Thoughts on truth

[Ensiferum]

I shall write down some thoughts I had regarding the concept of truth, perhaps mostly the question what is truth. It may turn into kind of a rabble.
The problem is that we are tempted to create categorical thinking. Then we are tempted to believe that these categories are universal truths. And most of our words where we usually get the concept of truth involved are usually just used to describe specific patterns, correlations or sequences. Chair and war draw vague lines. Everyone has a general idea of what war is and what a chair is, but the specific details in the definition can always be discussed making it hard for me to believe that there actually is any real truth in them. I just see them as an attempt to describe a specific pattern, correlation or sequence, and this specific pattern correlation or sequence did not have "intentions" in any way to be true, they just are, without any concept of truth that it can adjust itself into. So because we describe a specific pattern of molecules as a chair, does not make "Chair" a truth, it is still no more than our attempt to categorize this pattern making chair no more than a category not a truth. Also I believe the same can be said about war, it is just used to describe specific patterns, relations or events, that are not really true, making war a category not a truth. I will go as far as saying that 1+1=2 is not truth. As the concept of one is just category. Well one is the glyph/symbol 1(that can draw vague lines if drawn bad). But if one is just a glyph/symbol how is it logical that if you add two 1s together you get 2. So one is clearly used to describe something more than just 1. And now is when it really start drawing vague lines as you can't really be sure on what one is. If you say that one is an atom, it will be like atom + atom = atoms. But then will a molecule contain many Ones, or can a molecule also be one? As it is impossible to say what one truly is I don't really think that 1+1=2 as both the concept of 1 and 2 are just categories we have invented in a logical system we created, not truths. I believe I will say this about truth itself, that it is just humanly invented for it's great convenience not that it really is "true".

But also an interesting thought I had is that animals may see the world as more true than humans. Because when we humans see a chair we can think that it is a chair immediately placing it in a category, and categories are not truths(In my opinion). While a cat as I think just see what he sees, he does not see a chair just what he sees(Making the cat see truth much more than what is normal for humans). So really I think that if you think that it is true that it is a chair when you look at a chair, I think is not really true. But if you look at a "chair" and see it as nothing more than what you see. So in a way; What I see is what I see, nothing more. Then I think you are closer to the "truth" in a way, altho I think that even truth can't be true as it is just a category like for example a chair or a war. So the bigger truth is (in my opinion) is that if you see a "chair", it is more true that you see the "object" you see than the fact that you see a chair. Altho you do not see everything when you look at this chair(that is what you see not really a chair) only what your senses allow you to see, this can again keep you from seeing the most real truth(as your senses don't see everything). But we do have tools that I believe in a way enhance our senses that again makes us see more that again puts us closer to the "truth", at least what I will want to describe as truth, altho I don't see truth as truly true.

But of course it is convenient for a society to have a concept on what truth is, what war is, what a chair is. But even tho we have these convenient concepts/categories, they don't become truths. This may seem a bit paradoxical but as I think truth is just a humanly invented concept, truth is not really truth. But if the questions was what shall you define as truth, that may be much harder altho perhaps I managed to touch this matter a little bit while I started typing away.

To summarize
1. Any definition of truth can not be true as language in istelf can never be true.
2. What you see is closer to the truth, but our senses don't describe something perfectly.

[Iopoppy]

Absolute truth does not exist in the same manner that absolute morals do not exist.

[Justice and Mercy]

1. Any definition of truth can not be true as language in istelf can never be true.

That's just not true (har).

Language is invented not only to be able to communicate truths, but to be able to understand and discover them. Words are tools, and the concepts they represent that may or may not be truths depending on how vigorously you think.

Chairs exist. I'm sitting on one right now. You probably are too. You say it's blurry what is and what's not a chair? Why? Again, words and concepts are tools. We invented the term "chair", bothered to categorize chairs, for a reason. The reason for performing an action determines how precisely that action ought to be performed. If the problem concerns you so much, ask yourself why such a term is useful.

The position can be summarized as such: The concept of a chair is invented by the human mind, but chairs do exist in reality.

[atheniandp]

Absolute truth does not exist in the same manner that absolute morals do not exist.

Do you truly believe that the truth is that absolute truth does not exist? Because that would be illogical.

The relativist perspective is that there exist many truths. Where do they exist, how are they produced? Are they relative to other dimensions?
The implications of relative truth is pretty much defeatist, in which we do not know anything, including whether there truly is an absolute truth.

[Blau&Gruen]

2. What you see is closer to the truth, but our senses don't describe something perfectly.

What did this mean in relation to geometry?

Interesting topic; I have already some ideas what I could read next.

[Facupay]

but chairs do exist in reality.

Why are you so sure?

[Diamat]

Why are you so sure?

Because they are there...

I can feel them, I can see them, I can throw them, etc. If I throw a chair at you, would you not dodge it? Do you not immediately know that it is real and will cause you physical pain? Why would you deny your own experiences?

[Facupay]

Because they are there...

I can feel them, I can see them, I can throw them, etc. If I throw a chair at you, would you not dodge it? Do you not immediately know that it is real and will cause you physical pain? Why would you deny your own experiences?

I would obviously dodge it, just as I sometimes try to dodge something when I'm having a dream.

It seems life is a sensorial experience, I'm not so sure that what appears in that sensorial exprience is true, in fact, I'm not even sure if that sensorial experience is actually true.

I don't deny that experience, I doubt it's validity.

[Valden]

Do you truly believe that the truth is that absolute truth does not exist? Because that would be illogical.

The relativist perspective is that there exist many truths. Where do they exist, how are they produced? Are they relative to other dimensions?
The implications of relative truth is pretty much defeatist, in which we do not know anything, including whether there truly is an absolute truth.

If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then how can the statement 'there is no such thing as absolute truth' be true? in other words, in rejecting a stable concept of truth, you also reject your justification for rejecting that concept in the first place. As you say, this pretty much defeats relativism: all we need to do is prove 1. and the relativism proposition that all truth is mind-dependent falls apart.

1. There is at least one objectively valid truth statement

We know of natural laws that are objectively valid, as are physical observations of the world around us: it isn't down to opinion whether water is at boiling point, it either is or isn't.

[Diamat]

I would obviously dodge it, just as I sometimes try to dodge something when I'm having a dream.

It seems life is a sensorial experience, I'm not so sure that what appears in that sensorial exprience is true, in fact, I'm not even sure if that sensorial experience is actually true.

I don't deny that experience, I doubt it's validity.

But any experience is valid. A dream is just as real as any other experience. To say that a dream is not real does not mean that the dream never happened, it only is to say that the dream is not real in relation to waking life. Truth, therefore, is always a matter of context.

You may certainly doubt the validity of an experience, but you should never remove such a question from its context. To doubt the validity of experiences in general is to doubt experiences. Your experiences are what make you. You are nothing without them. Their reality is proven to you by their existence. They are real. Their truth, however, is contingent. Scientific inquiry helps hone in on this truth. An ancient may think that the Sun revolves around the Earth, based on his particular set of experiences, but modern man understands that the Earth revolves around the sun. Why? Because modern man is exposed to different relations than an ancient man. And so his experiences differ. Again, this does not mean that the ancient man's experiences are unreal. They are unreal only in relation to the actual movement of the Earth around the Sun, but they are nevertheless real in relation to those limited experiences.

There is no reason to deny sensory experience. You make use of it everyday. Whether or not it is true depends, but its reality should never be questioned, for doing so would be a self-contradiction (i.e., you would not even be talking about this had you not experienced it).

[Gaidin]

Why are you so sure?

Because my chair's existence is a fact. Any understanding I have from there is truth and may differ from someone else's interpretation of the fact of my chair's existence.

[truth1337]

Absolute truth does not exist in the same manner that absolute morals do not exist.

According to classical logic, the absolute truth always exists, but absolute knowledge of what it is, seldom does. Especially if zionists control the media.

[Claudius Gothicus]

According to classical logic, the absolute truth always exists, but absolute knowledge of what it is, seldom does. Especially if zionists control the media.

Yes well... it's a good thing we have actually surpassed aristotelian thought you know?

[Himster]

Absolute truth can exist, but that does not mean we can understand it.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

If you believe in something that means it it is true for you, and in the end that is all that matters. I could say I don't believe in God, therefore too me he isn't true - but to someone else who believes in him, then yes he would be true.

[Blau&Gruen]

Here we go
-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument

Although, it should be noted that understandable and true are different.

So, we may use here "true" because "true" can still be "true" when it is false.

[Himster]

If you believe in something that means it it is true for you, and in the end that is all that matters. I could say I don't believe in God, therefore too me he isn't true - but to someone else who believes in him, then yes he would be true.

Believing something to be true obviously doesn't make it true. That's taking relativity to an absurd conclusion.

[Blau&Gruen]

Example

"There is a pizza on my desk" can be understood as I wished there was a pizza on my desk or factual. A wish can be a fact as wish but a pizza can be a fact as pizza. In the latter case there is indeed a pizza on my desk what I can prove indirectly because the libary staff has just kicked me out of the reading hall. On the other hand the wish, the factual pizza, the libary staff and being kicked out of the reading hall may all together be invented for the purpose to tell a story.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Believing something to be true obviously doesn't make it true. That's taking relativity to an absurd conclusion.

You are right, factually it doesn't make it true, but it makes it a truth to that person who believes in it, no? They believe in it, and therefore it is true to them.

An example would be if person X believed in the Tooth Fairy - then to them the Tooth Fairy is true, granted it isn't - but to them it is.

[Humble Warrior]

It`s all just a very persistent illusion... It`s like a dream except it won`t just go away like dreams do. Or maybe it will if we stop thinking it won`t.

oh no, now I`m confused.