Thing As It Is

[caddy_caddy]

"I hate myself to pass beyond it towards the truth . It has always been very simple but fools do not want to know the thing as it is ;they drag all this false pride with them whereever they go .It has always been very simple ;you draw yourself from the conflict to conceive the thing as it is not as you want it to be . Men becomes very stupid when he takes things personally ; very stupid when he does not take things personally . And the hidden wisdom behind the face of contradictions is signalling to transgression by transcending then meeting with consent.
I know that words become symbols when condensed with meanings ; and meanings become the bodies of intentions ;and the latter becomes mounts for conflicting entities."--Ibrahim Alzenedy

What stands between us and the truth ? Is it really our pride and ego that prevents us from seeing things as they are ?
What is the thing as it is ? Is it really possible for us to know it ?
And finally the author speaks of the truth as a pure state which he calls the thing as it is , what do you think ?

looking for your comments .

[coberst]

What stands between us and the truth ? Is it really our pride and ego that prevents us from seeing things as they are ?
What is the thing as it is ? Is it really possible for us to know it ?
And finally the author speaks of the truth as a pure state which he calls the thing as it is , what do you think ?

[B]looking for your comments .

Objectivity is our shared subjectivity.

Most people consider that 'what is objective is true'.

Normally we say that 'seeing is believing'.

Vision presents us with sensual input date which is processed by our cognitive system. Our cognitive system is often compromised based upon past experience. Since we all have different past experiences we will often see things differently.

However, all humans use the same cognitive processes therefore that which we perceive have a common component and that common component is why we all “see” things somewhat in the same way. Therefore, objectivity is our shared subjectivity.

[Dodo25]

Stephen Hawking once stated an interesting opinion on this, I wish I could find the quote, but I can't..

It went something like this (talking about scientific theories and hypotheses):
'Is it true?' is the wrong question, all that matters is 'does it predict nature as accurately as possible'.

And this is exactly where objectivity comes from. If the predictions work, there must be something right in what science is doing. It may not be 'absolute truth', because we're limited by only being able to think 3(4?)-dimensionally and by our concepts, language etc., yet that's not what matters.

[Mr Mahmoud]

What stands between us and the truth ? Is it really our pride and ego that prevents us from seeing things as they are ?
What is the thing as it is ? Is it really possible for us to know it ?
And finally the author speaks of the truth as a pure state which he calls the thing as it is , what do you think ?

I think the turth behind anything is something far more profound than the external appearance of the thing itself. What stands between us and the truth is a wall of our limited ability to think and see things right. I don't know whether or not it is inherent in our human nature, but it is certain that the elements of the unconscious and the subconscious play a specific part in the process of generating truth. To know the truth is , I think, to be conscious. And to "be conscious is not to be in time." So truth transcends the limits of time and space to give humans an idea about how the systems of microcosm and macrocosm work. Hence people cannot take truth as the thing as it is, but why the thing looks as it is.

[caddy_caddy]

Coberst ,to be really shared and common necessitates diversity and freedom , which is not always the case . For instance , if you're in a dictatorship regime ,our shared subjectivity -- objectivity , could not be taken as truth at all .

[andrewoberg]

There is also the issue that whatever we observe alters it, such that it is not what we set out to observe in the first place.

But besides all that, I would like a more clear definition of "truth" in this thread before proceeding further. Are you talking about natural form? Some kind of inherent meaning? Spiritual truth? Or something else entirely?

[caddy_caddy]

Stephen Hawking once stated an interesting opinion on this, I wish I could find the quote, but I can't..

It went something like this (talking about scientific theories and hypotheses):
'Is it true?' is the wrong question, all that matters is 'does it predict nature as accurately as possible'.

And this is exactly where objectivity comes from. If the predictions work, there must be something right in what science is doing. It may not be 'absolute truth', because we're limited by only being able to think 3(4?)-dimensionally and by our concepts, language etc., yet that's not what matters.

For some it does matters . If science fails , should we give up and suppose that there is no sth else that could succeed ?




I think the turth behind anything is something far more profound than the external appearance of the thing itself. What stands between us and the truth is a wall of our limited ability to think and see things right. I don't know whether or not it is inherent in our human nature, but it is certain that the elements of the unconscious and the subconscious play a specific part in the process of generating truth.

Do you mean by generating truth that truth is man-made ?
I think that truth is inherent in the thing itself ,or it could be prior to the thing itself ? Still thinking :confused:


To know the truth is , I think, to be conscious. And to "be conscious is not to be in time."


So truth transcends the limits of time and space to give humans an idea about how the systems of microcosm and macrocosm work. Hence people cannot take truth as the thing as it is, but why the thing looks as it is.

I think this is the only outlet we have .

[Dodo25]

For some it does matters . If science fails , should we give up and suppose that there is no sth else that could succeed?

Yes.

If you're looking for objectivity, science is the only way to find out things about the universe. I don't want to make this sound dogmatical, I don't want people accusing me of having 'faith' in science. So let me qualify: As long as you don't show me another method with a track record of valid results, I won't change the opinion I stated above.

Now how do you test whehter results are valid? Predictions and experiments. Which again brings us back to Hawking's quote, so I guess even if knowledge came from a magic source 'outside the universe' (whatever the hell that means), the relevancy of predictions and experiments in order to test it still stands.

Then there's something more to it. If you look for subjective things, i.e. 'how do I live a moral life', science can't tell you the answer. Yet it can tell you relevant facts. For instance, it can't tell you whether abortion is wrong or not, yet it can tell you to what extent a fetus might be capable of feeling pain or have consciousness, or plans for the future and so on. And based on these facts, and an axiom of ethics (i.e. in utilitarianism, this would be 'minimize suffering, maximize happiness'), one can try to make inferences. Of course, that's not 'truth' anymore, yet still something worth pursuing..

[Mr Mahmoud]

Do you mean by generating truth that truth is man-made ?
I think that truth is inherent in the thing itself ,or it could be prior to the thing itself ? Still thinking :confused:

Well, I assume there is something inside us that assists us in finding out the truth by ourselves. This is just a presumption I've arrived at through many situations. I also think that the truth may be inherent in the thing itself, but this requires much more specification of the kind of truth we are talking about, as andrewberg said above, whether the thing is "natural", "spiritual", "scientific", or something that has to do with "eternity".
And if we postulate that truth is something inherent in the thing itself, why it is sometimes hard to know the fact behind many things unknown to us? And then how do we interpret the meaning of Charles Seymour's statement “We seek the truth, and will endure the consequences”?

[caddy_caddy]

There is also the issue that whatever we observe alters it, such that it is not what we set out to observe in the first place.

But besides all that, I would like a more clear definition of "truth" in this thread before proceeding further. Are you talking about natural form? Some kind of inherent meaning? Spiritual truth? Or something else entirely?

If I know the definition , I wouldn't ask you . Yet there is something in me that aspires to the knowledge of truth . It might take your whole life to know what it is , or you might die before knowing what it is .
At an early age I used to love books because I used to think what stands between me and truth is ignorance . Then I discovered that sometimes the more you know , the more you get lost . After that I stick to my heart as the source of the truth . I thought that truth belies in our hearts . If my brain contradicts my heart , I would subscribe to what my heart tells me and follow it . Then I discovered that my heart could deceive me too and what it said is not always the truth . Now I stick to God as the truth or the source of the truth but I ask myself : if God is the source of the truth , what would do those who do not believe in God !! Couldn't they know the truth ?

[Cunninglinguist]

What Ibrahim Alzenedy is saying, in my view, is that we communicate through symbols we call words which represent inflexible concepts/truths, though the definitions of words are flexible. When we have a word its meaning is given to it through the associations, which are not perminant, we make with it. Thus the definitions of things change over time as the associations we make with different words change over time. In fact no two people hold the same definition of one word. Go around and ask two people to define a word, they will not use the same words to define it. If, by chance, they do, ask them to define the words in their definition and so on.

Fools are people who do not understand this and hence cannot interpret meaning. He takes everyone’s definitions to be the same as his (he is therefore taking things personally) and hence he gets into many arguments. He cannot fathom what the other person’s words mean because, Ibrahim contends, he does not want to; presumably because he wants to argue, win, and indulge his ego.

The thing that stands between us and communicating truth is therefore the poverty of words. Truth can hardly be communicated because of the flexibility of meaning; some people have mistaken that it cannot be communicated and even that it therefore does not exist. Yet the only thing that prevents one from seeing truth is a narrow mind either narrowed by incompetence or pride.

[caddy_caddy]

Yes.

If you're looking for objectivity, science is the only way to find out things about the universe. I don't want to make this sound dogmatical, I don't want people accusing me of having 'faith' in science. So let me qualify: As long as you don't show me another method with a track record of valid results, I won't change the opinion I stated above.

Now how do you test whehter results are valid? Predictions and experiments. Which again brings us back to Hawking's quote, so I guess even if knowledge came from a magic source 'outside the universe' (whatever the hell that means), the relevancy of predictions and experiments in order to test it still stands.

Then there's something more to it. If you look for subjective things, i.e. 'how do I live a moral life', science can't tell you the answer. Yet it can tell you relevant facts. For instance, it can't tell you whether abortion is wrong or not, yet it can tell you to what extent a fetus might be capable of feeling pain or have consciousness, or plans for the future and so on. And based on these facts, and an axiom of ethics (i.e. in utilitarianism, this would be 'minimize suffering, maximize happiness'), one can try to make inferences. Of course, that's not 'truth' anymore, yet still something worth pursuing..


I really envy you Dodo , it is a great relief to have such a scientific mind which unfortunately is not my case .
Honestly I have too much reverence for science but it doesn't statisy me simply .
I am a stubborn child . If I want sth and cannot have it ; I cannot compromise and accept sth else .(:

[Alexander III]

Logic and Rationality shall always cage the Truth