark).

And it may surprise you that this actually is enjoying, in posting all of my comments regardless.

Anyways, hereto, wither-we-go.....I think Ive wrote too many comments now lol and I'm going to stop babbling on until another comment comes from someone other than myself. lol

Originally posted by ngeisler88
Hmm, a couple quandries arise I noticed.

You say any metaphysical discussion about truth is based on misunderstandings. Well, because we're on the subject, then even the theory of Wittgensteinian in saying "any metaphysical discussion of truth is based on misunderstandings" is prey to that subjection of the term "any"...which can also refer to "all". cause I think you are/have been of use to this discussion, which I thank you for.

1) You will notice I said any metaphysical discussion of truth. By this you might understand - discussions that suggest truth is a "thing", or indeed any discussion that might seem to suggest the concept of "truth" (which we all learn as small children and manage to use quite meaningfully) is in any way in need of theoretical inflation or reduction.

That's not what I am saying; indeed for me, to even try to say such things is ultimately meaningless. So there is no issue of circularity or question-begging.

We can illustrate a truth, prove something true, etc, and at that level the concept makes sense. And I can say that the previous sentence is true. And there is nothing circular about it. If you say, "But what do you mean by true", I might give you examples of truths, show you how we come to the conclusion they are true, etc; but if at some point you continue asking "But what do you mean by true", I will simply assume you haven't understood.

2. Whether people understand the meaning of a word is shown by whether they can use it in the appropriate circumstances. A word is defined by its use in our language. A definition is not something that captures the Platonic "essence" of some "thing".

You substitution highlights the dangers here: "How do we work out if X is green?" "How do we work out if X is sad?" "How do we work out if X is >pi?" and "How do we work out if X is true?" are all quite different sorts of questions, which we would approach in quite different ways. The "surface grammar" is similar, but that is deceptive.

One last word. I will be out of town until tuesday, so I will leave it to you the reader of this thread to continue until I get back. Then if I can, I will answer your questions, arguments, etc or praise you for logical, coherent statements. Thank you.

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.

Are you Norm Giesler?

If you are I wonder firstly if you can play a good game of chess.

Secondly, I am presently reading a book by you and Turek. And if you are not Norm Giesler your posts are still interesting.

"A General Introduction to the Bible" - Giesler and Nix, was very good. I read it years ago and lent out a copy which I have now lost.

Can I buy another one?

Ture that.

why not try just chess

Originally posted by dottewell
1) You will notice I said any metaphysical discussion of truth. By this you might understand - discussions that suggest truth is a "thing", or indeed any discussion that might seem to suggest the concept of "truth" (which we all learn as small children and manage to use quite meaningfully) is in any way in need of theoretical inflation or reduction. different ways. The "surface grammar" is similar, but that is deceptive.

Level 0: Just being, and being aware, before all images, thoughts, concepts, identifiers, labels, words... No “making-thinking,” just being aware of the phenomenal world and myself in/of that world. Not even naming things; just being present to the suchness in my own suchness which is also “of” that... Just here, in just-here. The sense of separateness—“I” here, world “there”—fades.

This state, in Zen, may be called munen (no-thought) or mushin (no-mind, or empty mind; although what the mind is “empty” of is making-thinking, not perception. I just call it clear-mind.

Level 1: Pondering just the fact that the way phenomena appear may be as much due to my sensory apparatus and brain functions, as due to the sense data I am in touch with—that is, it is difficult to know the a priori from the a posteriori in perception. (Zen: that subject/object are “mutually arising.” ) This, perhaps, is the beginning of thinking about the nature of the Level 0 experience—of being not separate, but intimately entangled with, and intimately of—well, maybe it’s best to follow Alan Watts here, saying “And we shant give it a name.”

Level 2: Noticing, nevertheless, how the apparent phenomena appear to behave—focused observation on this and that.

Level 3: Beginning to map the phenomenal world conceptually. Defining cause and effect, patterns, etc. Naming, thinking, making conceptual connections. Developing propositions, making inferences...

Level 4: Testing the map against the territory. How well does my map work? Making adjustments, expanding the map, developing alternative maps of the same territory (e.g., topographical maps, road maps, meteorological maps...).

Here it is important not to become bewitched by the map—judging the territory by the conceptual maps, and deeming the territory to be somehow “wanting.” Also, not trying to map beyond the territory (the phenomenal world), noting Wittgenstein’s warning about assuming a substance for every substantive in my linguistic map, of assuming a thing for every noun—and not trying to identify a “thing-in-itself” behind the phenomenal territory (not, for example, treating “the whole” as more than the content in various relationships—not to treat the whole as if it were a separate thing, like a jar, that contains the contents). Again, as Wittgenstein warns, to stop.

Realizing that the only completely accurate map of the territory is the territory itself, of which my conceptual maps are abstracts. That is partly why the territory as a whole, though (perhaps) conceivable, is ultimately ineffable.

If one chooses to ignore Wittgenstein’s warnings, one might move on to the next level...

Level 5: Metaphysical speculation. Wondering at such questions as “why is there anything rather than nothing?” What is the thing-in-itself underlying the phenomena? Introducing the supernatural category; adding revelation to reason and empiricism to answer such questions. Other such stuff, whether religious in nature or not.

Nothing wrong with engaging in Level 5 thinking, although this seems to be where the Zennists’ saying about “painting legs on a snake” comes in... It can be enjoyable and aesthetically rewarding (and we lives our lives as much aesthetically as rationally).

We, just need to realize, as we move from level to level, what we are doing. And Level 0 is, for me, the irreducible ground from which one begins—and to which one returns to begin again. Starting at Level 5 and attempting to work backwards seems to me to ensure that the snake will end up with legs attached...

_____________________________

Questions of “truth”—criteria and justifications—can only have meaning, it seems to me, in terms of which level you’re talking about. At Level 0, the truth is “just-this.” At Level 1, it may be just recognizing our own entanglement in and of the “all of all of all of it,” and the limits of our own perceptions. At Level 2, it may be a matter of recognizing certain apparent consistencies and patterns in the phenomenal world. [Perhaps Levels 2 and 3 in this schema should be collapsed.] At Levels 3 and 4, it may be largely pragmatic: how does my conceptual map seem to fit, and enable me to navigate, the phenomenal territory? At Level 5, it may be mostly aesthetic (if it makes any sense at all to talk of “aesthetic truth”—maybe in the sense of some kind of “trueness,” coherence, harmony...).

These are just some conjectures from my own explorations...

Originally posted by ngeisler88
One last word. I will be out of town until tuesday, so I will leave it to you the reader of this thread to continue until I get back. Then if I can, I will answer your questions, arguments, etc or praise you for logical, coherent statements. Thank you.

somerthing for you to ponder on next time you're here

The Great Tao has no form;
It brings forth and raises heaven and earth.
The Great Tao has no feelings;
It regulates the course of the sun and the moon.

The Great Tao has no name;
It raises and nourishes the myriad beings.
I do not know its name —
So I call it Tao.

The Tao can be pure or turbid, moving or tranquil.
Heaven is pure, earth is turbid;
Heaven is moving, earth is tranquil.
The male is moving, the female is tranquil.

Descending from the origin,
Flowing toward the end,
The myriad beings are being born.

Purity — the source of turbidity.
Movement — the root of tranquillity.

Always be pure and tranquil;
Heaven and earth
Return to the primordial.

The human spirit is fond of purity,
But the mind disturbs it.
The human mind is fond of tranquillity,
But desires meddle with it.

Get rid of desires for good,
And the mind will be calm.
Cleanse your mind,
And the spirit will be pure.

Naturally the six desires won't arise,
The three poisons are destroyed.
Whoever cannot do this
Has not yet cleansed his mind,
His desires are not yet driven out.

Those who have abandoned their desires:
Observe your mind by introspection —
And see there is no mind.

Then observe the body,
Look at yourself from without —
And see there is no body.

Then observe others by glancing out afar —
And see there are no beings.

Once you have realised these three,
You observe emptiness!

Use emptiness to observe emptiness,
And see there is no emptiness.
When even emptiness is no more,
There is no more nonbeing either.

Without even the existence of nonbeing
There is only serenity,
Profound and everlasting.

When serenity dissolves in nothingness —
How could there be desires?
When no desires arise
You have found true tranquillity.

In true tranquillity, go along with beings;
In true permanence, realize inner nature.
Forever going along, forever tranquil —
This is permanent purity, lasting tranquillity.

In purity and tranquillity,
Gradually enter the true Tao.
When the true Tao is entered,
It is realised.

Though we speak of "realized,"
Actually there is nothing to attain.
Rather, we speak of realization
When someone begins to transform the myriad beings.

Only who has properly understood this
Is worthy to transmit the sages' Tao.

The highest gentleman does not fight;
The lesser gentleman loves to fight.
Highest Virtue is free from Virtue;
Lesser Virtue clings to Virtue.

All clinging and attachments
Have nothing to do with the Tao or the Virtue.

People fail to realize the Tao
Because they have deviant minds.
Deviance in the mind
Means the spirit is alarmed.

Spirit alarmed,
There is clinging to things.
Clinging to things,
There is searching and coveting.

Searching and coveting,
There are passions and afflictions.
Passions, afflictions, deviance, and imaginings
Trouble and pester mind and body.

Then one falls into turbidity and shame,
Ups and downs, life and death.
Forever immersed in the sea of misery,
One is in eternity lost to the true Tao.

The Tao of true permanence
Will naturally come to those who understand.
Those who understand the realization of the Tao
Will rest forever in the pure and tranquil.

Originally posted by ngeisler88
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 rea ...[text shortened]... y own own views on "truth" to see how they compare to others.

So what do you think people?

I think these kinds of questions sound really profound but are basically meaningless.

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.

Truth, like everything else within the observable universe, is merely a perspective.
There is only one absolute.
And that is it.