Hello Philosophers,

I’m sure this has been covered but when I did a search, there were too many “truth” hits to spend time searching through each to look through. I’m interested in your thoughts about the knowability of “truth.” I assume there is such a thing and it can be fundamentally deduced. I know there are different theories of how to approach/obtain truth. I want to know which you all have chosen to hold up best. Why do you use that method in spite of the arguments against that way of knowing. Thank you for your time.


Tell me this:

Would you prefer:
Powerless-truth or pleasurable power?

Suppose “truth” is useless, and only future plans created = guidance and ability?

Truth is powerful


Because by it we base knowledge/reality. Without it, we have no grounds for a coherent conclusion. It turns into craziness. Do you disagree?



Truth is Absolute or it is nothing at all and doesn’t exist.

What is the reason and proof of/for your claim here?

So, “truth” is the foundation of mental capacity? “Truth” is whatever helps persons deal most pleasurably or painlessly with thought?


Answer the OP and stop going down rabbit trails-or don’t and stop distracting from what I’m looking for Sir.


I’d have to go with Dan of squigle fame.

There is no “TRUTH” and what truths you can access are what truths you are “fit for” - what you can handle in the immortal words of a few good men.

I go for Nietzsche’s line that which enhances life, which makes life bearable even is a truth for any individual. As we move on we take on bigger truths (hopefully) - but there is no complete picture - sorry science fans, sorry (but with respect to) all you believers


how do you define anything but by comparison.

It’s wrong to throw out someonthing entirely because a few bad things. Yet it’s the negative side effects we don’t see that need to be defined.

Psychics (if real) would be effected by past feelings when reading the future. Maybe that’s why they can not change the future. Yet, God is the perfect medium. God weighs on the hearts of people to do right. A psychic would have to know everything about the situation to even want to do good.

Divorce is giving up on problems. Where the problems created hate. The opposite of love is indifference. Yet the love you lost isn’t gone just hidden. It’s all about goals. That’s why people need to be in love with life to have coomon goals to share with a marriage partner.

Thank you for your thoughts. The claim, “There is no truth” is self defeating. That is why I’m holding to “truth” existing. Good logic for example comes down to fundamental truth-that is self evident. Please let me know how you all come to your conclusions on “truth.”

Thank you,


Actually, I prefer to think that coherent conclusions based on knowledge and in agreement with known reality are the basis for truth. Truth is coherency.

If the universe was crazy, would there still be truth?

My mom once told me that, with respect to reality, the truth is our presentation of reality that matches reality.

That’s great, Mom, but how do we find the truth?!

Oh, I’m supposed to figure that out for myself?

Thanks a heap, Mom.


Yeah, that’s me, I suppose: just a little ol’ truth-seeking quanta, flung hither and yon to uncertainty in the big relative field of life.

And there you have it, folks! Truth spoken, written, and presented.~
You see, that the presentation is reality, so therefore cannot help but match it. All presentations will be filtered, but irregardless, are true, even if by way of the

I’d have to agree with Krossie.

There’s something wholly mystical in the idea of “truth”. It’s a semantics problem in and of itself.

Say there’s Smith and there’s Brown. Smith, being adjacent to Brown throws a ball and Brown catches it.

Think of all the possible ways one can break that situation down. The exchange, though put simply, is unbelievably complex (beyond comprehension if one looks at all the minutae variables and details of each and every system in effect, upon every angle of harmony imaginable). And even if one was to understand one aspect to, of course, a small degree there’s still no way of saying that that interpretation is “truth”.

There are many other “truths” of the matter and many more shrouded in mystery. Which one IS truth? And how could we possibly ever understand what the HELL is going on when Smith throws a ball and Brown catches it? A combination of every interpretation, but as I said, would you not require the ability to see every variable? Past events determine this transaction, can we ever understand this “chain of causality”, does THAT even exist?

It’s not truth that’s important (I don’t think ANYONE knows what that is), it’s just the questions that buy the time before death that are important. Philosophy gives me something to do. “The search for truth” is a kind of psychological deception. Neitzsche would say it’s yet another “will to power”.

If I then said, “Smith just threw a ball to Brown and Brown caught it.”, wouldn’t that be good enough to be the truth?

Why are we compelled to over-complicate the simple?

How did we become so over-complicated?

How we became

so over-complicated

? is a question we can answer in many ways,

all of them being “true”…

The over-complication is an opportunity to create truth…

“Truth” itself is a creation