Truth;Is it one and only or it has many versions?

[JohnAvg]

This interesting question was discussed thoroughly by Socrates and the Sophists.Socrates from one side believed that exists one and only truth and people-philosophers basically-should chase it out and find it.The Sophists from the other side believed that truth does not exist.So every man should credit the aspect which is closest to his behalf.
What is your opinion?

[NikolaiI]

I strongly believe truth exists. We are subject to illusion but there are glimpses of truth. In my believe the Lord is truth. OM is truth. Lord Krsna, Lord Hari, is truth.

[Delta40]

Truth is a construct. A result of the social processes we live in. Wars for example influence and/or shape our truth. Truth becomes relative and is a convention subject to social demands and pressures. Examples of this 'truth' construct is race, culture, gender, class.

[NikolaiI]

Race, culture, gender and class are all bodily designations. The spirit soul in all bodies is by nature transcendental, due to contaminated consciousness, however, and desires, it accepts a body suitable to fulfill its desires. Buddhists as well as Hindus acknowledge (and there are also Biblical references to ideas similar) that calling the body "myself," or "me" is part of false ego, and if so one becomes illusioned into many attachments, desires, and pains. There is a truth, which we are part of originally but separated by our material consciousness, underneath our attachments there is pure being, soul, essence. We are actually part of the Infinite soul of Godhead, but we are not experiencing the bliss and eternity of our pure nature because of our being subject to imperfection and illusion. We think we are separate but actually we are part of everything. This means we are part of something greater than we can know. We are even part of all the grass, trees, animals, other people, and the planet. We are all part of a collective consciousness as well. And our pure essence is divine soul. Sometimes people say, do not have delusions of grandeur, but actually reality is greater than fiction. The illusion is tempora;ity and separateness. Ego, and desire.

What can a saint who has had mystical visions of spiritual realms do, but put them off and live life simply - "before enlightenment, I chopped wood, and after enlightenment, I chopped wood" - even if they say that the world of bodily conceptions is illusion, We cannot look at spiritual realms under a microscope and so we doubt they exist, but we are spirit, not matter. We cannot squeeze happiness from matter - it won't work.

[Delta40]

You may well be right. Atm I can't see the essence for the constructs.

[Redzeppelin]

The idea that truth is "relative" implodes instantly once we look at human behavior; cultures the world around generally see things such as courage, loyalty, generosity and compassion as good things; as well, cultures the world around generally see things such as murder, rape, betrayal and theft as bad things (at least among its own members). That example alone suggests that some things are universal - and as such, qualify as universal truths.

[The Atheist]

This interesting question was discussed thoroughly by Socrates and the Sophists.Socrates from one side believed that exists one and only truth and people-philosophers basically-should chase it out and find it.The Sophists from the other side believed that truth does not exist.So every man should credit the aspect which is closest to his behalf.
What is your opinion?

Some things are true, mathematics, for example, provides a nice infinite number of absolutes.

Political truth, on the other hand, is entirely subjective.

Truth, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.


Truth is a construct. A result of the social processes we live in. Wars for example influence and/or shape our truth. Truth becomes relative and is a convention subject to social demands and pressures. Examples of this 'truth' construct is race, culture, gender, class.

Quite right. Yesterday's truth is tomorrow's bigotry.

[Delta40]

The idea that truth is "relative" implodes instantly once we look at human behavior; cultures the world around generally see things such as courage, loyalty, generosity and compassion as good things; as well, cultures the world around generally see things such as murder, rape, betrayal and theft as bad things (at least among its own members). That example alone suggests that some things are universal - and as such, qualify as universal truths.

Are you suggesting an inner moral compass qualifies as truth? If a child were raised in an environment without the bonds of socialization and its processes, would it naturally have this universal truth?

[skasian]

Of course there is truth, there is always truth in the good, the pure and the righteous, ie God.
Even when people have their own sets of views that are different to each others and each claim they are talking of "truths" there is indeed the real truth. The idea is that even though no ones' "truthful" view is not same as the real truth, underneath it all, there lies the real truth that is waiting to be unveiled, therefore exists.

[Redzeppelin]

Are you suggesting an inner moral compass qualifies as truth? If a child were raised in an environment without the bonds of socialization and its processes, would it naturally have this universal truth?

Notice that your hypothesis requires an unnatural situation - where and how often are children raised in an environment "without the bonds of socialization and its processes"? And, I'm not certain that my examples of common cultural values qualifies as an "inner moral compass" since the example deals with collective (i.e. external) values throughout history and culture.

[Delta40]

You could be right. I post comments on these threads because I'm genuinely interested in knowing more. is the death penalty for example, deemed a social construct, or a universal truth?

[Redzeppelin]

You could be right. I post comments on these threads because I'm genuinely interested in knowing more. is the death penalty for example, deemed a social construct, or a universal truth?

I don't think capital punishment is a "universal truth." Not all cultures have deemed death to be the appropriate way of dealing with certain behaviors. The Bible allows for capital punishment, as does the US Constitution; whether it should be enacted is a topic of debate. The job of law is to protect people from certain other people; some people may only be properly "restrained" by death.

[Delta40]

Does this mean then if not all cultures engage in something, it cannot be a universal truth? What about historically? Was there a time when all cultures did kill their own people for the crime of murder? What I want to understand about universal truth is whether all cultures have to have that belief for it to be deemed universal.

[JBI]

There are no truths, even mathematics require a series of constructs. Take the question
9 + 2. In our terms, we would generally equate it to 11, yet if we were talking in different terms, we could call it, for instance b, as if we were counting in hexadecimal. 144 then becomes 90, and 1000 becomes 3e8. Our system of counting is a construct used, and not a real truth, but an agreement on rules in order to understand the specific. Math itself is not true, merely a means of communication.

I don't believe in truths, and I don't believe in objectivity. Call me a sophist, or a deconstructionist, or a nihilist, or whatever.

[Delta40]

I wish I could communicate like that....

[kandaurov]

JBI, you've just expressed what I've always thought but was never able to materialise in words. 2 + 2 may equal 4, but to me it still sounds forced to call it a truth. Is it true to a feral child? As Delta said, truth is a construct. Suppose Mankind were wiped out. Would 2 + 2 still be 4? Or does that 'truth' cease to exist because there is no one to 'know' it? Would there be 'goodness' were there no people to be good? Or are we so anthropocentric as to believe there are only truths as long as we exist? What would be their use, then? Unless you think the world exists only so that humans can live in it. I know I don't. No, I too believe there are no truths.

(However it is most ironic, almost tragic really, that we must express this in speech. Speech is a social construct, therefore it pressuposes the existence of truths. Because logically, you see, there must be truths; furthermore, the statement "there are no truths" is a paradox, since it claims to be a truth. I think I need an aspirin.)

[Delta40]

That's wonderful. Our speech, language provides constructs of meaning! which by the way provide multiple truths. Universal being one amongst them! I am so excited!!!

[JBI]

How must there logically be truths? Why must there be truths?

[Delta40]

Uhm let me see. Because humankind will never settle for just one model? Did Henry Ford say to the masses 'You can have any truth as long as it is universal' No and look what happened!

Perhaps the construct of truth is linked to the purpose of giving meaning to life. To suggest that above and beyond that, there is no higher truth is suggesting there is no higher self, no essence that would imply a greater power and of course, all roads lead back to Rome and Chritianity....arrrgh!

[kandaurov]

Well, let's put it this way: is the statement 'there are no truths' true? If so, we acknowledge that there is such thing as a truth. If not, that would mean (not)'there are no truths', which means 'there are truths'. Much like the Liar Paradox. Or perhaps I'm using a too technical, sort of out-of-bounds meaning of 'truth'?

My conspiracy theory (much in tune with what Delta said above) is that logic is a helpful mechanism to society, because by reinforcing our belief in the existence of truths and it ensures order, there's no free-for-all on the grounds of there being no truths and no inherent meaning to words, life, anything. Yeah well maybe it's too far-fetched. The fact is that I feel like I'm trying to express something, but the very way in which I do it (through speech) renders my task impossible.

[JBI]

Logic is a sophism - words are but constructs and not truths - each word has no meaning, only a meaning relative to the hearer/readers perception of all words.

[Redzeppelin]

There are no truths...I don't believe in truths, and I don't believe in objectivity. Call me a sophist, or a deconstructionist, or a nihilist, or whatever.

Should I accept these statements as your assertions of truth? If there are no truths, then how am I supposed to accept what you've said as having any validity whatsoever - or, are you somehow "outside" of the universe of "truthlessness" that you claim exists? Because if you reside in such a universe, your statements have no truth in them either - so why should anybody take your opinion seriously if it contains no truth?

[Redzeppelin]

Logic is a sophism - words are but constructs and not truths - each word has no meaning, only a meaning relative to the hearer/readers perception of all words.

If words have no meaning, then what did you just say? Or, did you make an assumption that the meaning of words is at least stable enough to post on a discussion website and be understood? Come on - let's not play this deconstructionist game - words do have meaning - because you're counting on your readers understanding what you say, and that understanding will come by way of a shared agreement of what those words MEAN. If what you said was actually true (which I'm sure you'll assert, even though "there are no truths"), then you have (ironically) written a bunch of nonsense that you believe to be true (which means you've contradicted yourself - uh-oh).

[The Atheist]

JBI, you've just expressed what I've always thought but was never able to materialise in words. 2 + 2 may equal 4, but to me it still sounds forced to call it a truth. Is it true to a feral child?

Sure it is, and it's so easy even monkeys and dogs can do it.

Get your local dog, monkey or feral kid to get two groups of two tennis balls. Then just push the two groups together, and I'll bet my life you have four tennis balls.

But you've said you're a sophist, so I'll leave it there.


How must there logically be truths? Why must there be truths?

So maths works.

And as I keep repeating, if it didn't you wouldn't be typing on a computer connected to millions of other computers around the world.

If truth didn't exist, maths wouldn't work and we'd all be living in caves wondering who was going to kill the next mammoth - with no weapons or means of trapping one, of course.


Perhaps the construct of truth is linked to the purpose of giving meaning to life. To suggest that above and beyond that, there is no higher truth is suggesting there is no higher self, no essence that would imply a greater power and of course, all roads lead back to Rome and Chritianity....arrrgh!

I'm sure Herr RatZZinger would love to agree with you, but it isn't quite the case.

;)

[Saladin]

doublepost

[Saladin]

How must there logically be truths? Why must there be truths?

Why must it not be truths?

[JBI]

Something over nothing - we must accept nothing if something cannot be proven.

[kandaurov]

The Atheist, very witty response! I always value humour over respect, so you're in my good books now.

Sure, for you it's four tennis balls. Is it for the feral child? They wouldn't see it as four tennis balls, for them it would be a bunch. Do they know maths? They don't. Is it enough, then, that we know, even though they don't? But isn't it supposed to be a universal truth? I'm earnest about these questions, and if you would deign to give a straight answer I would be grateful, and quiçá convert to your truthful cause.

[Saladin]

Something over nothing - we must accept nothing if something cannot be proven.

Well can you prove nothing? How do you know that we have to believe on nothing if we can`t prove something?

[JBI]

Atheist, why is it two instead of due, or why is it the character 2, instead of the Chinese equivalet, or the Hebrew equivalent letter Beyt? Why must you insist on your representation being truthful, if you represent it so.

We can take it further - you have two tennis balls, or a ball made up of a trillion or whatever atoms, which is made up of x number of neutrons and protons, which, etc. etc. The one and the two don't actually exist outside the frame of reference. You have two coins worth 1 cent each, but what is the value of the cent? One minute you have two cents, but when converted it slowly becomes 1.9 cents, or whatever. The fluctuation of everything changes mathematics - math is a representation of something within a frame of reference, not a truth.

That being said, for those using the silly paradox - if truth does exist, prove it - the term truth is but a word, and as a word, doesn't exist outside our frame of reference. On that notion the word truth is a sophism, the truths we find are sophisms, and virtually everything we construct with language is a sophism, my argument included. There is no truth in saying there is no truth, as there is no truth in saying there is truth, the truth is that language is a lie, which isn't a truth, given that it is constructed with language.

A paradox is only a stopping block if you allow it to be. One must dissect truth and its theories within the frame of reference before destroying the frame of reference, and its truth. a Nihilistic untruthful perception is unable to communicate, given that language, which tries to express truths, is a sophism. It's childish for you to propose the silly paradox, when you know quite well that I have seen it to, and am merely trying to express something in a frame of reference.

[Redzeppelin]

Round and round you go (which the very nature of your argument requires) but you've not dealt with the fact that you are claiming your point of view to be "true" whilst using language that has no real meaning, all done within the context of a reality where nothing is truthful.

What?

[The Atheist]

The Atheist, very witty response! I always value humour over respect, so you're in my good books now.

Excellent!

I'd rather get a laugh than read a logical argument any day. Lots of things are taken far too seriously.


Sure, for you it's four tennis balls. Is it for the feral child? They wouldn't see it as four tennis balls, for them it would be a bunch. Do they know maths? They don't. Is it enough, then, that we know, even though they don't? But isn't it supposed to be a universal truth? I'm earnest about these questions, and if you would deign to give a straight answer I would be grateful, and quiçá convert to your truthful cause.

No problem, thanks. The next post asks the same question, and the answer is to both of you:


Atheist, why is it two instead of due, or why is it the character 2, instead of the Chinese equivalet, or the Hebrew equivalent letter Beyt? Why must you insist on your representation being truthful, if you represent it so.

It doesn't matter!

It is two in decimal, 10 in binary. It doesn't matter what you call the answer, because that's just nomenclature. You can call it "purple" if you like, but as long as 2+2 always = purple, it makes no difference.

The only part you need to agree on is that there are actually four balls there.

All that asks is "does reality exist?", and if the answer is yes, then you can only agree that when two balls are placed next to two other balls, there actually four balls there, nothing else matters.

If you don't believe there will be four balls there, then the discussion must end, because the only defence lies in solipsism, and I give that an automatic red card.


We can take it further ...

Well, we can't actually, because what you're about to propose is a different question, but I'll go with it anyway:


- you have two tennis balls, or a ball made up of a trillion or whatever atoms, which is made up of x number of neutrons and protons, which, etc. etc. The one and the two don't actually exist outside the frame of reference.

Doesn't matter how muc matter (atoms) there is, even. One ball could be old, scruffy and half-missing, but it is still "one tennis ball". Yes indeed, we have constructed a human means of describing it thus, but it exists in that particular piece of time and space.

You're confusing the numbers (a human construct) with reality (four pieces of matter called tennis balls).


You have two coins worth 1 cent each, but what is the value of the cent? One minute you have two cents, but when converted it slowly becomes 1.9 cents, or whatever. The fluctuation of everything changes mathematics - math is a representation of something within a frame of reference, not a truth.

Nope, wrong again. What you describe is economics, which despite what economics tell us, is not a branch of mathematics, but of philosophy - where someone decides which piece of misinformation is more appropriate at any given time.

Economics uses mathematics, but so does a wristwatch, and I doubt you'd let a wristwatch take your blood pressure.

Maths doesn't change, economics does as a political tool. The value of money is irrelevant to mathematics.

[kilted exile]

A general response to this and other comments on a similar vein



Sure, for you it's four tennis balls. Is it for the feral child? They wouldn't see it as four tennis balls, for them it would be a bunch. Do they know maths? They don't. Is it enough, then, that we know, even though they don't? But isn't it supposed to be a universal truth? I'm earnest about these questions, and if you would deign to give a straight answer I would be grateful, and quiçá convert to your truthful cause.

Whether or not the subject matter is understood is frankly unimportant as to whether it is a universal truth or not.

As an example, I doubt you are familiar with Bernoulli's equation for fluid mechanics(such a fun & useful equation), but this has no impact at all on the truthfulness of the information obtained from it.

[Delta40]

Should I accept these statements as your assertions of truth? If there are no truths, then how am I supposed to accept what you've said as having any validity whatsoever - or, are you somehow "outside" of the universe of "truthlessness" that you claim exists? Because if you reside in such a universe, your statements have no truth in them either - so why should anybody take your opinion seriously if it contains no truth?

I believe what you're saying here is truth :lol:

[JBI]

The point isn't whether math gives results, but rather that math isn't a truth, because math doesn't exist beyond human terms. The representation of things in symbols isn't a truth, merely a representation in symbols. Your point of there being two tennis balls is irrelevant, since the two tennis balls are constructs - not real - not truths. They are variant truths, as I said, and not universals, merely a means to understanding things. Calculations are mere representations within a reference.

Once can say gravity is 9.8 m/s2, but that is relative to my scope. I drop a ball, it heads towards earth at that speed, but we forget to count that the earth is moving around the sun, and the sun is moving around the galaxy, and so on, and so on. How fast is the ball really moving then? Depends from where we are looking.

[The Atheist]

Once can say gravity is 9.8 m/s2, but that is relative to my scope. I drop a ball, it heads towards earth at that speed, but we forget to count that the earth is moving around the sun, and the sun is moving around the galaxy, and so on, and so on. How fast is the ball really moving then? Depends from where we are looking.

Great analogy!

What you describe is relativity.

But the bad news for your argument is that the ball is still travelling towards the earth at 9.8mps^2. In fact, all of the directions being travelled in are measurable, to extremely fine tolerances.

[The Atheist]

Sorry, I messed up the quote and would rather cover this than edit:


The point isn't whether math gives results, but rather that math isn't a truth, because math doesn't exist beyond human terms. The representation of things in symbols isn't a truth, merely a representation in symbols. Your point of there being two tennis balls is irrelevant, since the two tennis balls are constructs - not real - not truths.

In what way are the the tennis balls constructs?

The only possible counter to the existence of the tennis balls is solipsism, because if reality exists, the tennis balls exist and each is "one tennis ball".

I have explained that we call the result is irrelevant, but it doesn't change the fact that the balls are in existence, sitting side by side.

[blazeofglory]

Truth can not be ultimate and there are layers of it. Once we come upon one truth another truth emerges.

[Rozzy]

Standing before a judge you tell him you do not believe in truth or truths, just constructs and see if he agrees with you.:lol:

[Pendragon]

Piliate's question to Jesus pops to mind: "And what is truth?"

[prendrelemick]

life should be simpler than this

[JBI]

The word tennis ball is a term, a tennis ball is made of x, each pack of tennis balls is called a pack, each row of packs of tennis balls in a store is called a row, each store with rows is called a store, each store is called a building, each building is called a structure, each structure is contained within a space...

The point is, the tennisball is the same, it is made of x, which break down to y, which break down to z, etc. etc. The representation of things is a means of communication, when you throw the ball, are you throwing one thing, or more than one thing, are you throwing anything? What is one? By that notion, what is a tennis ball? Are all tennis balls the same? Are all atoms the same? Is there really a 2 of something?

[Delta40]

15:30!

[NikolaiI]

The Truth is the original source of all forms. Everything exists only as a reflection of truth; either a pure reflection, or some illusory reflection. Illusory existence and pure existence are all that exists.

[Delta40]

Are you saying just because I can't see truth, that isn't to say it doesn't exist?

[blazeofglory]

Truth is noting, and all things, substances evaporate and what remains at the end of the day is nothing and that nothing is truth.