What is Truth?

[Scarletfox]

7 minutes ago, Experience said:

Ya, I think this bleeds into the concept of faith. When you have faith in something, you believe it to be a truth, even though you can't know for an absolute 100% fact that it is actually true. So, when you believe in something I think it is the truth for you but is not necessarily the truth for everyone else.

I think there are three types of truths. First there's the kind of truth that is fact. This is something with unrefutably evidence, such as saying to another human "You are alive." Unless they are dead, it is a fact. Then there's the kind of fact that goes into belief. I think of it more as something that you want/believe to be fact. The first thing that comes to mind is religion. If you believe in God, chances are you don't know for a fact that he exists, but that doesn't make it untrue. On the other hand, for someone who doesn't believe in God won't take that belief as truth. The third kind, I don't know what to call. It's the kind where you say: "That bird is blue." Yes, to you it is blue, or whatever your concept of blue is. But does that make it truth? To a colorblind person it might appear red, making it so that the blueness of the bird is actually false. Another example is tastes. You can describe a taste all you want, but rarely will it ever be the exact same as even one other person, unless described most basically such as "it's sweet." These truths are true for you. There is no opinion about it. It is fact, for you. But it might be a different truth for the person next to you. 

So I think these group into two main types of truth: The type the is funded in absolute fact, and the one that is funded in belief and perspective. I believe that they are both 'truth', just different definitions of the same word.

If I like soup, it is absolutely true for everyone that I like soup. Whether or not you like soup does not change the fact that I like soup. This is not different for the person next to me- they may or may not like soup, but that does not change the objective truth that I like soup. Tomorrow, I may not like soup. That day, it would be true that I do not like soup. It would be true for everyone equally that Scarletfox does not like soup on that day (specifically). Whatever you believe will not change the truth of whether or not I like soup. Each person does not have their own truth when it comes to tasting things, each person has a different experience, but each experience happens, and each experience can be true for a person. Jane thought the soup tasted like dirty socks, Jill thought the soup tasted like candy. What they think is objective, it is not subjective to the person. It is true that they thought those things, but it is not true that soup tastes like socks to everyone. I may think the soup tastes like potatoes, that does mean I have my own truth regarding soup, it means my tastes buds had a slightly different experience than Jane's or Jill's.

I somewhat agree on the faith part... I could be able to prove there is a God beyond a reasonable doubt, but no matter what you believe, there will be an ounce of doubt. Putting aside my own testimony and emotional experience with religion, I have found there to be more doubt and less evidential proof within atheism than there is theism.

Aight, I have school, bye y'all

[Experience]

4 minutes ago, Scarletfox said:

If I like soup, it is absolutely true for everyone that I like soup. Whether or not you like soup does not change the fact that I like soup. This is not different for the person next to me- they may or may not like soup, but that does not change the objective truth that I like soup. Tomorrow, I may not like soup. That day, it would be true that I do not like soup. It would be true for everyone equally that Scarletfox does not like soup on that day (specifically). Whatever you believe will not change the truth of whether or not I like soup. Each person does not have their own truth when it comes to tasting things, each person has a different experience, but each experience happens, and each experience can be true for a person. Jane thought the soup tasted like dirty socks, Jill thought the soup tasted like candy. What they think is objective, it is not subjective to the person. It is true that they thought those things, but it is not true that soup tastes like socks to everyone. I may think the soup tastes like potatoes, that does mean I have my own truth regarding soup, it means my tastes buds had a slightly different experience than Jane's or Jill's.

I somewhat agree on the faith part... I could be able to prove there is a God beyond a reasonable doubt, but no matter what you believe, there will be an ounce of doubt. Putting aside my own testimony and emotional experience with religion, I have found there to be more doubt and less evidential proof within atheism than there is theism.

Aight, I have school, bye y'all

Yes, that is absolute fact. But is it true to say that something is blue. It is what you perceive, so you would probably consider it as a 'fact', but is it true. Is everything that a colorblind person sees false? Or even the other way around? Or does everyone see everything in their own truth of vision?

[I Am A Fish]

7 minutes ago, Experience said:

Yes, that is absolute fact. But is it true to say that something is blue. It is what you perceive, so you would probably consider it as a 'fact', but is it true. Is everything that a colorblind person sees false? Or even the other way around? Or does everyone see everything in their own truth of vision?

Well the way I see blue could be different from the way you see blue. (We have no way if knowing though)

Which of us is seeing the true blue?

[Experience]

Just now, I Am A Fish said:

Well the way I see blue could be different from the way you see blue. (We have no way if knowing though)

Which of us is seeing the true blue?

Or are neither of us seeing the 'true' blue? That's the problem with colors. We are all told the names of colors, but just because I call something blue doesn't mean it looks the same for both of us. We just might both think its blue because we were taught it's blue. You just can't know if they are seeing the same color as you. You both call it blue, because that's what you learned, but the blue for you might be a red for someone else.

[I Am A Fish]

1 minute ago, Experience said:

Or are neither of us seeing the 'true' blue? That's the problem with colors. We are all told the names of colors, but just because I call something blue doesn't mean it looks the same for both of us. We just might both think its blue because we were taught it's blue. You just can't know if they are seeing the same color as you. You both call it blue, because that's what you learned, but the blue for you might be a red for someone else.

It is at this point that you must step away from your device before your brain explodes.

[Shard of Reading]

I have my own opinion on this but I think I'm going to stay out of this because it seems like a major time suck to argue over something that is subjective in almost every single situation. (And even then there is likely to be a huge asterisk)

Spoiler

Although I do agree with @revelryintheart. Truth is a cow.

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Shard of Reading

[Frustration]

@Scout_Fox nice perception and bringing philosophy into this. Though, I am more of a Mirandola guy than Aristotle.

[Condensation]

10 hours ago, Frustration said:

Truth is truth. Fact is fact, right is right, Good is good. I don't see why people have to complicate things, it's really simple, if it is true, if it can be proven, the it is true, that's all there is to it.

So are you saying that truth is the same as fact? Because I don't believe that. I agree with @Scarletfox, that's exactly how I would have put it.

2 hours ago, eltruT said:

I think I found a ton of lightweavers. Wow, this thread is so interesting to read. I don't have much to bring up here but I would like to bring up Szeth, his concept of truth and the concept of truth to whoever banished him. Does truth have to be something you can clearly see, for can it be something you believe to be true, even if it isn't? Did the leaders of the shin have truth, even though they where wrong? I hope this makes sense.

That's a good point. Is truth true even if no one can see it? Is truth always true? Or is truth something you make?

Something I would bring up, what about the word 'funner'? It wasn't a word until people started using it so much that Merriam-Webster added it to their dictionary. Does that mean that it was always meant to be a word? Or did we as a country or group of language-speakers create that truth? Because I think it's true that funner is a word, as much as I dislike it.

I started a Socratic discussion!!!

[Turtle]

The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on a text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others?

[Condensation]

3 minutes ago, eltruT said:

The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on a text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others?

That's the one! We do a lot of them in our English/History class, we call it Socratic class.

[Frustration]

13 minutes ago, Condensation said:

So are you saying that truth is the same as fact? Because I don't believe that. I agree with @Scarletfox, that's exactly how I would have put it.

Well yes, name a truth that isn't fact and I'll change my mind but I can't find one. Even something like 'I like apples' is a fact because you do.

15 minutes ago, Condensation said:

That's a good point. Is truth true even if no one can see it? Is truth always true? Or is truth something you make?

Something I would bring up, what about the word 'funner'? It wasn't a word until people started using it so much that Merriam-Webster added it to their dictionary. Does that mean that it was always meant to be a word? Or did we as a country or group of language-speakers create that truth? Because I think it's true that funner is a word, as much as I dislike it.

I started a Socratic discussion!!!

A word is a word if people understand what it means.

[Chasmgoat]

Truth is what truthless do not possess. 

[Condensation]

6 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Well yes, name a truth that isn't fact and I'll change my mind but I can't find one. Even something like 'I like apples' is a fact because you do.

A word is a word if people understand what it means.

Really? Would that mean that if I said borrador and you didn't know what it meant, borrador is not a word?

[Experience]

 

Just now, Condensation said:

Really? Would that mean that if I said borrador and you didn't know what it meant, borrador is not a word?

Just because you don't know what a word means doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think he's trying to say that what makes a word a word is when that word has meaning, to at least someone.

[Experience]

10 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Well yes, name a truth that isn't fact and I'll change my mind but I can't find one. Even something like 'I like apples' is a fact because you do.

So. You fail a test. In reality, it happened because you didn't understand that topic, but In my head I believe you purposely failed for some reason. Therefore, to me, the truth is that you failed the test because you wanted to, but that is not fact.

EDIT: Hmm. It split my post in two.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Experience

[Condensation]

2 minutes ago, Experience said:

 

Just because you don't know what a word means doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think he's trying to say that what makes a word a word is when that word has meaning, to at least someone.

So if I say merflegorfenderfer and it means nothing to you, but it means something to me, then it's a word?

[Experience]

Ok, here's the thing. Language is something different. Language is just a form of communication. I guess that means at least one other person needs to know what it means then... But! 

That is like if someone starts talking to you in chinese, and you saying they aren't using words because you don't understand the words. It's all about perspective and knowledge, at least in my opinion. So a word is a noise that is used to tell information to someone else.

[Turtle]

4 minutes ago, Condensation said:

So if I say merflegorfenderfer and it means nothing to you, but it means something to me, then it's a word?

I think that, to you, it is a word, even though to experience it likely isn't. The only thing about that is if someone speaks German to me and I know its German I believe that it is true that those are words even if I don't understand them.

[Condensation]

1 minute ago, Experience said:

Ok, here's the thing. Language is something different. Language is just a form of communication. I guess that means at least one other person needs to know what it means then... But! 

That is like if someone starts talking to you in chinese, and you saying they aren't using words because you don't understand the words. It's all about perspective and knowledge, at least in my opinion. So a word is a noise that is used to tell information to someone else.

Well, does 'a' give me any information? It's a word.

I think what you're trying to say is that groups decide words. Right?

[MusicalReader]

12 minutes ago, Experience said:

Ok, here's the thing. Language is something different. Language is just a form of communication. I guess that means at least one other person needs to know what it means then... But! 

That is like if someone starts talking to you in chinese, and you saying they aren't using words because you don't understand the words. It's all about perspective and knowledge, at least in my opinion. So a word is a noise that is used to tell information to someone else.

Is music (or some aspects of music) relevant to this definition? By your description, a word is a noise that is used to tell information to someone else. I think that music definitely qualifies to be considered a word, at least while adhering to your current definition.

[Frustration]

20 minutes ago, Experience said:

So. You fail a test. In reality, it happened because you didn't understand that topic, but In my head I believe you purposely failed for some reason. Therefore, to me, the truth is that you failed the test because you wanted to, but that is not fact.

EDIT: Hmm. It split my post in two.

That is what you think happened, it is a fact that you believe I failed intentionally. It is not a fact that I failed intentionally.

[Scout_Fox]

6 hours ago, Scarletfox said:

 

For that comment on Hesselr, he came to a conclusion that reasoning could not be trusted. If he used logic and reasoning to conclude that, how can we trust what he said?

 

The biggest problem with the subjective truth claim is that it relies on the idea of absolute truth to exist, we wouldn’t be arguing if truth were subjective or not if absolute truth didn’t exist, it’s something engrained to the human nature.

The existence of truth is something we’re born knowing, just as we’re born knowing it’s bad to kill. Scoutfox (I think it was you, sorry I’m on my phone so it’s really hard to navigate) you said that morality is also subjective to society. My question would be this: in Nazi Germany, their society said it was ok to murder the Jews, does that make it ok?

Huh interesting spin on it but I think that is exactly what he is meaning. He couldn't trust that he is right so therefore there is no objective reality everything he (and we) do or interpret is subjective.

I also have the exact opposite thinking here. I think because there is no objective truth is exactly why we are arguing over the truth, because it is all subjective. If there were an objective truth there would be nothing to argue about because we would have an answer .

Hmm I think this was Doomstick but I could respond as well lol. One, I don't think you can say we are born knowing it is bad to kill. Some mental illnesses distort senses of reality and morality and make this seem harder to grasp. Since they are part of the "we" then we are not all born knowing this. We also can't even know if we were actually born (or are even living!). There is no objective truth we can get to, to verify this 100%. I also think here the concept that it is bad to kill people (which it most definitely is don't get me wrong!!) is a social construct that we have created. No objective truth ninja turtle came and told us this when we were born, it is a social construct of societal dogma.

5 hours ago, Experience said:

Ya, I think this bleeds into the concept of faith. When you have faith in something, you believe it to be a truth, even though you can't know for an absolute 100% fact that it is actually true. So, when you believe in something I think it is the truth for you but is not necessarily the truth for everyone else.

I think there are three types of truths. First there's the kind of truth that is fact. This is something with unrefutably evidence, such as saying to another human "You are alive." Unless they are dead, it is a fact.

I think everything is us believing in it. The only reason anything has meaning is because as a society we chose to accept and believe that, that particular thing meant _____. This is why everything is a subjective truth rather than an objective truth. It is all part of our subjective reality.

Also, (although it may be true) we can't ever guarantee that we are actually alive. There is no objective truth master that comes down and says "Now you are alive!" when we are born. We just know that we start to experience things through our subjective reality but can't verify whether it is objectively true.

5 hours ago, Scarletfox said:

What they think is objective, it is not subjective to the person. It is true that they thought those things, but it is not true that soup tastes like socks to everyone.

Hmm again I think the other way around here. If it is a thought it is subjective by definition and not objective. That's because it is their thought, a subjective reality of their own creation rather than a universal truth. An objective truth is something that is without a doubt true for every single person and since we cannot verify any of this that's why Husserl got to there is no objective truth beyond or subjective reality.

5 hours ago, Experience said:

Yes, that is absolute fact. But is it true to say that something is blue. It is what you perceive, so you would probably consider it as a 'fact', but is it true. Is everything that a colorblind person sees false? Or even the other way around? Or does everyone see everything in their own truth of vision?

5 hours ago, I Am A Fish said:

Well the way I see blue could be different from the way you see blue. (We have no way if knowing though)

Which of us is seeing the true blue?

Exactly, exactly what the complication is here, both of these are so good. Even just ourselves, how are we to be sure what we see is actually true and not the colorblind person? Maybe it's the other way around with a bunch of "colorblind" people and only a few who can truly see?? (again not that it is but that it could be) Everyone sees everything in their own truth of vision and are free like Sartre said to determine meaning for themselves. There is no objectively true form that we can verify

3 hours ago, Frustration said:

@Scout_Fox nice perception and bringing philosophy into this. Though, I am more of a Mirandola guy than Aristotle.

Thanks! Thought their thoughts might enhance the arguments! Although yes, by no means did I intend to impose my truth upon you, you are absolutely free to choose 

3 hours ago, Frustration said:

Well yes, name a truth that isn't fact and I'll change my mind but I can't find one. Even something like 'I like apples' is a fact because you do.

A word is a word if people understand what it means.

2 hours ago, Condensation said:

Well, does 'a' give me any information? It's a word.

I think what you're trying to say is that groups decide words. Right?

A word is a truth that isn't fact. Language is nothing more than a social construction. It is us agreeing that certain sounds represent certain ideas or things. Ferdinand de Saussure said “The connection between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.” Words are squiggly lines with symbolic meaning, there is no inherent connection between the two other than one we have placed and accepted to be a subjective truth as a society.

There was no objective meaning of words when we got here, no objective truth master handed us a dictionary and said "without a doubt these things mean this." Symbolic meaning is contextual and changes over time. Words have to be in a particular order or structure to be understand and rely on other words being in right spot. There are thousands of potential sentences but only a few correct - this is absurd.

So yeah, as Condensation put it language does not reflect a universal realty but a human made social contract of it. Language is a narrow structure that we use to make meaning of our complex world.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Scout_Fox

[Condensation]

That deserves a rep. Good job, you must spend so long on those!

[Scout_Fox]

Just now, Condensation said:

That deserves a rep. Good job, you must spend so long on those!

 Thanks! They do take quite a long time to write out lol especially trying to make sure I'm not misrepresenting anything. Everyone has offered such great input though it's worth it!

[I Am A Fish]

If I may say, I'd say truth is like a can of beans.