John Page

I see definitions of context and reality but not of truth. Could you be more specific as to the latter?

Cheers!

tempest

I said in the post Lame, I agree, but let's try again. Truth is some form of agreement between language and reality. So "truth" means "the accurate reflection through language of a particular perspective". I think there is mention of a definition like this one previously in this thread. Absolute truth would take out the perspective being "the accurate reflection through language of something that can have no perspective."

Like 2+2=4 can be called absolutely true, in a universe of arithmatic. No one who sees the objects at all sees any differently. So there is only one perspective, or no perspective at all, but more of a universal perspective, or absoluteness.

So, truth means accuracy in language. I think this is the reason we can't come up with a simple definition of truth; it's definition is itself.

Let's define the word "word". The word "word" is itself a word, so "word" is an example of a word. You don't really need to define a word, once you ask the question "What is a word?" I like to say..."the question is the answer when the question is "what is a word?" because "what" is a word.
Truth is similar to that, and even more difficult to capture once you set yourself to the task.

I tie truth to language, because I don't think it is useful to get into the "forms" and ideal world of abstracts or whatever. However, there is something useful to calling truth separate from language, because a truth can be told in different words. I have to go, I hope this provokes some more stuff.

John Page

A language is a form of representation and representations are a type of abstraction. I don't think one can avoid this issue when discussing truth.

Cheers!

Ierrellus

The "Rockness" Monster--created by Plato--

The caveman kicked a rock and observed that it rolled down a small hill. He kicked a second rock which did not roll. He "knew" both the rocks had a certain quality of rockness. If he smashed one, all of its pieces would have the physical properties of a rock. But the second rock would not roll.

Experientially, the caveman was not dealing with shadows on the wall. He was trying to impose the events of one experience on the possibilty of another. By assuming rockness as an absolute, he was unable to realize the properties of different rocks. It was a painful experience! Down with Plato.

Ierrellus

John Page

Ierrellus:

I don't think Plato took sides with the outcome, he just raised the issue. If anything, its "Down with Parmenides." Anyway, Son of Plato continued the experiment and formulated 'round rockness' as distinct from rockness in general.......

Way to go, Plato!

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

WJ

Considering I err on the existential 'truth is Subjectivity' line of thought, I see the law of non-contradiction pretty useless really. Tempest makes a good case with regard to observation of painted balls. With regard to 'things in themselves' viz. 'some-thing can't be both red and green at the same time and same respect', consider those same balls, only spinning. Does the observer know the nature of the thing? What if the ball's never stop spinning, or speed up and slow down (aka, life-physics)? And why does 'it' appear to be spinning to begin with?

Thus, the observer would not know the 'real truth' to the nature of the spinning balls, in this case, the real true colors.

How does the law of non-contradiction/identity provide for such existential meaning of things, let alone the truth of the thing's color?

Bill?

Walrus

tempest

That's why I started saying the same truth can be said with different words. There does seem to be something to "truth" apart from words. In other words there does seem to be something immaterial, abstract, or formal to "truth". In other words, truth can be separate from concret reality. In other words, truth can be sensed without even a logical construct. Like when we know we have hands. Feed me all the Hume you want, if he tells me I can't prove I have a hand one more time I'm going to hit somebody.

It is true that I have a hand. Demostrating that with words seems impossible, but it is still true.
So now we are skipping right past my hand and trying to define truth. I find it more impossible to do with words, yet more easy to grasp. That is our difficulty. The words.

So by tying the definition of "truth" to a linguistic refelction of a particular case, I am hoping to say that truth is nothing more than words that can be verified by someting other than words called experience. In other words, instead of focusing on defining truth, I've focused on how we use truth to define our words. We use "truth" to qualify words as reflecting reality accurately. So again, truth is accurate words.

So, if I again say that a truth can be spoken in many different words, what I am really saying is reality can be spoken of truthfully in many different words. In other words, truth means little more, that's just the way it is. Defining "truth" is a logical labyrinth, but worthwhile. Although, for me, the physical labyrinth is where it's at. When I find something to appear and appear again, and appear for others, I take a deep breath and say "it's true".

I think I might be copping out. I actually do find there is something to the reality of mental objects. Take infinity. I don't care how advanced a being you are, I don't care if you are God, there is nothing greater than my notion of infinity. Accept maybe infinity plus one, but who's counting. So, infinity, the unlimited, is somewhere in my head. This must mean, somewhere in my head is the reality of something unlimited, which means, to me, that I contain spirit (for lack of a better word). It doesn't mean I have a soul, or that infinity exists without me. It means that while I am conscious of infinity, I am conscious of something that can not be physical.

So maybe the definition of truth is something like that. Instead of making it merely a practical category for verifiable statements, truth is an abstraction actually existing on it's own, in my head.

So now I'm back to square one. what does truth mean. I hope I've helped.

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

I see that a few of the posters here don't understand (1) that I have sought to provide an approach to "truth" only from the human perspective; and (2) why I would want to approach the truth only from a human perspective.

First of all, I would like to say that I don't deny there might be things outside of the human mind -- I am not a Berkeley style idealist. The existence of an external world is a reasonable assumption we can draw from our perception of continuity. So distant stars and planets beyond our ability to detect might well exist, its just that you and I don't know anything about them, so their "existence" is only hypothetical, as far as we are concerned.

Second, I am not claiming that "absolute truth" is "absolutely false", thus using the judgement of the "absolute truth" model to make pronouncements against the absolute truth model. "Absolute truth" is only one possible philosophical model of many. And I would argue that it is not a necessary part of the logic model. One does not have to assume that the fundamental laws of logic are "absolutes truths". In fact, I would argue it is better to say that the fundamental laws of logic are presuppositions.

Third, there is a very good reason why I want to focus on human knowledge, rather than on any notion of ideal truths that exist beyond the understanding of human beings. It is called the egocentric predicament. Here is one explanation of the egocentric predicament I read recently:

By arguing that the fundamental laws of logic are "absolute truths", you are ignoring the egocentric predicament. You are ignoring the fact that your knowledge of the laws of logic is human knowledge. To say that you cannot, as a human being, imagine any instance where the fundamental laws of logic would be otherwise, does not make those laws of logic any less human. There is still no basis for saying that our human understanding of those laws transcends human beings, because we cannot step outside of our own humanity to prove it.

It is not valid to argue that the laws of logic must be absolutely true, otherwise human beings could never truly know anything. That is an emotive argument, not a logical one. (If you are going to insist that "logic" is the one true path to knowledge, then at the very least, I am going to insist that you make logically valid arguments.) It is also not valid to say that you have to believe in absolute truth, otherwise you would have to believe in solipsism. That is an either/or fallacy, because we can and do rely on our human knowledge, and our human knowledge can acheive a fair degree of reliability. And we can do even better still if we do not arrogantly assume we are in possession of the "absolute and irrefutable" truth, and allow for the possibility that at any moment and on any topic, there is at least a small possibility that we might err.

Finally, it is not valid to dismiss the egocentric predicament because it has led to Berkeley style idealism, where one assumes that the universe is created by the mind. For one, that kind of idealism is not really supported by the egocentric predicament, because not being able to know the world outside the mind is not the same as saying it cannot exist. Furthermore, it would be invalid to say that idealism is wrong, so the "absolute truth" model must be correct. That is another either/or fallacy, similar to the one creationists use when they assume it is enough to disprove evolution to make creationism right.

You cannot get around the egocentric predicament. It is a logical conclusion that makes the assumption of "absolute truth" inconsistent with the logic model. And that is why I say the laws of logic are presuppositional.

John Page

All of your above quoted words were generated by you to discuss the concept of truth. They are your subjective or imagined truth and all refer to notions of what reality is. Some of them may refer to objects that exist in Kim's Concrete Jungle.

I think what was in your head when you started the last sentence I quoted was the notion that the reality of something unlimited was in your mind.

As to infinity. Take the recursion n=n+1. Keep feeding in the value of n provides results we can experience but we seem to keep repeating an identical mathematical process that could go on without end. We don't know the end stop but we label the notion of the end stop "infinity". However, it does not follow that the equivalent of the notion infinity exists in external reality. Same goes for most notions of god.

Cheers!

dostf

kim :

It would seem to me that from your last post that the human being is the basis of any "truth assumption/explanations". I would fully agree with this notion.
Any explanation logical, philosophical, mathematical etc. of "truth" are human based. I would state they are always an attempt of the "reasonable/logical mind" to formulate and express what it cannot solve. It is unable to solve "truth" because it always answers from its own given framework(knowledge, comparison, logic etc.)It is a "part" trying to describe a "wholeness". This "wholeness" is the human being itself. "Truth" is not "known" it is lived.
However I would suggest that "truth" is becoming better "known" and expressed as humans progess as they in fact are not separate. "Truth" is progressive as is the human being- it is not "final" (religion), or "absolute" (philosophical models) etc.

As for your original post, i made a few comments but for whatever reason you didn't comment.

Now forget this truth business and go practice soloing over the II/V change. (small joke)....