What is Truth

Gospel of John chapter 18 verse 38

Quote:

---

"What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him.

---

What is truth? Is it fixed, eternal? Or is it subjective, historical? Is truth "just there", whether we accept it or not?

I've lately become very doubtful about whether there is truth and whether the idea of truth could be meaningful or useful.

I think I'll make another useful clarification about something that is called the principle problem

Quote:

---

The principal problem is to offer a viable theory as to what truth itself consists in, or, to put it another way, "What is the nature of truth?" To illustrate with an example – the problem is not: Is it true that there is extraterrestrial life? The problem is: What does it mean to say that it is true that there is extraterrestrial life? Astrobiologists study the former problem; philosophers, the latter.

---

(source)

A common way to establish truth is to say something is true if it corresponds to a fact. To lay it out

p is true if and only if p corresponds to a fact.

Or

Snow is white if and only if snow is white.

If it's a fact that snow is white, does that mean it's true to say "snow is white"? Yes would be the answer given by the correspondence theory of truth. But at this point I expect my dissatisfactions can be perceived. I find it tautological to say facts are true. Further, I find it redundant to say anything is true.

So what's wrong with facts? Well, I don't think there is any way for humans to determine these truth bestowing facts. Science and mathematics I don't believe to be a special or privileged discourse for constructing (or as some people think 'discovering') truth. To quote myself on the matter

Quote:

---

1cm+1cm=2cm for example only makes sense because people mark equal distances on something and create a ruler, then others reproduce these decided lengths and make such measurement conventional. Yes this system of measurement called mathematics has incredible order (until you study it at university) but it is nonetheless created like myth. Just because it is groundless it doesn't make conventions of measuring not worth utilising, but it has to be remembered that just because it's astoundingly orderly and conventional it doesn't mean there's firm objectivity to it.

---

Science (particularly the scientifically challenged social sciences) involves more tools then mathematics. It utilises theory, experience and logic (which is pretty much mathematics). But more tools doesn't make truth anymore noticeable or realisable. Nietzsche concisely stated it in a minor essay when he wrote

Quote:

---

What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphism-in short, a sum of human relations, which have enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.

---

Pragmatic theories of truth appeal to me slightly. For pragmatism truth is usefulness or utility. The problem with these theories though is there are no agreeable conceptions of usefulness. Further, I believe truth becomes populist when truth is said to be usefulness. If a society were to utilise a pragmatist theory of truth I believe it would believe it has 'truth', that is discovered what's maximally useful, when there is least dissent or complaint. I don't think I would personally be satisfied if truth were to be established so democratically.

Presuming my opinions, and the kind of argument they weave, is 'true' or found to be most reasonable, what then? Well, nothing needs to be done. There is nothing that truly has to be done, that is :) One fact behind this is I believe truth is something which people don't commonly talk about. The adjective "true" rarely has to be applied to words. The most common (and sensible way in my mind) to use the word "true" is to establish that whatever event "true" is applied to happened outside of fiction.
To end, I do think truth has another good use, and that is to portray Kierkegaard's meaning when he said "subjectivity is truth". That is, if an individual takes something to be true and finds it to be meaningful then the individual should take that something to be true.

Comment, criticize or complement as you please.

The authors of The Structures of the Life-World (1973) seem to agree with what I take to be your point. They suggest that we commonly go about our business never bothering to consider the truth of something, or indeed using a truth-value statement at all, until something intrudes into our world and causes us to think about its being true or not. We are as startled about this disruption as was poor Samsa when he awoke that fateful morning, and like him, are somehow forced to give an account of the novelty or anomaly.
****
We want to say that truth always conforms to facts, but as Nietzsche (and others) argue, facts are also matters of interpretation.For example, it is quite possible to consider reality as primarily socially constructed--- as Heidegger calls it the "always already"--- that does not necessarily correspond to anything that can be known outside of that construction of the "real." This is a variation of the traditional "third man"argument against the correspondence theory of truth first brought against Plato's theory of Forms.
***
Are we not, as Wittgenstein suggests, also mislead by a false picture of Truth as always meaning the precisely same thing in each case, when what we have are degrees of truth or family resemblances, or hierarchies of values? This does not mean that truth is relative to the subject, but does imply that it is relative to the object being interrogated, and that there are differing but "appropriate" rules and procedures to be followed.
***
While brief, these comments might serve to further the discussion and suggest additional considerations.
Cheers,
John

I'm sociologically interested whether there are people who still think there's truth anyway. Does anyone think God provides truth? Or in this postmodern or late modern age does everyone think truth died with God? Should we just call the facts science articulates true, and be pragmatic?

Although I don't think there is hard truth I'm not entirely satisfied with dispensing with the notion of truth altogether. Yet I'm still in limbo over how I want to think of truth. It's a funny old idea.

Truth is something we know little of. Truth is relative. It is layered like an onion. If you are a mountaineer you visualize one mountain peak, and if you keep on climbing you will see another endlessly. There is nothing called the summit, for every time you will see another mountain peaking still higher. You may say literally Mt. Everest is the highest, yet this is an allegory only.

As we all know, Whitehead remarked that all philosophy is but a footnote to Plato, and this might be especially true when we consider the geneology of a conception of truth as a noun instead of an descriptive adjective. Consider the view of truth reflected in the Myth of the Cave (forgive the philosophical pun) or in Plato's theory of Recollection, or for that matter, his theory of participation.

In some respect, this "prejudice of philosophers" has set such stringent requirements for something being true, that nothing quite fits, as Sextus Empiricus was fond of pointing out. This view also leads to paradoxes such as "No statement is True."

What happens, though, if truth is seen as adjectival (perhaps normative), and applicable to a group of statements of a certain kind of formulation? Doesn't this more humble idea of truth at least allow truth to be meaningful and applicable to different contexts in different and fruitful ways? At least THEN, we can say with confidence that it is true that Everest is the highest mountain peak.
Cheers,
John

Truth has a plethora of meanings and it depends on which one you are discussing (for instance): 1) Truth as corresponding to reality 2) truth as an individual's perception of the world 3) truth as an objective reality (comprised of all things - matter, anti-matter, events, people, ideas, deities, etc) none of us can fathom - until we're dead, and then if the atheists are correct, we'll never fathom it at all.
To me truth is a giant mind-screw people play with when they're bored. There is no solution to the question, only various perspectives, some which weigh more merely because the 'creator' was deemed an "authority" on the subject - which gets into the truth matter again: by who/what "authority" is an "authority deemed and authority"? Because their work was promoted by a certain group, one that might have a hidden agenda (don't they all?), and then isn't the truth really underneath apparent fact?
My head hurts now...

man, I'd like a cold beer. That's the truth.

Truth is six parts gin to one part vermouth.

A common critique which philosophers have joyfully used against arguments stating "there is no truth" is the argument is self-refuting. Because the statement "there is no truth" would be true, the philosophers say, the argument cannot be made that there is no truth, as there always must be at least one truth.

This critique has been a savior to many philosophers, but I find it a desperate (and boring) move to retain the notion of truth. That is, saying the truth corresponds to the facts. Or truth is some perfect/accurate representation, or way of talking about the world.

So what's the alternative? Is it just all darkness and no horizons now that the beacon of truth is out? I don't think so. To refer to my post I don't think so because I doubt truth is the actual motivation for most human action. Instead I think people seek knowledge (yes, I still use the word knowledge. Defined as "information and skills acquired experience or education") for interest and/or happiness (not simply short term max. pleasure utilitarian-style, but an enduring cheerfulness or satisfaction). Nietzsche conceived of some useful ideas I'll borrow. A "will to truth" for Nietzsche was a decadent demand for certainty and security, which stagnantly sought out a place to rest. Nietzsche preferred a "Gay Science", that is the seeking of knowledge because the looking is enjoyed. The point was never have certainty, but to enjoy acquiring knowledge and finding new and interesting ideas.

Another side to the alternative of "good ol' truth" is usefulness. Yet, not simply usefulness for it's own sake but mainly usefulness towards happy and interesting ends. Anyway, I think in general happiness and interestingness includes some functionality.


I think in the end it's just a matter of choosing what you want. Either you may pursue "truth" in some abstract sense (seeking something like ultimate certainty, a final vocabulary for talking about the world) or you may go after something else, like happiness and interestingness.

truth=beauty

I think truth is what makes us happy, without hurting anyone.

Truth is something more often we choose to hide than express.

Truth is conceptionally decided upon by characteristics of concensus that decideth what it be and proceedeth to proveth categorical definitude of systems of philosophy, systems of morality, systems of religion espousing realational truisms for the purposefulness of dispensing delectable idealisms for opiated consumers of mass quantities of mind controlled substance subtextuals. Ahhhhh the dissipating effects of opium hangovers texting metacateogorical effusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Countess

Truth has a plethora of meanings and it depends on which one you are discussing (for instance): 1) Truth as corresponding to reality 2) truth as an individual's perception of the world 3) truth as an objective reality (comprised of all things - matter, anti-matter, events, people, ideas, deities, etc) none of us can fathom - until we're dead, and then if the atheists are correct, we'll never fathom it at all.
To me truth is a giant mind-screw people play with when they're bored. There is no solution to the question, only various perspectives, some which weigh more merely because the 'creator' was deemed an "authority" on the subject - which gets into the truth matter again: by who/what "authority" is an "authority deemed and authority"? Because their work was promoted by a certain group, one that might have a hidden agenda (don't they all?), and then isn't the truth really underneath apparent fact?
My head hurts now...

---

bravo. Love your perspective.

LOL @ "my head hurts now" :thumbs_up

You can argue all your lives what is truth. But don't forget there's an exception to any rule and thus truth can have an exception. Taking your exemple: Snow is white. Is that true? Well i can certainly say NO. Because white is not a color its a combination of colors of the visible spectrum. White = achromatic color,a color that is not a color. Ok moving to deeper things: 1+1=2? True. But twins (1+1) do they have two souls(=2?) being evolved from a single cell? Conjoined twins either with one body and two heads or one head and two bodies do THEY have 2 souls? 1+1=2 in theyr case? Or, do we see a thing(object or phenomenon) or we see a memory of the thing we think we see? For exemple some scientists say that first indian-americans couldn't see spanish ships coming because they never have seen a ship till that momment, my oppinion on that matter is that they saw something but they weren't sure what it is and by trying to match the thing they saw comming from ocean with things they have seen through theyr entire lives, they probably thought it was a floating mountain (in case they had never saw and/or knew what an island is) or a floating island (in case they saw and/or knew what an island is). So what is truth and is truth true? we must dig to the roots to find out...