Tristan Scott

I disagree with you. I know you think you are speaking the Truth, but I don't believe what you say is true. Even though you state it as if it were a fact does not make it so.

Tristan Scott

I disagree. I don't believe that the Truth and facts are always the same. They can be the same, but they are not always the same.

It could be said that this thread proves my point.

leyline

I cannot think of any instance of a truth that is not intrinsically layers of agreement. Nor can I recognise agreement as having any meaning without it necessarily being an aspect of culture. Even personal truths rely upon culture to give us the language to recognise and express them. That includes sensory language that we appear to inherit from our genetics. (and what is genetics if not a physical tapestry woven by culture and the rest of the universe? )

“The earth spins and so the sun rises and sets.”

This is nothing more or less than agreement. First there is the agreement of the grammar and the correspondence of the words to their shared meaning. Then there is the conceptual agreement of that world view as being even possible. Then there is religious agreement. Then there is the agreement of measurement and prediction.

It is the agreement of prediction that causes the most problems and disagreements about the nature of truth. Those who say that truth is independent of cultural agreement simply concentrate on prediction. They point out that culture does not spin the earth, therefore the rising and setting of the sun is independent of culture and therefore this truth is independent of culture. The truth of predicted eclipses will happen whether we predict them or not. I disagree.

“Does the moon exist when no living creature perceives it?”

Suppose that it did, and the answer is yes. Is this the same philosophical position as those who believe that truth is independent of culture? No, not necessarily. For we can note that the truth of the above statement is not independent of the layers of agreement in a living culture, …….. while what it refers to can be.

In other words existence can be seen as different to truth. Existence can be independent of culture whereas truth isn’t. This doesn’t mean that truth does not exist, it means that truth always exists in the context of culture. The moon however can possibly exist outside the context of culture.

One of the strangest philosophies of all is the philosophy that expresses in language a world view that is independent of culture and therefore superior to it. Implied and explicitly stated by these people is that their world view is the truth. Now while I can agree with their measurements and predictions, I cannot agree with them that the truth of their world view, with all its powerful predictions, is independent of culture. Which is to say that I do not agree with them philosophically. This is important. It demonstrates a crucial difference. A fundamental disagreement about what truth is.

From my point of view a universe without life is a universe without truth and lies. And a universe without truth and lies would be a very different one to the one that we inhabit.

Of course those of strange philosophies would say that truth and lies are incidental. That our world is unaffected by them. The moment of first truth in a universe has no subsequent consequences to the course that it takes. It might signal the birth of culture, but there is no feedback because the truths of culture are necessarily cultural whereas the real truth is not. They tell us that the real truth is written independently of us and it is just a meaningless coincidence when we happen to express it. Meaningless in the context of what the universe will subsequently do that is.

If the truth and existence are independent of us, then we can only discover them and stare helplessly, like through a telescope that might as well be a billion light years away.

If on the other hand truth is an agreement between us, then we hold a powerful aspect of existence in our arms. We create it. We even create those truths that we agree we cannot change, and in doing so we create an attitude of keeping our distance. High priests can be measured by this distance and by how often they tell us to keep away from things.

And authority is as intrinsic to truth as cultural agreement. In fact it is yet another layer of it. If for example a contributor to this forum were to be revealed as a high priest of philosophy, then his or her words would immediately be reread with the appropriate attitude that goes with finding the truth through listening carefully to authority.

So there is no escape from culture while we are alive, and the responsibility to carry truth that goes with it. Those who agree that truth is independent of culture are simply trying to lighten the load. If only they could find a written proof that ‘all perception is governed by laws that are not of our own writing’ !!!!, then they will have thrown away their burden……. in exchange for being imprisoned by it. The same goes for the drug addict and anyone else who tries to reach a position of not caring and not carrying. They are trying to escape culture by making truth independent of it. Exchanging what they see as an unholy prison……. for a divine one. Such a force does not believe in freedom. They do not believe in the fundamental universe force of cultural responsibility and creativity that emerges with life……. and ironically enables the very motivation of denial.

If someone invited us around for a pig roast in order to promote the morality of vegetenarianism wouldn’t we be naturally suspect? Why then should we listen to words that claim that truth is independent of cultural agreement? The mere suggestion that culture sometimes is in correspondence to truth, is to suggest that truth exists independently of it. Which is to say that the truth of the previous sentence must be appreciated as independent of culture despite being written in a blatantly cultural context.

I cannot see how truth can exist outside a cultural context. A truth about something is thus a cultural relationship to that something, including truth itself.

John Page

Flaws:
Truth does not equal reality. Truth is a state that results from a mind comparing sensations of reality and deeming them to be identical.

In your posting I could substitute god for truth and pass is over to EOG.

That you compare "reality" and "truth" and deem them to be the same is a truth for you, but not for me.

Cheers, John

yguy

This would imply that perceptions held under a state of mass hypnosis - such as Jews being the root cause of all the problems in Nazi Germany - are truth, even if they are false.

John Page

Some people thought so.

yguy

And that made it their truth, right? Problem is, it was a lie.

It was the truth of religious authorities in Copernicus' time that the sun revolved around the earth...but again, their truth was a lie.

So to say that truth doesn't equal reality is to say that something can be a lie, yet also be truth.

leyline

"So to say that truth doesn't equal reality is to say that something can be a lie, yet also be truth."

A ‘falsehood’ from one cultural perspective and a truth from another. Yes. Truth and falsehood are culturally dependent. (a falsehood is not necessarily a lie though. A lie is done with intent of deception. It is quite conceivable that the nazi leaders were lying while the populace believed their propaganda as truth. As I said above, truth is not independent of authority.)

"It was the truth of religious authorities in Copernicus' time that the sun revolved around the earth...but again, their truth was a lie."

I disagree here. I don’t think they were lying, I think they really believed it and feared god and the bible. A different type of authority.

Measurement is another.

Tazz10m

yguy's got it.


People can, and should, believe whatever they want. No one should ever be forced to believe anything. That is where freedom begins.

Much of what is being argued in this thread is semantics. Semantics involves everything. Very few people are interested in really nailing down semantics in their own lives, and so so many people will argue not really understanding what each other are talking about in the first place. Can you say "disfunctional"? I thought you could!

Disfunctional people, disfuctional families, disfuctional neighborhoods, disfuctional cities, disfuctional counties, disfuctional states, disfuctional countries, disfuctional world, disfuctional MESS.

What really gets silly is when people argue when they are really saying the same thing in different ways but don't know it because of semantical issues.

What is religion to one, is philosophy to another, which is belief to another, which is truth to another, and is science to another, and understanding to another, fact to another, reality to another........etc., etc., etc.

WHICH... is why a good dictionary, and care enough to use it, is so important... and then there is semantics.

Education, baby! Education.

yguy

No. For the Aztecs, sacrificing children was legal. For Europeans who observed this and found it hideous, it was still true that it was legal for the Aztecs, until Europeans imposed different laws on them.

Sacrificing children is moral because everyone in sight thinks it is?

I never said anyone was lying, I said what they believed was a lie.