First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
What is "Truth"?
Posted 1/4/11

Cuddlebuns wrote:


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.
Actually, my last philosophical experiment involved myself mentally subjecting my perception, by me willingly altered all of my inhibitors. The end result was a total egotist breakdown on my moral faculty, and no, I'm not proud of my subsequent berserk state because of it. I almost snapped someone's neck by the collar with one hand, only because I was rationally self-destructive.

As you can see that my logic/reasoning faculty was morally neutral/indifferent, that it simply analysis the situation in order to formulate the desired result accordingly. And I've hurt a lot of people on an emotional level because of my indifference, but my sense of guilt had paralyzed my person as the final safety.

So while my rational self have no objection, my emotional self OTOH urges myself to apologize for the harm I've caused on human social fabric. If you don't mind, I need all the discipline I can muster to reconfigure my personality based.
12013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/11
To reply to the op:

Truth is always subjective as long as you can only experience reality from one viewpoint at any given time. This is why, in society, the more people believe something the more it is regarded as truth, because people add up everyone's experiences and, if those experiences overlap with their own, they believe both themselves and everybody else must be right, since they share the same "truth". The problem is that what somebody else tells you is not a firsthand experience; it has been formed into words and processed by the individual that tells it. Thus it is not valid to base truth solely on the information you are given by others, because what you are most comfortable in believing is what aligns best with your existing world view, which is severely subjective and biased.

So the dilemma is that nothing can ever be 100% truth. I had a big problem with this on a psychological level some time ago, because as I delved into spiritual studies purely for experimental reasons, I found that I experienced things that made no sense in the world I thought I knew. It defied what I perceived as "truth". What I have found is that the scientific method holds up great in establishing a critical but somewhat more stable world view and concept of truth. If you're unfamiliar with the scientific method, you can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_scientific_method

You might wonder how you translate a theory based around lab experiments to a way of perceiving reality, but to put it simply, it's a mindset that values experience, experimentation and critical thinking over believing existing information. For example, let's say you want to try a new diet. The first thing you do is read as much as you can about it to get a general grasp of its method. Then you see if you can find alternative information about its fact points (are calories bad for you? How does the body burn fat? Can you live on x amount of nutritional values without being malnourished? etc) and then you evaluate the original diet plan. The more information you have from the more sources, the closer you are to a "truth" that is based on experience, experimentation and critical thinking. But this means that you might have to experiment with this diet plan yourself if it seems like a good idea but you're unsure due to varying information, and if it works or doesn't, try to research why. And share your experience with others.
66 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Living in the moo...
Offline
Posted 1/6/11
I believe truth is subjective, It's altered based on an indivudals perception of events. It may be possible to get an absolute truth on actions but the reasons behind actions are all based upon perception so a full absolute truth is impossible to obtain. In my opinion.
33075 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 5/8/11
Truth is not fact. Truth is interpretive, and anything interpretive is not by definition a fact. Interpretations are subjective and relative to our own experiences based off of our perceptions. How we perceive things can be based off of a number of factors; sight, sound, smell, taste sure, but, also biological and genetic factors. By that line of thought Truth can be relative, subjective, and both relative and subjective.
1767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / In my mind
Offline
Posted 5/19/11
This is a debate between the Sophists and Platon. And since Platon managed to win against the Sophits, I say that Truth is Absolute.
7430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / F / New York
Offline
Posted 6/1/11
Truth is absolute.

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/20/11 , edited 6/20/11
Truth is absolute, there is no arguing with 'truth', there exist only right or wrong. Now, truth is too profound to be viewed by man in its absolute, and thus, we only see specks of it here and there, within every idea, every philosophy, no matter how absurd they seem (and most philosophy is absurd by its very nature), buried under all that confoundation of words and mutilation of common sense, there exist, deep within, a some semblance of truth.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/20/11

Dabrush wrote:

This is a debate between the Sophists and Platon. And since Platon managed to win against the Sophits, I say that Truth is Absolute.


One can be argued wrong, and still be right- the victors in any battle, whether of words, ideas, or swords, are not necessarily right.
Posted 6/22/11
only thoughts are subjective, nature is the one thing that held steadfast against the weight of human Ideals, and even that humans are working to destroy.
4330 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / HK
Offline
Posted 5/26/12
Truth is something subjective.

Question:
If we were to look at a tree, then look away, is it still there? or did it just disappear? We realize that it didn't just get up and run away because of experience. It is the experience of THAT person that makes it the truth. Thus the tree did not disappear.

Philosophy ftw.
Posted 5/27/12
It's one part everything you think it is, and one part nowhere near what you think it is, because that other person is a f-cking idiot.
2265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / only kami neko knows
Offline
Posted 6/3/12
Truth: either God exist or he doesn't
4047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
not sharing my asl
Offline
Posted 7/27/12
these answers helped a lot for English class thanks
16179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 7/27/12

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


All known truths are subjective.

Objective truths are what people imagine truth would be if it did not need to be interpreted, however all known things are interpreted.

Absolute truth cannot be obtained unless people ascend their correct form of existence. We currently lack the biological tools to comprehend absolute truth, this is a shortcoming that cannot be overcomed with technology.
5 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 8/20/12
The truth is that Dubstep is not music.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.