Does truth and lies really exist?
Think about it.
Truth is just an illusion made up by humans, when in reality, all truth and lies mean nothing, as it is all just sounds we to do something.
You wish to change the prerequisites of the concepts of existencence?
Well, be careful, the idea may become self-defeating…
If truth does not exist, then you saying that truth does not exist, because what you are saying is not true and what you are saying/thinking/believing does not exist. And you cannot truly say that anything exists or does not exist, if you yourself have no truth, due to truth supposedly not existing.
There are three truths:
Your Truth: This is the world as you see it, these are the things that you believe, the things that you, “know.”
My Truth: (Same as above, just replace, “you,” with, “I.”)
The Truth: This is the absolute truth. This is in fact the way it is. The Truth (Note the capital, “T”) is something that you and I are completely incapable of understanding because of our own perceptions, but there is an absolute truth.
We are all Kosh
?!?
Sure, there’s no absolute truth. But it’s a different thing to say there are no truths. Certainly we can engage in reality, we can create or destroy, unify or divide, love or hate. Things actually happen, certain propositions insist upon their truth-- in the social symbolic realm, politics and sense surrounds us.
The difference is we have to affirm the subjective paradoxes resolutely and not flinch. We must accept that the only encounter with the real world is through a partially subjectively engaged position…
I believe there is an absolute truth, the Truth, but nobody can know what it is.
A Kantian notion. One could say that we can only have knowledge of objects of our experience and that reason is limited in just that way. We can have knowledge of our experiences but not of any ‘things in themselves,’ such as God or Truth. Of course, since that Truth lies outside the world of experience it’s an object of faith, not reason.
FWIW I also believe there’s such a thing as “truth” (little ‘t’) as relates to the physical/objective nature of the universe, although we might never know it. Kant would also say that our knowledge exists not as pure information but is partially created by our perceptions of it. Our intellect creates concepts of things based on experience, but again the true natures of those objects are ultimately unknowable; we have only our perceptions of them, a mix of some real qualities of the object mixed in with the perceptual filters we employ in conceptualizing them.
Hmmm…that is nearly as tortured, stylistically, as Kant himself. 
I wouldn’t say it is always an object of faith. I mean, consider someone witnessing something and telling another person about what he/she witnessed. Now, that person tells someone, who tells someone else, etc. By the time you or I would hear the story, it would have been skewed totally by the perceptions and assumptions of the people hearing the story.
Of course, the original storyteller (the witness of the evnt) would have skewed the story with his/her perceptions and assumptions, as well. But, there is an absolute Truth as it relates to what actually happened. A truth that we will never know, because there is no individual of perfect intelligence who can negate all personal assumptions, opinions, etc. and tell the story exactly as it happened.
ok i agree with kant there…
we are unable to know fo sho how it is or what it is…
but i propose something…
can that thing in itself…that nuomena…that ‘god’ know anything beyond himself?
i think it can’t sometimes…
like it can know his creation, and himself…
but he can’t know if something other than him is pulling his strings, just like we don’t know if or how he pulls ours…
I’m not even talking God, here. Maybe I am not describing myself very well.
I just mean, any event, something happens. It happened a certain way, specific objects occupied specific places at a specific time. But, what were these objects, where were they, at what time exactly, to the nanosecond. Nobody can know, but there is no disputing that those objects did occupy a specific place at a specific time to the nanosecond (and smaller increments of time) and an event definitely happened. In relating an event, we definitely leave something out, or put something in, the things we leave out we’ll never know, but the specific event DID happen in one exact fashion, and that event in and of itself is the absolute Truth.
“If a person should deny the proposition ‘Some universal statement is true’, he will be obliged to assert the contrary,‘There is no universal statement that is true’. Then this cannot be true either.”
Epictetus (AD 55-135), The Discourses 2.20.2
maybe not hun…read bout quantum mechanics 
hun…i sound so old and self righteous…lol…sorry 
read about QM dude 
Love philosophy, hate science, but, will do.
(Edit: 5 minutes later) Looked it up, didn’t understand the first sentence, completely over it.
If you can explain how quantum mechanics negates my point that something must happen in one exact way in terms that one doesn’t have to be an astrophysicist to understand, that’d be cool.
Example: College Junior Year, Second Semester
Intermediate Statistical Analysis-A
Intermediate MicroEconomics-A
Business Management-B
Human Resource Management-A
Philosophy 200-A
Natural Science 101-D
Smart, but not scientific. The sad part is, that was my third try at natural science 101!!! Of course, a “D” constituted passing at that school.
i am a 21 yr old female imigrant who didn’t finish studing psychology in her country with no background in physics , i don’t know about th technical or mathematical aspects nor is english my 1st language but there r a bunch of layman articles out there…good luck.
i don’t feel like explaining how QM contradicts your post cause i am pretty tired, but once u read a lil, u’ll find out 4 yourself.
As posted in the Objective truth exists post, but to which I add that lies are a deliberate communication of falsity or fallacies, used for selfish deception or persuasion:
The existence of absolute truth is simple to demonstrate, although it seems everyone is too skeptical nowadays to put any faith in anything. Now, of course we can doubt the existence of absolute truth for a bit of time in order to gain other perspectives and understanding, but really any respectable philosopher will find either there is absolute truth or the whole of philosophy is rubbish, and thus will conclude that there is absolute truth. However, this conclusion does require the faith in the axiom of the law of noncontradiction.
With words:
- Either there is absolute truth or there is not.
- Assume there is no absolute truth. (for an indirect proof)
- If there is no absolute truth, then it is absolutely true that there is no truth.
- There is absolute truth that there is no absolute truth.
- From 2 and 4, there is no absolute truth and there is absolute truth that there is no absolute truth. This is a contradiction and by the law of noncontradiction, cannot be so.
- Therefore, it is not the case that absolute truth does not exist.
- By the rule ot double negation, absolute truth exists.
Formal logic:
- A or ~A
- Assume ~A
- ~A-A
- A
- Contradiction from 2 and 4
- ~~A
- A
If you assert that objective truth does not exist, you fall into an infinite regress of trying to prove your proposition.
Aristotle said something to the extent of if you were to deny the law of noncontradiction, you would rule yourself out of meaningful discourse, since any proposition you offer would be just as good as any other. But not all propositions are equal. There is an objective truth to be found and this is the goal of all philosophy. Of course there are setbacks and confusions, but any progress in philosophyis consists of finding objective truth.
My philosophy professor said that the left side of the brain lies a ton. I guess they found this out when severe epilleptics’ brains were sugically seperated somehow to some extent?