First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
What is "Truth"?
Posted 12/17/10

For thousands of years, mankind has pursued truth. For most, this pursuit is a driving force which usually doesn't end until one finds a "truth" that is satisfying to him or her. Even then, one may choose to look for an alternate truth that may be even more satisfying to them. This pursuit does not always follow the same path for everyone as there are different ideas as to how truth is actually obtained and which is the best way to obtain it. ...

Plato
Pierce,
Pontius Pilate

and so it goes...
707 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / South of Heaven :P
Offline
Posted 12/24/10
Truth is a rather elusive subject. It has many interpretations, even if we all came up with brilliant theories here on Crunchyroll it may not suit you. History has proven, and disproven many kinds of truth. We can't know the correct one to pursue though simply because our life is temporary, we are going to die sometime. Meaning, everything we are will dissolve. So it doesn't really matter which we pursue or call "correct", we are just going to die in the end. It sounds fatalistic of me, but in life we search for a truth to lift us higher. Something of higher quality that we can pursue to lead to betterment. We have to define what is good and what is bad. Which has never been universally acknowledged. Because of the disagreement, we have to think of a personal truth to define. Since we are going to die, and we can't really amount to anything; our personal truth's will never satisfy us. Because after all, we are just people who can only go so far.
357 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 12/30/10 , edited 12/30/10
Truth is absolute and cannot be morphed to our own personal views.

The truth is a light that reveals all faults and inconsistencies. We as a race claim we want truth, yet shield our eyes as soon as it begins to reveal itself to us. I am not so arrogant as to say its impossible to obtain....I just doubt we are capable of handling it properly.
5231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/31/10

Burst_knuckle wrote:

Truth is absolute and cannot be morphed to our own personal views.


By claiming that it is absolute when there are alternatives, you're already shaping the truth to fit your personal views.
Posted 12/31/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Burst_knuckle wrote:

Truth is absolute and cannot be morphed to our own personal views.


By claiming that it is absolute when there are alternatives, you're already shaping the truth to fit your personal views.
Don't mistake objective "truth" with personal opinion.
5231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 1/1/11 , edited 1/1/11

DomFortress wrote:
Don't mistake objective "truth" with personal opinion.


What may be absolute truth to you may be opinion or belief to someone else. Objectivity always falls victim to subjective perception, at least in the context of philosophy. So there's no way to know if there is an absolute truth because even if there is, it will be distorted by one's personal bias. Therefore anyone claiming there is an absolute truth is already asserting their subjective perception of what truth is. At the same time, by claiming that this truth cannot be known due to our perception, I'm also asserting my own bias of what truth is. Either way it's impossible to make an objective statement about truth due to the subjective nature of human perception.
Posted 1/1/11

Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Don't mistake objective "truth" with personal opinion.


What may be absolute truth to you may be opinion or belief to someone else. Objectivity always falls victim to subjective perception, at least in the context of philosophy. So there's no way to know if there is an absolute truth because even if there is, it will be distorted by one's personal bias. Therefore anyone claiming there is an absolute truth is already asserting their subjective perception of what truth is. At the same time, by claiming that this truth cannot be known due to our perception, I'm also asserting my own bias of what truth is. Either way it's impossible to make an objective statement about truth due to the subjective nature of human perception.
You seem to uphold individual relativity at a higher regard than objective reality, but is that because you took pity on human stubbornness? Have you forgotten that in philosophy, the truth is irregardless of human emotions? Finally, what makes your relatively "subjective truth" anymore righteous than objective truth? When you stubbornly declaring that humanity can only manage to obtain biased opinions through their senses? How then do you suppose that quantum physicists discovered atomic energy?
357 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 1/1/11

DomFortress wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Don't mistake objective "truth" with personal opinion.


What may be absolute truth to you may be opinion or belief to someone else. Objectivity always falls victim to subjective perception, at least in the context of philosophy. So there's no way to know if there is an absolute truth because even if there is, it will be distorted by one's personal bias. Therefore anyone claiming there is an absolute truth is already asserting their subjective perception of what truth is. At the same time, by claiming that this truth cannot be known due to our perception, I'm also asserting my own bias of what truth is. Either way it's impossible to make an objective statement about truth due to the subjective nature of human perception.
You seem to uphold individual relativity at a higher regard than objective reality, but is that because you took pity on human stubbornness? Have you forgotten that in philosophy, the truth is irregardless of human emotions? Finally, what makes your relatively "subjective truth" anymore righteous than objective truth? When you stubbornly declaring that humanity can only manage to obtain biased opinions through their senses? How then do you suppose that quantum physicists discovered atomic energy?


It would appear that you have stolen my argument from me.

5231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 1/1/11

DomFortress wrote:
You seem to uphold individual relativity at a higher regard than objective reality, but is that because you took pity on human stubbornness?


Yes I am. Even now you're still refusing to question logic itself because that is what you perceive as an objective truth, and that perception is not universal. There are plenty like you who stubbornly assert your own subjective truth as an objective truth, regardless of other people's contradicting perceptions of that "truth."


Have you forgotten that in philosophy, the truth is irregardless of human emotions?


According to what? Is there any physical, objective data that supports this? Last time I checked philosophy isn't concerned with empirical evidence, therefore claims such as these are entirely subjective.


Finally, what makes your relatively "subjective truth" anymore righteous than objective truth? When you stubbornly declaring that humanity can only manage to obtain biased opinions through their senses?


Because you and many others will always stubbornly proclaim that your perceptions are objective, despite all contradicting perceptions, which means that all perceptions and "truths" are relative. I don't include myself in that group not because of a sense of righteousness or arrogance, but because I am fully aware and openly admit that my own perceptions are subjective, meaning I have no way of knowing of an objective truth.


How then do you suppose that quantum physicists discovered atomic energy?


Because physics is a physical science, which can be verified by physical data that is not subject to human perception, making it objective. There isn't any physical data to determine the objectivity of existence if you start with the premise that we perceive everything subjectively.
Posted 1/1/11 , edited 1/1/11

Burst_knuckle wrote:



It would appear that you have stolen my argument from me.
In the realm of intellectual debate, I'm a go-getter. When a philosopher needs to be in a truth-seeking disposition, it's therefore an occupational-hazer.


Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
You seem to uphold individual relativity at a higher regard than objective reality, but is that because you took pity on human stubbornness?


Yes I am. Even now you're still refusing to question logic itself because that is what you perceive as an objective truth, and that perception is not universal. There are plenty like you who stubbornly assert your own subjective truth as an objective truth, regardless of other people's contradicting perceptions of that "truth."


Have you forgotten that in philosophy, the truth is irregardless of human emotions?


According to what? Is there any physical, objective data that supports this? Last time I checked philosophy isn't concerned with empirical evidence, therefore claims such as these are entirely subjective.


Finally, what makes your relatively "subjective truth" anymore righteous than objective truth? When you stubbornly declaring that humanity can only manage to obtain biased opinions through their senses?


Because you and many others will always stubbornly proclaim that your perceptions are objective, despite all contradicting perceptions, which means that all perceptions and "truths" are relative. I don't include myself in that group not because of a sense of righteousness or arrogance, but because I am fully aware and openly admit that my own perceptions are subjective, meaning I have no way of knowing of an objective truth.


How then do you suppose that quantum physicists discovered atomic energy?


Because physics is a physical science, which can be verified by physical data that is not subject to human perception, making it objective. There isn't any physical data to determine the objectivity of existence if you start with the premise that we perceive everything subjectively.
And that's where you're wrong, for "correlation doesn't necessary implies causation" is the sole premise for skepticism. And physical observation devices used in scientific research are irregardless of themselves being neither working or faulty, they're specifically built to perform a certain task respectively. They have no self-interest whatsoever, they don't even evolve in order for themselves to become better fitted for survival. They just tell it like it is, much like all human children would at one point of their developmental stages.

But that being said, how would you explain that Einstein discovered the mass-energy equivalence, without himself able to observe the energy transfer on an atomic scale? The answer: divergent thinking.

So yeah, way to go at stubbornly believing that just because you cannot obtain an objective truth, then none of us will.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/1/11 , edited 1/1/11

JJT2 wrote:

what is "truth"?

is truth relative, subjective, absolute, or objective?

also could someone define relative and objective?

i thought objective was absolute truth....

and what is relative truth? relative to what? relative to our subjectivity? so does that make relative synominous with subjectivity? i am philosophically stumped here...someone help me find the "truth" peace over war


Truth is that which is true, and, by its nature, must be absolute- and it is through the philosophies, both natural and immaterial, that we uncover bits and bits of the truth.

Also, I think I should separate the terms 'truth' and 'fact'-
A fact is what one is trained to think or believes is true as oppose to what it actually true, for example, the some of great men of the sixteenth to eighteenth century thought that a homunculus, that is, a preformed little man, lived either within the seed (sperma) or the egg (ova) of the human, and that his growth is somehow stimulated by certain properties from the other sex, and many accepted this as scientific 'fact', and our modern science overturn this- forcing it from the realm of fact to be replaced by a 'fact' closer to the reality of things, or 'truth'.
Posted 1/1/11
You are brewing all your tempests into one teapot.

Quaker pennsylvania with much less physical understanding of reality is better than a modern-mongering ( america for that matter.)
Yet I nevertheless think a better understanding of the phsyical world is better than a lack of understanding, as long as moral requirements are met (by moral requirements I mean a more or less rigorous following of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', it is the shame of our species that this universal law is so constantly violated).

We are lukewarm and divided.

The only solution is truth - which requires a correct understanding of physical reality. We now have this knowledge - it is up to the thoughtful few to save humanity with this.................

................"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(George Orwell)
Posted 1/2/11

Suzuka-Mai wrote:

You are brewing all your tempests into one teapot.

Quaker pennsylvania with much less physical understanding of reality is better than a modern-mongering ( america for that matter.)
Yet I nevertheless think a better understanding of the phsyical world is better than a lack of understanding, as long as moral requirements are met (by moral requirements I mean a more or less rigorous following of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', it is the shame of our species that this universal law is so constantly violated).

We are lukewarm and divided.

The only solution is truth - which requires a correct understanding of physical reality. We now have this knowledge - it is up to the thoughtful few to save humanity with this.................

................"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(George Orwell)
I think this is how a lot of double-standard, inequality, and hypocrisy in human ideology came to be: when individuals excluded themselves from their own rules because of the immoral nature within those said rules, they don't agree nor commit to the terms of their own rules unless they claimed that they're above them. However it's exactly due to those hypocrites that the rest of human species followed through without themselves ever considered the long-term social consequences.

For example, one of my friend asked me what do I think of human cannibalism. I told her that I will allow just such behavior under two conditions: 1)that it's the absolute last resort in order to derive protein, including alternative vegetable protein sources. And 2)that I'll be the first to be consumed by others, and I'll put up a fight towards those who's willing to take my proposal.
5231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 1/3/11

DomFortress wrote:

And that's where you're wrong, for "correlation doesn't necessary implies causation" is the sole premise for skepticism. And physical observation devices used in scientific research are irregardless of themselves being neither working or faulty, they're specifically built to perform a certain task respectively. They have no self-interest whatsoever, they don't even evolve in order for themselves to become better fitted for survival. They just tell it like it is, much like all human children would at one point of their developmental stages.

I've made it clear that I'm aware of all of that. This is a huge red herring because we're discussing "truth" in a philosophical context, not a scientific one. I already stated that

But that being said, how would you explain that Einstein discovered the mass-energy equivalence, without himself able to observe the energy transfer on an atomic scale? The answer: divergent thinking.


I've made it clear that I'm aware of all of that. This is a huge red herring because we're discussing "truth" in a philosophical context, not a scientific one. I already stated that science uses physical, empirical evidence, and every observation begins with the premise that you explained above (evidence isn't subject to human perception) which makes it objective. Philosophy doesn't use evidence because there is no way to gather measurable data for any philosophical claim, because philosophy itself (aside from absolutist positions) operates on the premise that all human experiences and perceptions are subjective.

The discussion that I was trying to have involved questioning the systematic process of philosophy itself (reason and logic), since that is also subject to human perception. But since you've diverted from that then I'm assuming that you don't want to have that discussion since it involves questioning your own perception of reality, which most people aren't comfortable doing.

Posted 1/3/11
I view truth as being only one truth, not subjective. It is in the minds of the knowledgeable where truth is deciphered from lies, and the greatest truth is our inevitable surrender to nothingness beyond this lie of a life.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.