Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dostf · 08-08-2002, 09:06 PM

Keith Russell:

One can have evidence which is not sufficient to be considered 'truth', but which is sufficient enough to suggest that a claim is at least 'plausible', 'very likely', 'possible', etc.

In these cases (sans a great deal of evidence) while I certainly don't recommend full belief in the claim, nor full acceptance of the claim, I think one is correct in saying 'the evidence suggests that the claim might be true'...and 'barring future discovery of contradictory evidence, I believe that the evidence suggests that the claim is correct."(KR)

-with regards to the ability to discern the correctness or incorrectness of any given fact, I have no problems agreeing with your assertions above
- the idea here is that one should not believe anything without verifying that fact for oneself( either through reason or living it)
-Faith and belief are contrary to reason as they are unsubstantiated by fact or reasonable explanation (religious belief is a prime example of this)

However, I'm fairly certain that the concept to which your use of the word 'truth' refers is not a valid one; fairly certain that what nothing in reality (which I call 'truth') corresponds to your description of 'truth'.(KR)

- if you have tested for yourself these concepts are not valid, or they do not seem reasonable, certainly dismiss them- or enquire further
- i do not know what your "reality" consists of , and therefore cannot compare it to mine

Thanks

Be seeing you...

phaedrus · 08-08-2002, 11:04 PM

Ahh the old truth, meaning and knowledge conundrum....lets see...

Truth and Meaning

Truth" no longer signifies the "correspondence" of "mental states" to "objective" reality, and "meaning" is no longer conceived of as some sort of objective, in-itself state of affairs which merely awaits being "discovered" and "represented" by a mirroring mind.

"Truth" and "meaning" refer instead to creative operations on the part of human understanding itself, which is always interpretive (never simply "representational"). Truth is inseparable from the interpretive process, and meaning is nothing other than what results from such a process, namely, the existential-practical transformation that occurs in the interpreting subject (in his or her world orientation) as a result of his or her active encounter with texts, other people, or "the world." Truth and meaning have nothing "objective" about them, in the modern, objectivistic sense of the term; they are integral aspects of the "event" of understanding itself, are inseparable from the "play" of understanding.

Knowldege

"Knowledge" is not the possession of a "transcendental signified," a translinguistic "essence". It is nothing other than the shared understanding that a community of inquirers comes to as a result of a free exchange of opinions. It is a process of "communication."

Edited to add :

Any takers for hermeneutics?

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>

Adrian Selby · 08-08-2002, 11:39 PM

your truth seems to be many things.

If I ask is it true there are no black dolphins, you seem to be saying that truth is us, so I could look to us, or you seem to be saying its based on science, or its past love. Most of which isn't relevant to the truth or falsity regarding a statement 'black dolphins exist'

Really then, you're just outlining a number of different ways in which the word truth is used.

My earlier posts were expressions of frustration at this pseudo mystical attribution of many uses of a word to some kind of holistic conceptual entity.

Most if it simply doesn't work.

Adrian

dostf · 08-09-2002, 06:33 AM

Phaedrus:

Truth" no longer signifies the "correspondence" of "mental states" to "objective" reality, and "meaning" is no longer conceived of as some sort of objective, in-itself state of affairs which merely awaits being "discovered" and "represented" by a mirroring mind.

"Truth" and "meaning" refer instead to creative operations on the part of human understanding itself, which is always interpretive (never simply "representational"). Truth is inseparable from the interpretive process, and meaning is nothing other than what results from such a process, namely, the existential-practical transformation that occurs in the interpreting subject (in his or her world orientation) as a result of his or her active encounter with texts, other people, or "the world." Truth and meaning have nothing "objective" about them, in the modern, objectivistic sense of the term; they are integral aspects of the "event" of understanding itself, are inseparable from the "play" of understanding.(phaedrus)

- certainly this is an accurate descripton of the way we interpret "truth" in relationship to our own particular viewpoint of the world, events other people etc.
- the key issue here is "our own viewpoint".
-this viewpoint is as you would i think agree, shaped by our knowledge, understanding, experience etc.
- this can be more or less correct with regards to any given topic
- "truth" will always be "partial" and incomplete from this vantage point
- it is my assertion that it is necessary to "pass" or "overcome" our limited partial view that has been shaped through our own particular upbringing, experience, knowledge etc. -much of which is incorrect
-the begginning of this process would be correcting our knowledge as best as we are able corresponding to our reason
- new ideas, events, understanding cannot be digested properly and correctly while "filtered" through previously held assumptions that are incorrect or bias in some manner

Thanks

Be seeing you...

Keith Russell · 08-09-2002, 07:08 AM

phaedrus said:
"'Truth' and 'meaning' refer instead to creative operations on the part of human understanding itself, which is always interpretive (never simply "representational"). Truth is inseparable from the interpretive process, and meaning is nothing other than what results from such a process, namely, the existential-practical transformation that occurs in the interpreting subject (in his or her world orientation) as a result of his or her active encounter with texts, other people, or "the world." Truth and meaning have nothing "objective" about them, in the modern, objectivistic sense of the term; they are integral aspects of the "event" of understanding itself, are inseparable from the "play" of understanding."

This is a fancy way of stating that neither truth nor knowledge exists.

Yet, if it is is true, there is no way that you could know that it is true. Your belief that this is true, would arise only from 'integral aspects of the 'events' of understanding'. You would thus be unable to distinguish whether it was true, or just a facet of your own subjective perception from which you cannot escape or overcome.

Yet you state that truth does not exist, and that you know that it is 'true' that it does not.

Why?

Keith.

dostf · 08-09-2002, 07:26 AM

Adrian:

your truth seems to be many things.
If I ask is it true there are no black dolphins, you seem to be saying that truth is us, so I could look to us, or you seem to be saying its based on science, or its past love. Most of which isn't relevant to the truth or falsity regarding a statement 'black dolphins exist'

Really then, you're just outlining a number of different ways in which the word truth is used.(AS)

- the ideas presented about "truth" were meant to outline concepts that are often in contradiction to "normally" held views on the topic.
- for example "truth is a natural living"
- this is in opposition to the idea that it is necessary to live in a mountain monatrary, practice such "exercises" as fasting or prayer, abstain from sex, etc., in order to "find or live truth"
- many people are doing exactly these things (often with the best intentions) in order to find or live that something they call truth
- Having tried these methods to some extent, and through use of reason, i concluded they are not a legitamite "way" to "truth"
- Hence i offer "truth is a natural living" in opposition

- if one is a "seeker" one asks "what is true" in some manner.
- religion, philosophy, logic, mysticism, etc.. all offer their ideas on the subject
- one should then discern (if interested) if they are reasonable or not to oneself or try them to see if they are correct or not

- in relation to your comment of how the concepts i outlined relate to "do black dolphins exist", they do not relate
- In so far as it is like any fact and should be interpreted using the most scientific up to date information on the topic to determine its validity
- the ideas presented are not meant as some type of "system" for determining the validity of any given statement

My earlier posts were expressions of frustration at this pseudo mystical attribution of many uses of a word to some kind of holistic conceptual entity.(AS)

Most if it simply doesn't work.(AS)

- this was certainly not my intent as i have nothing to do with mysticism in any way or any "system of conceptual thought".
- it is often difficult to express these ideas clearly as language is a somewhat limited medium- particualarly in this area
-if most of the concepts presented "don't work" for you and seem unreasonable, certainly toss them out, as it is not my intention to convince anyone of anything. They are simply a brief outline of ideas that relate to the topic of "truth" as i have lived, understood, or is reasonable to me. Hopefully it might stimulate conversation and critique of what was written. This is of benefit to me and perhaps others.

Thanks

Be seeing you...

Mr. Sammi · 08-09-2002, 08:56 AM

dostf,

I have not seen you address the contradictions which have been claimed to accompany your ideas related to truth. Correct me if I am wrong.

One would assume these ideas of yours are only beliefs concerning the way in which truth has manifested in your life. One may also think, that the degree of truth which seeps into the equations of beliefs must have caused you to ascribe the durability of the concept idea to the beliefs.

My question is what is the degree of truth in those statements that has caused you to label them "ideas related to truth"? If they are related only to your experience, by what staff of measure do you expect the existential logical operator "FOR ALL", to become truth?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

dostf · 08-09-2002, 10:40 AM

Mr. Sammi

I have not seen you address the contradictions which have been claimed to accompany your ideas related to truth. Correct me if I am wrong.(mr. sammi)

-i have answered the various inquiries and critiques as honestly and hopefullay as clearly as possible, although languague is difficult in this area
- if you have specific examples where you have found my responses lacking, unclear, or contradictory, i would be happy to address them

One would assume these ideas of yours are only beliefs concerning the way in which truth has manifested in your life. One may also think, that the degree of truth which seeps into the equations of beliefs must have caused you to ascribe the durability of the concept idea to the beliefs.(mr. sammi)

- certainly they are not beliefs of any kind
- they are ideas that i have verified through living them or do not run contrary to my reason

My question is what is the degree of truth in those statements that has caused you to label them "ideas related to truth"? If they are related only to your experience, by what staff of measure do you expect the existential logical operator "FOR ALL", to become truth?(mr. sammi)

- again they are ideas that i have verified personally or do not run contrary to my reason
- each idea is presented as such, and is often in opposition to "normally" held beliefs or ideas on the topic (truth)
-Further, the term "FOR ALL" implies multiplicity and seperation. This too i would also maintain is a falsity we generally hold "true".

Thanks

Be seeing you...

popeontheropes · 08-11-2002, 09:03 AM

truth is: sunshine

truth is: road-kill

truth is: easy

truth is: hard

truth is: the boogie-man

truth is: a secret

truth is: the adjective

truth is: public enemy #1

truth is: the sky is not blue

truth is: allways demanded but seldom allways offered

truth is: nothing you really want to know

truth is: purely human. no other creature on earth lies or has need to.

truth is: the result of impurity and un-naturalism.

truth is: malls are brain-washing machines

truth is: i was an artist until i gave up on myself

Mr. Sammi · 08-11-2002, 09:18 AM

Truth is, I will be back in a few days.

I hope I am predicting the future accurately!

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-08-2002, 09:06 PM	#31
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	Keith Russell: One can have evidence which is not sufficient to be considered 'truth', but which is sufficient enough to suggest that a claim is at least 'plausible', 'very likely', 'possible', etc. In these cases (sans a great deal of evidence) while I certainly don't recommend full belief in the claim, nor full acceptance of the claim, I think one is correct in saying 'the evidence suggests that the claim might be true'...and 'barring future discovery of contradictory evidence, I believe that the evidence suggests that the claim is correct."(KR) -with regards to the ability to discern the correctness or incorrectness of any given fact, I have no problems agreeing with your assertions above - the idea here is that one should not believe anything without verifying that fact for oneself( either through reason or living it) -Faith and belief are contrary to reason as they are unsubstantiated by fact or reasonable explanation (religious belief is a prime example of this) However, I'm fairly certain that the concept to which your use of the word 'truth' refers is not a valid one; fairly certain that what nothing in reality (which I call 'truth') corresponds to your description of 'truth'.(KR) - if you have tested for yourself these concepts are not valid, or they do not seem reasonable, certainly dismiss them- or enquire further - i do not know what your "reality" consists of , and therefore cannot compare it to mine Thanks Be seeing you...

08-08-2002, 11:04 PM	#32
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	Ahh the old truth, meaning and knowledge conundrum....lets see... Truth and Meaning Truth" no longer signifies the "correspondence" of "mental states" to "objective" reality, and "meaning" is no longer conceived of as some sort of objective, in-itself state of affairs which merely awaits being "discovered" and "represented" by a mirroring mind. "Truth" and "meaning" refer instead to creative operations on the part of human understanding itself, which is always interpretive (never simply "representational"). Truth is inseparable from the interpretive process, and meaning is nothing other than what results from such a process, namely, the existential-practical transformation that occurs in the interpreting subject (in his or her world orientation) as a result of his or her active encounter with texts, other people, or "the world." Truth and meaning have nothing "objective" about them, in the modern, objectivistic sense of the term; they are integral aspects of the "event" of understanding itself, are inseparable from the "play" of understanding. Knowldege "Knowledge" is not the possession of a "transcendental signified," a translinguistic "essence". It is nothing other than the shared understanding that a community of inquirers comes to as a result of a free exchange of opinions. It is a process of "communication." Edited to add : Any takers for hermeneutics? [ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>

08-08-2002, 11:39 PM	#33
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	your truth seems to be many things. If I ask is it true there are no black dolphins, you seem to be saying that truth is us, so I could look to us, or you seem to be saying its based on science, or its past love. Most of which isn't relevant to the truth or falsity regarding a statement 'black dolphins exist' Really then, you're just outlining a number of different ways in which the word truth is used. My earlier posts were expressions of frustration at this pseudo mystical attribution of many uses of a word to some kind of holistic conceptual entity. Most if it simply doesn't work. Adrian

08-09-2002, 06:33 AM	#34
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	Phaedrus: Truth" no longer signifies the "correspondence" of "mental states" to "objective" reality, and "meaning" is no longer conceived of as some sort of objective, in-itself state of affairs which merely awaits being "discovered" and "represented" by a mirroring mind. "Truth" and "meaning" refer instead to creative operations on the part of human understanding itself, which is always interpretive (never simply "representational"). Truth is inseparable from the interpretive process, and meaning is nothing other than what results from such a process, namely, the existential-practical transformation that occurs in the interpreting subject (in his or her world orientation) as a result of his or her active encounter with texts, other people, or "the world." Truth and meaning have nothing "objective" about them, in the modern, objectivistic sense of the term; they are integral aspects of the "event" of understanding itself, are inseparable from the "play" of understanding.(phaedrus) - certainly this is an accurate descripton of the way we interpret "truth" in relationship to our own particular viewpoint of the world, events other people etc. - the key issue here is "our own viewpoint". -this viewpoint is as you would i think agree, shaped by our knowledge, understanding, experience etc. - this can be more or less correct with regards to any given topic - "truth" will always be "partial" and incomplete from this vantage point - it is my assertion that it is necessary to "pass" or "overcome" our limited partial view that has been shaped through our own particular upbringing, experience, knowledge etc. -much of which is incorrect -the begginning of this process would be correcting our knowledge as best as we are able corresponding to our reason - new ideas, events, understanding cannot be digested properly and correctly while "filtered" through previously held assumptions that are incorrect or bias in some manner Thanks Be seeing you...

08-09-2002, 07:08 AM	#35
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	phaedrus said: "'Truth' and 'meaning' refer instead to creative operations on the part of human understanding itself, which is always interpretive (never simply "representational"). Truth is inseparable from the interpretive process, and meaning is nothing other than what results from such a process, namely, the existential-practical transformation that occurs in the interpreting subject (in his or her world orientation) as a result of his or her active encounter with texts, other people, or "the world." Truth and meaning have nothing "objective" about them, in the modern, objectivistic sense of the term; they are integral aspects of the "event" of understanding itself, are inseparable from the "play" of understanding." This is a fancy way of stating that neither truth nor knowledge exists. Yet, if it is is true, there is no way that you could know that it is true. Your belief that this is true, would arise only from 'integral aspects of the 'events' of understanding'. You would thus be unable to distinguish whether it was true, or just a facet of your own subjective perception from which you cannot escape or overcome. Yet you state that truth does not exist, and that you know that it is 'true' that it does not. Why? Keith.

08-09-2002, 07:26 AM	#36
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	Adrian: your truth seems to be many things. If I ask is it true there are no black dolphins, you seem to be saying that truth is us, so I could look to us, or you seem to be saying its based on science, or its past love. Most of which isn't relevant to the truth or falsity regarding a statement 'black dolphins exist' Really then, you're just outlining a number of different ways in which the word truth is used.(AS) - the ideas presented about "truth" were meant to outline concepts that are often in contradiction to "normally" held views on the topic. - for example "truth is a natural living" - this is in opposition to the idea that it is necessary to live in a mountain monatrary, practice such "exercises" as fasting or prayer, abstain from sex, etc., in order to "find or live truth" - many people are doing exactly these things (often with the best intentions) in order to find or live that something they call truth - Having tried these methods to some extent, and through use of reason, i concluded they are not a legitamite "way" to "truth" - Hence i offer "truth is a natural living" in opposition - if one is a "seeker" one asks "what is true" in some manner. - religion, philosophy, logic, mysticism, etc.. all offer their ideas on the subject - one should then discern (if interested) if they are reasonable or not to oneself or try them to see if they are correct or not - in relation to your comment of how the concepts i outlined relate to "do black dolphins exist", they do not relate - In so far as it is like any fact and should be interpreted using the most scientific up to date information on the topic to determine its validity - the ideas presented are not meant as some type of "system" for determining the validity of any given statement My earlier posts were expressions of frustration at this pseudo mystical attribution of many uses of a word to some kind of holistic conceptual entity.(AS) Most if it simply doesn't work.(AS) - this was certainly not my intent as i have nothing to do with mysticism in any way or any "system of conceptual thought". - it is often difficult to express these ideas clearly as language is a somewhat limited medium- particualarly in this area -if most of the concepts presented "don't work" for you and seem unreasonable, certainly toss them out, as it is not my intention to convince anyone of anything. They are simply a brief outline of ideas that relate to the topic of "truth" as i have lived, understood, or is reasonable to me. Hopefully it might stimulate conversation and critique of what was written. This is of benefit to me and perhaps others. Thanks Be seeing you...

08-09-2002, 08:56 AM	#37
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	dostf, I have not seen you address the contradictions which have been claimed to accompany your ideas related to truth. Correct me if I am wrong. One would assume these ideas of yours are only beliefs concerning the way in which truth has manifested in your life. One may also think, that the degree of truth which seeps into the equations of beliefs must have caused you to ascribe the durability of the concept idea to the beliefs. My question is what is the degree of truth in those statements that has caused you to label them "ideas related to truth"? If they are related only to your experience, by what staff of measure do you expect the existential logical operator "FOR ALL", to become truth? Sammi Na Boodie ()

08-09-2002, 10:40 AM	#38
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	Mr. Sammi I have not seen you address the contradictions which have been claimed to accompany your ideas related to truth. Correct me if I am wrong.(mr. sammi) -i have answered the various inquiries and critiques as honestly and hopefullay as clearly as possible, although languague is difficult in this area - if you have specific examples where you have found my responses lacking, unclear, or contradictory, i would be happy to address them One would assume these ideas of yours are only beliefs concerning the way in which truth has manifested in your life. One may also think, that the degree of truth which seeps into the equations of beliefs must have caused you to ascribe the durability of the concept idea to the beliefs.(mr. sammi) - certainly they are not beliefs of any kind - they are ideas that i have verified through living them or do not run contrary to my reason My question is what is the degree of truth in those statements that has caused you to label them "ideas related to truth"? If they are related only to your experience, by what staff of measure do you expect the existential logical operator "FOR ALL", to become truth?(mr. sammi) - again they are ideas that i have verified personally or do not run contrary to my reason - each idea is presented as such, and is often in opposition to "normally" held beliefs or ideas on the topic (truth) -Further, the term "FOR ALL" implies multiplicity and seperation. This too i would also maintain is a falsity we generally hold "true". Thanks Be seeing you...

08-11-2002, 09:03 AM	#39
popeontheropes Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: a rutt Posts: 24	truth is: sunshine truth is: road-kill truth is: easy truth is: hard truth is: the boogie-man truth is: a secret truth is: the adjective truth is: public enemy #1 truth is: the sky is not blue truth is: allways demanded but seldom allways offered truth is: nothing you really want to know truth is: purely human. no other creature on earth lies or has need to. truth is: the result of impurity and un-naturalism. truth is: malls are brain-washing machines truth is: i was an artist until i gave up on myself

08-11-2002, 09:18 AM	#40
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Truth is, I will be back in a few days. I hope I am predicting the future accurately! Sammi Na Boodie ()

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.