John Page

Self contradiction.

Volker.Doormann

You have spoken from an end of your thinking and your 'final' conclusion in these forum of Philosophy was: freethinker: "I think in the end, it is all a matter of how you define truth." Yes, but there are is lot of truth to recognized next to math and logic (music, justice, love, order etc.) As Plato has reported (in Menon), Socrates has shown, that an uneducated slave was able to recognize the truth between the sides and the area of an square, without knowing a prior definition. And it is not the authority of Socrates, which has a meaning here, it is the recognizable truth, that one (a slave, you, me, Buddha) can recognize truth, without that this 'dummy' is defined prior by an authority. Aristotle is an authority. Some centuries before Aristotle about ~2500 BCE some mathematicians in Sumer have recognized the relation of the sides in an rectangle triangle (c^2 = a^2 + b^2). Relations in nature are eternal relations in nature and are not generated and defined by authorities exclusively out of their brains, they exist - timeless - recognizable to each individual directly in each time ever. There is no heir in truth, as there is no heir in virtue. There is no history in truth. It is the mistaken in philosophy to worship authorities (but not to respect the individual recognition of truth in the present) which then result in a statement, that teaches truth depends on one's (personal) definition: "I think in the end, it is all a matter of how you define truth." Truth itself do not play a role herein no more, the authority of each 'you', that do claim is worshiped.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

No, you are wrong. There is absolutly no showing in that letters. The truth of it can be recognized by a perceiving individual only, that is free from external shown proves.

Volker

sophie

hi all, after a brief tour I have reclaimed my position here.

The following was proposed about truth : Truth is that which is in fact correct. Truth is idependent of "religion","philosophies", or belief systems.


From this position our best foot is not foward. That which is correct can at times be subjective. I can be correct in telling my adopted 6 year old, I am the real parent. Being correct is based on a way of thinking, on the results of the corresponding actions. (Ancient Greek Tragedies).

Further the basis for being correct is being proposed to be truth. The reliability of showing what is correct is based unfortunately on systems of thinking. These systems of thinking must have demonstrated their reliability and their utility. They have truth in themselves.

Skipping a few steps, I can deduce the availability of intrinsic truth, and extrinsic truth. The system which provides the remarkably reliable liason between intrinsic truth and extrinsic truth SEEMS to be what we often argue as being Truth. Because there is a gap to be filled between these two systems of operational truth (I learned this term here - operational truth), there is often clashes between the systems which try to bridge the gap.

I will pause for the moment to allow further processing to occur.

John Page

Volker: "No one can show truth."

John: "Self contradiction."

So, are you agreeing truth is entirely subjective?

If yes, your truth "No one can show truth" is contradictory.

If no then it is not true that "No one can show truth".

Cheers, John

John Page

I would prefer to say they are self-fulfilling prophecies.
And "the system" is?

Cheers, John

sophie

Information must be evaluated before its truth can be certified, before its truth becomes undeniable. The evaluation of information is more likely to become a canidate for truth if there is independent corroboration which augments the acceptance of the information. The appeal to an authority which has corroborated its information through various independent sources and when its truth is presented and an intrinsic evaluation is made, the propensity to accept at face value the information provided is indeed a step towards accepting the information as truth. At the moment the information is accepted as truth, the intrinsic evaluator allows the information to cross the treshold from belief to fact.

These are facts concerning the extrinsic world. It is difficult to seperate fact from truth in the extrinsic world once independent corroboration has repeateadly determined this status. The representation of the extrinsic world and the truths and facts it beholds is processed by the intrinsic truths of the individual. Why should there be intrinsic truths of the individual, lies on the terms of repetition. The representation of A=A, must have intrinsic truth, else it becomes inordinately difficult to assess extrinsic facts from fictions if there is no internal intrinsic representational truth.


So far we have covered the idea of extrinsic information obtaining a formulation of truth and fact through intrinsic representational truths. When a tree falls close to an observer, a sound is most often heard. When a fallen tree is observed after the fact, the intrinsic truth of reason, coupled with the corroborative methods of science obvioulsy points to some sort of sound being made around the time the tree fell. Without the intrinsic truth of reason, then it becomes unclear whether sounds are made when trees fall in the dark of night, and everyone is home in their beds sleeping.


Verily this is objective truth, this is extrinsic truth, the way the universe operates regardless of if we can observe or we cannot observe.


There are many forms of intrinsic truths, but the scope of this discussion does not allow me to delve into them.

sophie

John,

there are many systems which link the two. I can clearly say the truth of the system which links the extrinsic and intrinsic plays the most important role in delivering truth to its conclusion.

One truth system could be whatever I think is true and I am never wrong. Another truth system could be blind faith. More truth systems can be what is best for me, also a justifiable system of truth can be in effect.

I am saying the truth is only as accurate as the system which derives this truth.

Surely we can claim there is an objective truth, based on the degradation of energy, it is however difficult to precisely measure via some system X and corroborate this information to obtain a perfect picture of truth. In this sense objective truth which via reason must surely exist, must necessarily be filtered by intrinsic processes in order to unearth its objective truth, which in turn can only be spoken of objectively through reason.

John Page

Sophie:

Do you think we can say that if there is a truth of system X, there must necessarily be a system Y in which it is false?

Cheers, John

sophie

John, I am not sure where you are leading a gal like me with your questioning, but you did not hesitate to enquire if there is a truth of system X, there must necessarily be a system Y in which it is false?

I think once the truth of system X is ascertained with some degree of credability, then it is un-necessary to speak of some system Y where it is false. Allow me to expand on my thoughts. Independent corroboration may dicate System X and System Y as identical in their truth, once we can loosely express, Truth-A as representable by System X, and Truth-B as represented by system Y, and Truth-A is functionally identical to Truth-B, then it is evident that there would exist some other system F, which would falsely derive a logical status.

Suppose I was in my room, and the telephone rang, my friend Gillian, tells me it is raining outside, my roomate Vicki yells, it is raining outside, then I flip a coin and the heads that arrives I use to say, it is raining outside. If I go outside and it is really raining, does this make my coin-flipping-truth system true? No. If it was a prank Gillian and Vicki were plaing to get a photo of me wearing a raincoat, and my coin system showed rain, but it was still a sunny day outside, the realiability of my coin truth system is a great big not true.

To sum things up, the passage of information through the system which derives the truth with the system being intrinsically true, the truth can easily be falsified by replacing a false partial process. Therefore the answer to your question is yes, but it is meaningless, unless we are searching for corroborative truth, which imply corroboratively true processes.

On the other hand if system X is the only truth, then nothing else can necessarily be false.