What Truth Is

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Assuming humans are mortal we would suspect that the universe probably existed before humans existed, and will continue to exist for however long. If the universe itself didn’t exist at one time and might not exist in the future we could say that the universe is mortal itself.

‘Nothing’ is impossible, or, there always has to be something, even when human beings aren’t around and/or there is no universe.

That ‘something’ is the Truth.

If the universe is mortal then it is true that it will end. The Truth will then be that there is no universe. There does not need to be a universe for there to be Truth, or, the Truth is that the universe does not exist when and if it ends.

Truth has no opposite. It is all things considered. The Truth, with or without the universe and the human mortal perspective, is always the Truth. If it ever changed it would then be the Truth that it changed. Everything at all times is the Truth with or without perspective and change.

Human beings exist and make statements like “truth has no opposite,” or “truth is all things considered,” or “truth exists without the universe.” These statements do not concern the Truth. If the statements were contrary to themselves it wouldn’t affect the Truth. It would then be the Truth that something else was said.

We think and speak inside the Truth.

Correct and False/Incorrect are parts of the Truth. Something can be Incorrect and/or False and it would be the Truth that it was Incorrect and/or False.

Truth is timeless. The Truth is no different now then when I just said that.

Anything that can occur in a universe and after it will be True.

The degree of order or disorder percieved in a universe is only change and does not indicate any error. An error is a temporary irregularity and is percieved as an amount of disorder within a predictable event or series of events. When something is ‘wrong’ it doesn’t mean that it isn’t the Truth, it only means that the expected order, or regularity of the experience, did not occur.

Propositions are either Correct or Incorrect, but in either case true. Correct and Incorrect are was of familiarizing oneself to regularity. Truth is percieved as repetition and evidence of familiar experience.

1+1=3 is the Truth but irregular.

1+1=2 is no evidence of the Truth.

Both are the Truth.

Truth cannot be percieved or experienced. Truth exists with or without human presence, with or without an existing universe.

The propostions “truth can be percieved and experienced” and “truth does not exist without a universe and/or human presence” are true because they exist. All propositions are the Truth.

There is 'Truth.

Subjective Truth does not exist. Truth is not a subject. A subject is an experienced part of regularity occuring within the Truth as a perception and experience. Thoughts and propositions are realized during experience of regularity and repetition, and are therefore true to the degree that they exist, even if they are experieced as Incorrect.

Subjective experience exists but is not the Truth. It is the Truth that subjective experience exists and can be Incorrect. Experience does not originate Truth. Every experience is the Truth.

An individual perspective is not unique and is not isolated. Experience occurs through a passage of time where many things are percieved as Incorrect, though never can two distinct experiences, or two individuals, percieve the Truth that exists as the totality of all possible experiences, Correct and Incorrect. Truth is not unique or original and is not the property of an individual perspective.

A person can possess a part of the Truth, such as: “John has blue shoes,” or “Mary likes sitcoms,” or “Ed thinks this is right,” or “Jim can’t prove that this is wrong,” etc., etc.

Agreement and disagreement do not concern the Truth. It is the Truth that Carlos thinks Roberto is wrong and Roberto thinks Carlos is wrong. The Truth is not concerned with who is right or wrong.

All propositions are true in that they are made. A proposition cannot be false or 'not true." Correct and Incorrect are a matter of regularity and repetition.

Every subjective experience is a perception of regularity and is therefore true to the degree that the subject thinks it is Correct.

A subject can be both wrong and the Truth.

There is no false experience.

All opinions, beliefs, and convictions are equal forms of knowledge. Knowledge is the presence to the experience of repetition and the perspective of a regular part of the Truth as familiar. No subject can have an original experience as no part of the Truth exists for solely one perspective, and therefore there can be no argument. The experience of subjective perception, the 'thought,'is always the Truth even if it might be Incorrect.

Everyone is wrong and right since argument requires proposition and propositions do not concern the Truth. The conlict in communication which occurs between two subjects is not derived from a possession of the Truth but rather the conflicting experiences of regularity in the repetition of parts. Subjective argument is the comparison of personal knowledge between two perspectives.

All perspectives are true but cannot be conflicting as the conflict involves the opposition between two comparing experiences of regularity.

John thinks that 1+1=2 at T1.
Jim thinks that 1+1 does not equal 2 at T1.

John and Jim are both right because at T1 they are experiencing a regularity. Who is Incorrect is irrelevent as both experiences are regular.

If, at T2, Jim changes his mind, this does not make him Correct. It makes him familiar with a new experience of regularity as now he finds himself in agreement with John, who is neither Correct or Incorrect, but percieving an agreement with him.

‘Subjection’ is the experience of surety. To be sure is to be familiar with a course of regular repetitive events.

Events are neither Correct or Incorrect but True as they exist both with and without perception, with or without a universe. A subject within the universe cannot be right or wrong, but only familiar. All events happen and are all subjects. No subject is more true than another in that Truth is the totality of all events.

There is no subjective Truth.

The Truth is the subjection.

2

Oddly enough though, the essential nature of things is nothing.

3

In essence: Truth is what is, but such is not truth–such is the state of all that is at a given time; an arbitrary leap it is to say that: there is a rock, this is a part of “Truth,” or there is no rock (whether or not there is) hence, this “thought” is a part of truth (regualr or irregular, in an objective seperate reality from consciousness, still arbitrary distinction).

I sense drugs detrop–common, fess up.

As an objective whole, all phenmenon, all exprience, is a part of such a whole–which you’ve labeled “truth.” But what does this mean? This wholeness, denoted as truth, is what?–merley phenomenon in flux. Why call it truth, because it is what is? So? What is true or false about it? It simply is.

I have a thought: 2+2=5, such is my thought. It is a part of phenomenon, is it anything more? No. Is the concept correct? As a relational idea operating under logical laws–nope. Such we can say is the truth about my held idea that 2+2=5, mainly that the idea is false, yes such is the “Truth.” So? An arbitrary axiology.

4

detrop,

“The Truth is the subjection.”

I suppose that would make Falsity the objection.

Dunamis

5

There is the truth of the false, the subjective or psychological phenomenon (aka ‘ego/self’) and there is the state of truth, which is the manifest universe (INC. the body) in the absense of that phenomenon.

6

The way we use the concept “truth” is as a description of reality, an abstraction fashioned in a way that people can understand. The absolute truth of reality is reality itself, and can not be known unless you are that reality. Therefore we have this approximation that we call “truth”, which is the closest we can get.

For all practical purposes, the best truth is the one that leads to the best results.

7

‘Truth’ is an agreed upon hypothesis or perspective.

8

It cannot be known, because the known is the past and (the absolute) truth is timeless. In the same way that a fence that encompases an area of ground, creates a center; the known creates a knower.

9

Sure. What we know stems from observation, and observations are never instant. But not only are they not currect with respect to time, they are also only abstractions. You see light reflected by an object, never the object itself. But you don’t even see the light, only the signals it triggers in the mind. The only absolute truth you see is the one that becomes one with you – your perception.

10

detrop,

You should have posted this in the religion forum. Could have started a hell of a fight.

Some folks would call your ‘truth’ God. That which is beyond language and concept. The the. All else is illusion. Useful illusion perhaps, but illusion none the less.

JT

11

Sense/object contact. The known is memory. Memory creates ‘rememberer’.

There is immediate ‘perception’ or what could be called ‘total awareness’, if the brain doesn’t register sensation. That means no psychological phenomenon, just body/world/objective awareness. That is the state of truth, while the body is alive. Awareness is a field. Sense and sense object are in and of that field. The manifestation of that centerless field of awareness; is truth.

12

I concur.

Anyhow, from my perspective Detrop is wrong.

So he’s wrong.

13

That’s it? You’re just going to say he’s wrong?

You mean you’re not even going to offer a reason that would remotely back up your claim?

Certainly sir you must understand, people post on this site for the sake of a debate, not for the silly contrivings of those in opposition of a point being made. Have you no sense of perspective?

14

there is no truth…i dont think that as long as there is perception, that there is truth…

15

And our memory of the “outside world” stems from perception of that outside world (if it exist).

That was very cryptic, are you a Buddhist? I consider my perceptions a part of me, the very thing that I am. They are real, and I can know that they are absolute truth – because they are me. Not that the flower I see is real, just that my perception of it is. My body is just a machine, my thoughts the results of calculations – I’m simply the observer. Is this what you are talking about?

16

No.

No.
But, if it’s your perceptions and your body and your thoughts: what are you? Whose body, perceptions and thoughts? What is the observer?

17

I can’t possibly know. I just know that I observe what I observe. I know that it’s my perceptions, because I am those perceptions. My body and my thoughts are simply conventions of words that I know people can understand. It does not mean that I am that body or those thoughts.

Perhaps the observer is the universe itself, and I’m able to express only parts of it – the parts that are observing the machine. Because it’s the machine who’s doing the writing of this text. I admit there are problems with my theories. For instance, how can this machine, which is simply a programmed “robot”, know that there is an observer? Yet, I know I observe.

18

There is understanding, the being of truth. The mind is the instument of perception and by observing the mind; what you are is revealed. The observer of the observed, the thinker of thought, the feeler of feelings, the rememberer of memory, the knower of knowledge, the experiencer of experience is an illusion fabricated by thought. You are thought, which is the mind.
If that is the manifest reality, then the mind does not regard itself as other. The fragment is finished and consciousness of the mind is the mind itself and not from the outside looking in.

19

Does you are thought equal you are perception? Is the mind the same as perception? Do you agree that I am perception? Or are thoughts something active? Something seperate from perception? What are they, these thoughts that fabricate the illusions? Is it me that fabricate them, or am I simply the perception of the finished product? I am not my memory before I percieve it. Where is then the memory before I percieve it? Does my perception create the memory? Does the memory exist in a physical brain that is somehow connected and sends its signals to my perception?

All I know is that I percieve, what I percieve and that I am my perceptions. Is it possible to know anything else? For all I know, my perceptions may be all there is. However, I feel that there has to be something else. I do not percieve the creation of my perceptions, can they then be said to be my own doing?

I’m honestly very interested in getting to the bottom of this, so I hope you may be able to give me some answers. Please bear with me if I misinterpret what you say. It seems very “eastern” to me, and I’m not even a native english speaker :wink:

20

:sunglasses:

The more things change the more they stay the same? That’s the mess you’re going to get caught in if you go that route.

Imagine infinity. Alright, hold that thought…

That’s Truth. I wouldn’t call it the Truth either because that’s a reference. Truth is beyond all that, that stuff is questionable, Truth isn’t.

You’re telling me that because there is always change there is never Truth. This is essentially an empirical claim because time cannot be experienced, and you are refering to objects in the world when you mention “change.” Show me “change.” You cannot. You can make an ambiguous reference to a moving body of water and call it a changing River. But its not. Every frame is another new River and not the one you were refering to. The Truth of the last River and the Truth of the next River is the same because Truth is timeless.

In other words, “things” don’t change…there is only an increase or decrease of quantity and phenomena. You don’t see an object aging, you see a different arrangement of sense data a moment later…and say its “getting old,” or “it changed color and shape.”

Truth is rational, I can’t experience it. I cannot observe a changing world and assume that this is an error, that there couldn’t be an absolute Truth since “things changed.” You see the entanglement yet?

I find ironies everywhere. They overwhelm me, seriously. I should keep a fucking journal during the day to record how many times I find irony.

Hume said we couldn’t experience causality so Truth was empirical? If this is correct then I see what Kant did with it. There is still an objective Truth precisely because experience is immanent as changeable- enter relativism- and the Subject can only infer causality and induct Truth. Its all Rational, dude. Hume’s tossing the baby out with the bath-water.

And you try the same thing with the “at a given time” bit. That’s the problem though. It was “given” and if its given its a reference and a perspective of regularity. You though you saw something change so you say Truth doesn’t exist. No sir. That screen you’re looking at right now isn’t the same screen, its something entirely different. You cannot experience change.

I told you.

Truth.

You say “nope.” But wait a minute. I’m not saying that 2+2=5 is wrong or right. I would say that it is unfamiliar and call it irregular, but not “wrong.” If I said it were wrong that would mean that I knew everything, including the fact that I’m not dreaming or being tricked by that evil genie, right? Pure rational Truth is absolute certainty…NO exceptions. Experience cannot be trusted and the Mind is everything. What is “arbitrary” is the orientation in experience…things slip away in the change, and you sense chaos and flux. No, nothing has changed. Its the same old song and dance.

Mathematics is essentially a physiological contingency depending on sensory organs and the nervous system. The simplest nervous system still functions like a binary computer…voluntary and involuntary muscle action is regulated through electrical impulses, so in this sense its internal processes are quantifiable. However, without advancing past primitive tactile sensibility, that is, evolving optical or audio sensory organs, mathematics would not develop or even exist. There could be distinguishable events in the nervous system so in that respect, yes, “numbers” exist, but Mathematics is a reflective method. To count and negotiate the world is to count it and place it here or there.

Organisms with these sensory organs will evolve a more complex brain and begin to percieve the world through Cartesian coordinates. At this level experience profiles the world as quantifiable…objects are seen and sound is heard. The original more primitive nervous system still operated in a binary mode, now, with the brain matter, it can store data sets in memory. Sensory organs serve to collect data and sort it into repetition and orientation; a similiar stimulus will incite a similiar response, memory is organized anticipation and expectancy of this. It is a neuron-set waiting to be powered by the stimulus of a three-dimensional world (or so it is experienced) to evoke the feeling of regularity and orientate the organism. This brain produces heavy math.

The experienced three-dimensional world is a product of internal replays which are comparing and contrasting memory data and incoming data to produce a coherent awareness. When we experience the world the first thing we realize is its quantity, its vastness, its variety. It is made sense of later, after reflection.

Mathematics is not empirical and therefore 2+2=5 is neither right or wrong. Its just unfamiliar. Truth is not experienced precisely because there is change, for what could you point at and say “that’s the Truth?” What could you believe and say “I believe the truth?” What could you propose and be sure it was “the truth?”

There is no changing world. There is only more world. 2+2=5 is not the same right now because it is describing a quantity in the world that is increasing or decreasing, not adopting new characteristics. Numbers are characteristics.

Dunamis:

My idea is that Truth as a subjection is a paradox that must be accepted as the starting point. I say that there is no subjective Truth but that it is Truth that there is the subject and its subjection to Truth, if you follow me.

I don’t know where to put the concept “False” yet, perhaps with Incorrect and Correct. Though at this points it seems like pick-and-choose games.

I’m not sure you quite grasped the profundity of my opening post…[ahem]…its penetrating depths and steadfast vitality. I have elevated Truth so far beyond our petty quarrels and tautological drivel that the God’s themselves can barely see it.

Eat your heart out, Spinoza. (of course I’m 10,000 pages short of Spinoza)

You’ll have to come up with something more than a one-liner to take this ship down, Dunamis.

Satyr:

Okay, what happens if I disagree and say that it is not? Is there then no Truth because there is no agreement? But wait. Both of us can’t be wrong, so there is Truth then? But wait. Which one of us is right? How do we determine that? Ah…we have to agree. Could we do that? Not according to you, because according to me, I’ve disagreed.

We’re fucked.