but us not being able to know the truth obviously doesn’t disprove the existence of truth, it just means that we cant verify it. so basically, people can only guess at what the truth is, and hope that what they have perceived is correct.

(i personally don’t trust my perceptions enough, so i supplement my knowledge with what others can tell me, at least that which makes sense to me)

While the real nature of truth is unknown, we are able to approximate the probable nature of truth based on past experience.

So, for example, if the first squirrel that we ever see is a grey squirrel, we can therefore expect the next squirrel we see to also be grey, although we cannot be 100% sure that this will be the case. If we were then to see another 1000 squirrels, all of which were also grey, then our expectations would have been proven correct.

In this way we aquire the perception that all squirrels are in fact grey, without having tested this belief by checking the colour of every squirrel in existence. If we were to do this, we would then discover that some squirrels are red, and some black. At this stage our previous perception that all squirrels are grey would change, and we would then believe that while most squirrels are grey, some are red, and some are black.

it would be nice to know which we are talking about. people seem to be talking about both.

“There is no absolute truth.”

“If there were such a thing as absolute truth, how could we know what it is?”[/quote]
One of these things is not like the others. “If there were such a thing as absolute truth, how could we know what it is?” is not a relativist statement. If you turn the question into a statement, it becomes “there is absolute truth, and we don’t know what it is” which affirms the existence of absolute truth.

One more thing about truth is that even supposedly “a priori” knowledge like logical deduction can’t be completely trusted. We could always have made a mistake in our reasoning. Even if you think the reasoning is extremely simple and impossible to make a mistake about, our brain is still a physical system and it can be disturbed, just like a computer can make a mistake in a computation (for example if a cosmic ray hits the circuit, or if a part of memory is corrupted).

Firstly, there is ‘real’ truth, by which I mean the way things actually are - for example, the ‘real’ shape of the Earth.

Secondly, there is ‘perceived’ truth, i.e. the people think that things are - for example the belief in Medieval times that the Earth was flat.

Although opinion is divided among many philosophers, most agree that it is not possible to know the ‘real’ truth about anything. This is because we are limited to direct knowledge only of our own perceptions, which means all truth is really perceived truth.

For example, we believe that the real shape of the Earth is that of a sphere, but very few of us will have direct evidence of this. Instead we rely on scientific evidence which we assume is correct.

There is a third definition of truth, known as ‘a priori truth’ or - more commonly - ‘a priori knowledge’. This is where an item of truth or knowledge is obtained not through either ‘direct’ experience or direct perception but through deduction. It is through this process of a priori deduction that scientists came to believe that the Earth was round many years before we were able to record pictures of the Earth from space and ‘prove’ this theory.

Hope this helps. Happy to answer any more questions on this.

I respectfully disagree. What we perceive to be true becomes true. Truth changes.[/quote]

If truth changes, then how can it be explained in any form.
It simply cant be explained or understood.

Pi is an observable constant. When you measure it, it’s always the same, but the more you measure it the more there is to measure, until you realise that measuring it will never reveal an end, but instead an always increasing level of complexity and detail so you stop and get on with your life. Or you keep measuring and seeking your Truth, the end of the equation, ad infinitum.

This is Truth as I see it. Something that we can comprehend the start of, but never its end. We can become caught up in its detail, or we can accept that we will never fully understand it and just choose to live our lives as very best we can.

The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular. The term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree. Various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.

Truth …

“…is the opposite of lies.”
“…is to tell the truth.”
“…differs from person to person.”
“…what is truth but what we believe to be truth?”
“I don’t believe that there’s one truth. There are so many different people, and there are so many different ways you can look at things. I don’t see how there could be just one truth.”

These quotes, giving vague descriptions of truth, point towards relativism - a doctrine instructing that truth and morality are relative and not absolute. Relativism asserts that what is accepted as truth is relative to a person’s situation or standpoint, and denies that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

If truth is relative, then absolute right and absolute wrong become doubtful and obscure. And if truth is relative, then only subjective and indefinite answers exist for the purpose and meaning of life. So is there any absolute or real truth in this complex and uncertain world?

A recent Barna Research Group survey on what Americans believe asked the question, “Is there absolute Truth?” Sixty-six percent of adults responded that they believe that “there is no such thing as absolute truth; different people can define truth in conflicting ways and still be correct.” Seventy-two percent of those aged 18 to 25 expressed this belief. In a recent series of more than twenty interviews conducted at random at a large university, people were asked if there was such a thing as absolute truth - truth that is true across all times and cultures for all people. All but one respondent answered along these lines:
“Truth is whatever you believe.”

“There is no absolute truth.”

“If there were such a thing as absolute truth, how could we know what it is?”

“It is no more than a moral prejudice that truth is worth more than appearance.”

True ;) but most of this discussion was about the fact that truth is also the opposite of falsehood. No joke. Seriously. Honestly.

From a religious view, truth to a Christian is that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the light and only by asking him for salvation can you go to heaven. Try telling that to a devout Hindu, who believes that to reach Moksha, they must become fully aware of their ‘atman’ through the worship of Krishna, the eighth incarnation of Vishnu. To both, their beliefs are the “truth.”

The definition of truth directly correlates with trust; you are essentially trusting what you read, hear, or say to be the truth. Was I there for the War of 1812?

No.

Then how do I know it happened? I just have to trust what I hear and read; I have to trust the facts, even though facts can sometime prove inaccurate.

Say I had been around for the War of 1812; if I were to tell someone all about it, but they hadn’t been there, wouldn’t they be trusting what I say?

I guess I just discovered my definition of the truth. Keep in mind, MY definition.

Truth - a concept that describes the acceptance of facts and/or evidence supporting an event, an occurrence, or a belief and the circumstances surrounding it from an outside source, be it a person, book, or piece of concrete evidence.

Did I leave anything out?

or, my first implied question “how much value do people place on knowing and communicating the truth, and why not more?”

I think it’s a subjective thing, that my mind is too tiny to grasp the bigger truth of every person’s apprehension and communication of absolute truth.

Beyond that, I personally value speaking the truth in communication. Or perceiving in a way that I can understand the truth of another’s expression. Or of the expression of nature in the case of the relativism argument.

This is my biggest confusion — why aren’t people being as true to themselves, to each other, and to the nature of being and reality as they can in every moment. Or are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

ok, thanks. I accidentally hit the wrong button and clicked you off the fans list, might have to do it over, sorry

Can I add you to my friends list?

I accidentally hit the wrong button,

i only gave a name to what some people where saying was truth.

and honestly, i meant to show how it didnt make sense within a few minutes.

I think you are backing up a little, if everyone believed absolute truth, there would be no relative truth.

if its a truth, it has to be right. so, the only way that what ive defined as a relative truth, can truely be true is if it aligns with absolute truth.

the real question is indeed how to know what is absolute truth.

I agree

[quote ☺]I wouldn’t dignify a belief that is wrong with the word “truth.”[/quote]

but how do you know it’s wrong

one example of relative - beliefs. these are things that are within a persons mind. they can be true of this person because they think it is true. in this sense, they are not lieng. they are going on what they think is true. that is why its a truth. like if a person really thinks something, and is proven wrong, then the truth to that person was still what they though.[/quote]
If a person thinks something and is proven wrong, then what they thought was not true. It is completely possible to think something is true when it really isn’t.

What you call “relative truth,” it is less ambiguous to simply call “things people believe are actually true.” Or simply “beliefs.” Beliefs are not necessarily the truth. All the people in the world believing the moon is square does not make it so.

Therefore it would all be relative until proven otherwise…..
How do you prove it otherwise…..lol
It sure does make me think

im not sure if you can know.

i think that there must be 2 truths.

relative truth - this truth is the truth experienced by and individual. this is what you experience as truth, but may not be to others.
(which is what felicity is talking about)

absolute truth - this is the truth as concretely as possible. this truth cannot be changed by a persons experiences.

one example of absolute truth - what has happenned in the past. no matter what you wish had happenned, you cannot change time. these things happenned one way, and one way only. if we could go back and look, only ONE thing can be right. the absolute truth is what happenned.

one example of relative - beliefs. these are things that are within a persons mind. they can be true of this person because they think it is true. in this sense, they are not lieng. they are going on what they think is true. that is why its a truth. like if a person really thinks something, and is proven wrong, then the truth to that person was still what they though.

Well, I believe your crazy too, just kidding.

Right, absolute Truth.

the absolute truth would be the events that took place. the absolute truth could then exist without the falsehood to compare it to.

i think i see one of the problems with this discussion. i am talking about absolute truth in that what is actual is the truth.

im not talking about truth vs. lies that humans can speak.

definitely!! as he thinks he is his ego

Ah, but he/she could lie to themself.

Yes, but as you said we wouldn’t know it as truth.

[quote ☺]Truth and falsehood both exist. It’s impossible to imagine a world without either of them.[/quote]

Understood, one could not exist without the other.

which one?

That’s all the way to Gulf states…that’s pretty south.

Nice site, Anonymous. Too bad you were anonymous though because you might not ever see this reply … if you didn’t manually subscribe and you happened to go to bed. There’s no way to get in touch with you either.

wrong. North east.

He’s gotta be from the south.

you aren’t a youngin???

Have a good one…….

That’s not true Ken……lol
Hang around.

Me too!!! Difficult subject, also. :)

beliefs change.

sure. we just wouldnt have anything to compare it to, so it would all be the same to us.

[quote Shakeybritches]If truth can change, was it true in the first place?[/quote]

if one was to go by my definition, it cant be judged as truth if it still has time to change…

I respectfully disagree. What we perceive to be true becomes true. Truth changes.

the truth is that which turns out to be absolutely correct in the end.

it can only be judged as truth or not when all is said and done, but there is such a thing as it.

ay ay: “Truth is beyond reason.”

You are quick to attack sir, I was saying that it is a good point based on reason not obvious fact.

So well put!

An experience needs an experiencer to validate its reality. Without an experiencer, the truth is irrelevant.

Man Anonymous.
http://www.makarajyothi.com

Everyone believes it is spherical. Does that make it true? Have we all been to the moon and touched it, examined it?

This is good, and seems the most true so far.

Truth is an experience not an intellectual exercises.

My 2 pennies worth!

- Man Anonymous
http://www.makarajyothi.com

I like this too. :)

This was what I was looking for.

Well it is what you said, in effect. :)

I’d say that is true, but somewhat meaningless.

What then, is truth? Since you seem to know what it is
not

This makes sense but it wasn’t exactly what I was looking for.[/quote]

Yes — I didn’t remember what it was… it was me self-conconsciously trying to speak “truth” while considering the idea of truth, which leads to all these examples of a true thing rather than discussing what truth itself is.

I would agree normally. But nothing is objective(to me). I could call something that is cubic, or prism like a sphere. And seeing as you don’t see exactly what I see we could perceive them differently. Perhaps I don’t believe in spheres. If you look at microscopic levels and beyond most “spherical” things do have edges. Small, but still there

[quote florie][quote Michael Leibman]correction”Sphere” has the sound “fear” in it.[/quote]I like the first version better. :)[/quote]

Is that true?[/quote]

yup, I did.

[quote florie][quote Michael Leibman]correction”Sphere” has the sound “fear” in it.[/quote]I like the first version better. :)[/quote]

Is that true?

I like the first version better. :)

“Sphere” has the sound “fear” in it.

[quote ☺]The earth is approximately spherical.[/quote]

Sorry, no burn on you, but someone could then say “pi is between 3 & 4″ sure … its easy to use math to post a truth.

I’m not sure about that.

This makes sense but it wasn’t exactly what I was looking for.

:P Honestly I have no clue, but this post really made me think.