1. (a) archaic : fidelity, constancy 1. (b) : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2. (a) (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality 2. (b) : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> 2. (c) : the body of true statements and propositions
3. (a) : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality 3. (b) chiefly British : true 2 3. (c) : fidelity to an original or to a standard
------------------------------ I'd like to discuss Truth with my fellow WEPRegs. Lately, we've had a lot of debates and it seems like it always boils down to the fundamentals. One of these fundamentals is truth. So, I'll start with some basic questions to kick us off.
1. What are truths?
2. What, if anything, makes them true?
3. Is there such a thing as subjective truth?
Now, there are MANY theories of truth and this can go much deeper. So, let's start here.
Truths are whatever we want them to be. For example: I can believe the world is flat, that doesn't make it so, but so long as I believe the world is flat, to me the world is flat. It may be wrong, but I believe it and then to me it is true. When it comes to truth and what is true,, everything is subjective.
3. Nope. The universe works the same with everyone.
Truths are whatever we want them to be. For example: I can believe the world is flat, that doesn't make it so, but so long as I believe the world is flat, to me the world is flat. It may be wrong, but I believe it and then to me it is true. When it comes to truth and what is true,, everything is subjective.
If you believed in a flat earth, that wasn't true. You were still effected by the earth acting as a sphere.
If you believed in a flat earth, that wasn't true. You were still effected by the earth acting as a sphere.
I'm aware of this. However, I'm arguing that truth depends on perception, but just because you perceive things and believe them to be true, does not make it so.
I'm aware of this. However, I'm arguing that truth depends on perception, but just because you perceive things and believe them to be true, does not make it so.
\\
It seems we are using different definitions for "truth"...
The world was a sphere even when people believed it was flat. Truth did not change, rather we changed from holding an erroneous belief to a true one. Disclaiming the truth does not make it any less true.
A little scenario now: One person's personal truth is that he is Superman. He asks somebody to shoot him, he believes that he is Superman, thus the bullet shouldn't be able to hurt him. If the shooter does not hurt him subjective truth is true, if the bullet pierces him objective truth is true.
This is what I mean when I say truth. (from wiki) The state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality, or being in accord with the body of real things, real events or actualities.
2. What, if anything, makes them true?
I think the definition pretty well covers this question as well. It's in accord with reality. We can determine this through objectivity.
3. Is there such a thing as subjective truth?
In what's real or not no. Though I suppose you could in the archaic form meaning to have loyalty to ones ideals.
I'm aware of this. However, I'm arguing that truth depends on perception, but just because you perceive things and believe them to be true, does not make it so.
No it doesn't depend on perception. Just because you think it is true doesn't make it true.
I like to use the example of the blue pen looking red. I can believe a blue pen is red, to the point that it does look red to me. However this doesn't actually change the color of the pen. If I were to show the pen to a group of objective observers they would all still see the pen as blue. I could also test the pen by measuring the light waves reflecting off it and compare those waves to the spectrum associated with the colors of red and blue and see from that objective perspective that the waves match with the blue spectrum, not the red. Even though I may still see the pen as red I would have to accept that perception as false because it doesn't match any of the objective evidence I've been provided.
To believe what I was perceiving is the true color against all the evidence would be foolish. Though it wouldn't be foolish to continue looking for evidence to support my perceptions. It would also be stupid of me to claim that my perceptions were correct over the objective evidence.
@MageGrayWolf There are truths that are subjective such as those in issues of right and wrong such as the many topics discussed on this forum (abortion, death penalty, etc...). In those matters there is no definite truth though you can argue your own view of it. In some cases truth is not applied to things that are tangible such as the color of a pen or the height of a building. You cannot see things like evil or good for example because they are concepts rather than physical things. You can argue for something being good or evil but there is no real truth because you cannot measure evil with, lets say, a ruler or a scale. To say that issues involving morals have a certain truth implies that the answer to such questions can be found by developing an instrument of measuring it or at least viewing it. Certain things exist only in our minds and therefore the truth about them can only exist in our minds.
There are truths that are subjective such as those in issues of right and wrong such as the many topics discussed on this forum (abortion, death penalty, etc...).
You know what I would say about this? It's what you wrote:
"In those matters there is no definite truth though you can argue your own view of it."
There you have it.
Certain things exist only in our minds and therefore the truth about them can only exist in our minds.
And again, let me quote Mage this time:
"Just because you think it is true doesn't make it true."
The truths are just that; subjective and so can only exist inside your own head, but do not really exist outside of it. You can argue it but other people can argue their own views as well, leaving two subjective truths but no definite ones. Both sides of such arguements can give evidence but there are no ways to measure right or wrong in a situation save your own. I agree with Mage too, but again, I said it can only exist in the mind but not in real life. Subjective truths are what one believes and uses to take a stance and are different than actual truths which cannot be denied because they exist in the real world (like that the sky is blue; there's no arguing it so its an actual truth). I guess what i'm trying to say is that i classify truth's into two categories; subjective ones that are not a set standards yet can be argued and real ones which are inarguable due to their tangible existence in the rteal world.
i bring the alien forth and prove it, its fiction.
That's fallacious. For a time people couldn't prove that the Earth was round but that was because of lack of knowledge. Even though they couldn't prove it for a time it was still true.
Personally I view truth as something which has been observed and demonstrated to be accurate and/or in accord with multiple perceptions of reality.
Anything which can be measured and tested and have it's validity accurately demonstrated can hold truth value. Anything else is merely conjecture. A personal opinion, if you will.
This is why I say evolution is true. We have observed it, tested it, and demonstrated it's accuracy.
I cannot, however, say that my views on capital punishment or abortion are true. They are simply my personal opinion which I have formulated through applying my reason and logic to the facts surrounding these issues.
This is why I do my best to refrain from asserting my personal opinions as facts or truths in debate, unless there is corroborating demonstrable truth which are in support of my opinion and cannot be interpreted any other way.
There are truths that are subjective such as those in issues of right and wrong such as the many topics discussed on this forum (abortion, death penalty, etc...). In those matters there is no definite truth though you can argue your own view of it.
I agree those are just ones own view. The only way we could call these truths would be in the archaic form of holding loyalty to these ideals. Other wise as Walker said...
"I cannot, however, say that my views on capital punishment or abortion are true. They are simply my personal opinion"
Any scientific laws are truths, I can tell ya that right now. If the current mass of an object is any heavier than the air, it will fall down. What must come up must come down. It's fundamental. If there's any object that collides with another, that will get an equal, opposite reaction. Go ahead, try it. With objects with properties that will show you pronounced results.
Anything that is a scientific law is 100% truth, within the bounds of the Earth. Anything that we can plainly and instinctively see and hear around us is a truth, unless you have a disorder or disease. Grass is green. Sky is blue. Birds chirp. If there is any shred of doubt that could be cast on a theory or hypothesis, then it can be said that it is not true or hasn't proven to be true. Laws are 100% true.
