The truth and nothing but the facts

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Thomas, Jun 3, 2016.

  1. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,382
    Likes Received:
    135
    This actually exemplifies what I am trying to say.

    Each technique *in its day* seemed to be fact / truth / reality to those people (in their own minds), but genuinely was not Fact / Truth / Reality because they had and have no way of fully grasping the totality of the IS, as you clearly state. Anything that is not fully and completely true is not Truth. Truth and Reality are not contingent on our understanding, both are bigger than all of us combined, they are outside of us, they do not bend to our will.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2018
  2. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,382
    Likes Received:
    135
    OK Thomas...thought experiment.

    The Sun and Stars revolve around the Earth, the Earth is the center of the Universe. Fact? Truth? Reality? Why or why not?
     
  3. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,958
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    I was always under the impression we never had evidence of speciation happening under our gaze, as it were. Rather I understood evolution to be self-evident from the abundance of evidence?
     
  4. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,958
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Not quite. You, I and the entire science world fell for it, for a while ...

    You're comparing X and Y again ... :rolleyes:
     
  5. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,958
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    OK, I'll go with this ... (I am considering your longer post, and not ignoring it).

    Geocentrism was a fact, but it was not true, nor an accurate depiction of reality. Why, because it turns out that the earth revolves around the sun, the sun around ... etc.
     
    juantoo3 likes this.
  6. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,382
    Likes Received:
    135
    OK...so if Geocentrism was a fact, that means it was also true and real to the folks of that day and time? Yes?
     
  7. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,958
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    OK

    Are you not taking a position now, as 'they' do?

    I'm in muted agreement with regards to reality, but I'm not sure 'truth' is so easy to pin down. Yes, there are empirical truths, but there's more to truth than that.

    But can we really live our lives in the certain knowledge that 99.999% of what we believe is most probably not true and therefore not worth fussing about?

    OK

    I'm not so sure.

    I'd argue it is, but that doesn't render it meaningless. They are all meaningless terms, it's we that give them meaning.

    Or put another way, agreeing that the Truth/Reality/IS is beyond our ken, where does that leave us?

    You can't ask people to regard their lives as built on abstract concepts which are not true but an approximation of what we think today is the truth but most probably will not be true tomorrow ... and more than you can, when asking the big questions, simply shrug and say 'who knows'?

    I'm not sure what you're asking for here?

    Is it? Doesn't Quantum Physics render it more provisional and contingent?

    OK. Your choice. I see it as somewhat more fluid ...

    And yet we keep trying. It's the genius of humanity ...

    LOL, you sound like a theologian!

    Always and forever ...
     
    juantoo3 likes this.
  8. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,958
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Yes
     
  9. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,382
    Likes Received:
    135
    OK, so if Geocentrism was a truth, fact and reality for folks of that age, relying on what they "knew" to be for certain, and yet we today because of additional knowledge look back on them (sometimes in ridicule!) and the narrowness and shortsightedness of their view as being unenlightened, no?

    What makes us think our current view is significantly more enlightened than their view? Zeitgeist? Cultural Superiority? Some psychological necessity to be "right?" We are still hamstrung, there are pieces of the puzzle we don't even know exist, pieces we don't even know to look for yet.

    Oh, there's the smug "they'll look back on us in a hundred, two hundred, a thousand years and laugh at us too" line of thought, always it seems presented in a condescending tone. We are collectively ignorant, but we tell ourselves we are all knowing.
     
  10. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,382
    Likes Received:
    135
    Why would you think otherwise? Doesn't everybody take a position? The difference being my position is more humbling, and in process makes me more receptive to learning. A mind that already knows cannot learn.

    I would argue that is a perversion of the word, an obfuscating profundity designed to dilute the meaning. There cannot be "many truths," there can only be one Truth. There *can* be many perceptions of that Truth, but only one Truth. (and NO religion, or science, has it in totality!)

    As a student, an adept, a scholar, a philosopher...how can you not???

    True, or False? Yes, or No?

    It is the most pure and sincere dichotomy in all of our created concepts. I would need to research, but I would be inclined to think that the advent of "many truths" is a fairly recent philosophical development, that my view (however distorted and abused in the past) is likely closer to the original intent.

    Humble, and open to learning.

    Why not?

    Nope. Keep in mind Quantum Physics (or any Physics) is but another discipline used to attempt to describe what is thought to be understood, but even Quantum Physicists will tell you there are limits to what their discipline can address, beyond which is speculation. This is another "perception."

    Now...presuming for the moment, for the sake of argument...that Quantum Physics actually does have it all figured out, it is still a perception of the Reality, of Truth, of the IS. The menu is not the food. The finger pointing is not the moon.

    Let me see if I can expand...do you see the neutrinos that pass through you? Do you feel the neutrinos that pass through you. Do you hear them, smell them, taste them? Are you even aware neutrinos are passing right through you? The various Colliders and other experiments give us a glimpse at the building blocks of the universe, but without these tools we have no way of cognizantly comprehending these minute pieces of matter and energy. We are back at the limitations of our senses, and without tools...which must convert Reality into something we can perceive...these things would be beyond our scope of comprehension.

    No doubt, but a mind is more receptive that hungers for knowledge, not so for a mind that is already full and content to be so.

    In my own way, I've always been...
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  11. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,958
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    OK. I'm not sure who you're aiming at here. Whatever, I don't think you're the only humble or receptive person on the planet — not that I think you're saying that — but nevertheless, you believe what you believe and are arguing forcefully, even those you simultaneously believe you might be wrong.

    Funny, I would argue the reverse.

    OK. This sounds very much like the Traditionalist position.

    If there was nothing in existence, would truth exist?

    I'd say yes, as a concept, a possibility (never mind the contradiction of who the heck am I, if nothing exists). There is the potential for something to be true. In which case, truth is a quality we ascribe to things. It's not actual until there's something of which we can say, 'that is true'.

    But that will always be itself first, and true subsequently. I exist. That's true. But there was a time when I did not, and there will be a time when I am not. That doesn't make my current existence unreal, or untrue, it's just conditional, but it's no less true. I exist, that's 100% true, but it's not the totality of truth.

    And nothing is or can be that totality.

    That's the way I see it.

    So I don't think there is there is One numerical Absolute Truth. Rather 'truth' is a singular quality shared by many, to a greater or lesser degree.

    Truth itself is a quality; formless, it neither increases nor decreases, grows or decays. It stands before, over and above anything and everything that can be said to be true. It is in a category of one. (Untrue, or false, is not a complement, but the absence of ... )

    Your One Truth is astonishingly close to the theist's idea of God.

    Is the truth that cannot be spoken, because there is nothing to say. It's what the ancients would declare Transcendental, because no statement or definition of truth, other than it is, can be made. Truth, as such, is prior to anything that is true, other than it's own nature.

    They would go on to say what is real is true, and vice versa.

    After Absolute Truth comes relative truths. Now we're in the world of things. The cosmos is, that is true, but that truth is conditional, one day it will not be. It had a beginning, it has an end (not to get caught up in the nature of time). But as said above, if something can be said to be true, then it is absolutely true.

    Yes, as above, that truth cannot be perceived, because there's nothing to perceive.

    But access to it, more or less, by degree.

    In which case we'd have nothing to say about anything, surely? All inquiry would stop, because we know a priori we cannot know?

    That strikes me as somewhat nihilist.

    What is 'love'? Is it true? It moves man more than 'truth' ... it's what makes the world go round.

    But then again, I agree. It is the genius of humanity.

    I'm not so sure. I rather think it points to the fact that many things manifest the truth, and point towards the Truth of which you speak ... without that, we'd have to agree that truth is a possible, abstract state that may or may not exist.

    Of course.

    Music to my ears! Will you tell the rest that?

    Yep. I was like that on my first day of school, and fell out of love with that institution before the day's end!

    So where do we go from here ... ?
     
    juantoo3 likes this.
  12. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,382
    Likes Received:
    135
    As stated initially, I am aiming at the folks who use moving goalposts to support their rooftop rants.

    I have always, only and ever said since I started here that I was open to other considerations.

    I may reject them because they have already been considered and found wanting, but I do understand that there is the possibility I may be mistaken.

    That is your prerogative, but as mentioned it dilutes the meaning to the point of meaninglessness in extreme. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" becomes a subjective value judgment that can have so many meanings as to be meaningless.

    An interesting question.

    Truth is contingent on Reality, no? If Reality is Nothingness, then I would say yes. But since nothing exists, the point would be moot.

    Your point here is meaningless because the Universe and the Reality of it *does* exist.

    We're back to *perception* of Reality here.

    Truth and Reality will exist whether you do or not. The Truth of you will be from your beginning to your end, but you are an insignificant tiny little piece of an infinite whole...and so am I.

    Quite

    The Universe exists...yes or no? The Universe exists whether you are here to observe, or not? The Universe exists only because you believe it does, or it exists in spite of your beliefs?

    I'm not asking if you understand the Universe, or any significant part thereof...I am asking if It exists?

    I disagree, this is a common misnomer. You are attempting to make Truth into a value judgment like beauty and goodness. That is not correct.

    Happy Accident

    Quite. Too much finger pointing and not enough gazing at the moon. Too much menu reading, and no time to savor the flavors of the meal.

    I think that is reasonable to say.

    What you are calling "relative truths" (situational, conditional) are perceptions and / or value judgments...in and of themselves they are not Truth, though they may (or may not) point to Truth.

    Not at all. Why should it quench the thirst for knowledge, or end the pain of hunger to know the Truth?

    :D Ah! That is another subject for another day.

    Perception of truth can point to Truth, but we do not have that as a guarantee.

    I have been, more than 12 years now here, and more elsewhere...and it falls on deaf ears! It occurred to me this subject is a part of the reason why. Conflation and confusion of terms. There's nothing mystical about it.

    I'm sorry for your loss, I have an inner drive to learn that spurs me on since I can remember. Nevermind school, that was simply a precursor and exercise to prime my mind, though I do thank a number of excellent teachers I've been blessed to study under through the years.

    We need to learn to learn, not regurgitate.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  13. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    20,365
    Likes Received:
    1,236
     
  14. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    20,365
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    of course we did.. we fall for most things...assume they are correct until they are proven wrong. That is life. Somebody has an idea, or a solution, if it doesn't counter current understandings, if we can't immediately prove it wrong... we accept it, until we can either validate or eliminate...

    You know, like the earth centered universe...or seven days of creation.
    not really... As long as we don't edit the books...people will still swear it is fact.
     
  15. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    484
    No it was just that you used the words 'turning moment' and I was interested in what that moment would be like.
    Just for contrast, I understand evolution as a river or a growing tree. In some ways it is different from one moment to the next, and in other ways it is the same. The categorization and naming of these are, as I see them, arbitrary and constructions. They are there for us to understand nature.
    But 'turning moment' sounds to me like a point in time where the river or the tree are transforming rather then it being a constant transformation.
     
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,958
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Yes Wil, really. It's 'science v religion' again. You're saying there's no distinction between sacra doctrina and science textbooks.

    You're measuring one genre by the standards of another, when they're two completely different things.

    Ooh, no, no, no. The next thing, they'll be burning them.

    People have tried that anyway — JWs, Jefferson — or they produce their own commentaries ... hasn't clarified anything, if anything, it's just muddied the waters.

    For example, if you edited the Bible on a democratic basis, according to the mores of contemporary consumer-materialist ethic of the corporate West, then 'do unto others' would go (or at least be revised), in fact I reckon all your favourite texts would be the first to go ...

    Surely, taking the examples above, you'd just end up with an edit that reflects the zeitgeist rather than 'the winnowed wisdom of the human race' (Huston Smith)? And wouldn't you end up with a version hand-crafted for the very people you rail against? And does anyone else see that as a solution to the problem?

    That's people though, Wil, isn't it, rather than the book? People will swear black is white ...

    Where did Young Earth Theory, Creationism, Intelligent Design or an infatuation with the Rapture come from? All these are relatively recent phenomena, and they're all American ... it may well be that Hispanic Catholic immigrants believe the creation account in Genesis, but as far as I can see, they're not the ones agitating to have science removed from the classroom, it's WASP ... that would suggest to me the problem doesn't lie with a 2,000 year old text, especially one that's admired around the world, esteemed by every spiritual tradition ... I don't think that should be edited in an attempt to manage the aspirations of a small if vociferous section of society — that's censorship.

    D'you think Newton would have excised the account of creation from Genesis, or Galileo trimmed Joshua 10 because it says the sun stood still? Did either give up their faith in light of their scientific understanding?

    All the 'errors' and 'contradictions' that people like to go on about are answered by sound and rational commentary, but people aren't interested in reason and logic and rationale, they want the sensational, they want entertainment ...

    +++
     
  17. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,958
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    That's the way I see it. Mutation occurs, but it's not something you can pin down to a particular moment ...

    Makes sense to me
     
    A Cup Of Tea likes this.
  18. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,958
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    With you there.

    No to me is all I can say to that.

    As ever, for me, anything said anywhere is contextual, so in that sense it can have only one meaning (ie Logos, in this instance), but I can see those who don't believe would dispute that.

    This is getting to the nub of it, for me.

    I'd say yes, therefore truth is a quality of the Real.

    I know, but it's a useful exercise, I think, in exploring the idea.

    Yes ... but I am sitting at a desk, before a computer and keyboard, in a room, etc. That's all real, therefore true.

    Indeed, but each insignificant tiny little piece of an infinite whole is not 'less true' or 'less real' because of it.

    Oh yes. I'd say it subsists, but that's again, another dialogue.

    Then yes.

    I rather think that's what 'truth' is — like 'real', 'beauty' and 'good', it's a value we predicate of things. You can't point to the true or the real in isolation, rather it's something that everything that possesses it has in common. (Beauty is a different case).

    In fact, are not realness and truthfulness qualities of existence? Are they not the first predicates of being, that if something is, it is real, and it is what it is?

    We can see existing things, but we cannot see reality or truth apart from existing things. Reality and truth do not exist apart from existence. Stars exist, moons exist, but truth and realness do not exist in the same way, they have no material existence or being in and of themselves.

    Or is it? (mwuhahahaha!)

    So is not then the whole universe relatively true, and relatively real, in that its existence is situational and conditional?

    I think we'd have different answers to that.

    No, I always find the error quite mundane.

    It's not as bad as I make out, although my mother always tells the story. I took a leaf into class, gave it to the teacher and said, 'How does this work?' She took it off me and told me to go and sit down. My mum reckons it was then (my first week), that I decided school wasn't for me.

    I have come to realise the best teachers teach by invitation and inspiration... A sense of humour helps ... And the ability to communicate ...

    I once thought the sign of wisdom s/he who never gave the same answer twice to the same question ...
     

    Attached Files:

    StevePame likes this.
  19. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,382
    Likes Received:
    135
    At work, no time for the whole post just now.

    Can Reality ever be false?
     
  20. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,958
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    No ...
     

Share This Page