No not at all.

Why should I?

I gave you my explanation of how humans determine what we call truth. I explained the entire process of how we do this in detail.

I gave specific example of precisely how it works, and how it fails. And I even included an explanation of how it can fail, and how it is only meaningful within the confines of the premises, axioms, and domain of applicability that it part of this process.

I have no reason to believe that this is wrong. Yet you are the one who vehemently proclaimed my explanation of truth to be wrong and called it a false belief.

So you are the one who is making that proclamation.

I offered that perhaps we simply hold two different views. And I asked you to explain your view of what you believe truth to be.

You state the same correspondence idea that is part of my definition. They definitions appear to be very close, yet you do not explain clearly what is being corresponded.

So I ask you to explain how that can be meaningful.

I ask you to give me an example of how your definition of truth can work in a meaningful comprehensible way by offering me an example of how it works.

You refuse to offer up any workable examples of how your definition of truth can actually work without evaluating some specific correspondence.

So what do I do? Do I say that your definition is 'wrong'?

No, I simply say that if you can't offer me a workable example of how to determine truth using your definition then why should I believe that your definition is even workable or meaningful?

It's a question asking how your definition works. It's not a proclamation that it's wrong. How can I say that it's "wrong" if you can't even give an example of how it works? I have no clue how your definition of truth can work until you acknowledge and recognize a specific correspondence that is ultimately evaluated for a "truth value".

You demand:


And you are extremely passionate about the period, insisting that to add anything more to this definition of truth would somehow defile it.

I take the position that, in so far as I can see, your definition is not complete until you acknowledge the actual correspondence that is being evaluated for a 'truth value'.

~~~~~

In other words, I take you definition and expand on it. In fact, I can do this in at least two different ways.

1.) The Analytical Way

This is when I specify that what is being corresponded with fact reality is a description. And that description is then being evaluated for a "truth value", and that is how we decide what we deem to be true or not.

In this analytical process the subjectivity and the objectivity of the process is a bit confusion. The state of affairs appears to be somewhat objective, but the description of that state of affairs is clearly subjective. Although, I can see where someone could argue that the 'objectivity' of the actual state of affairs is being forced onto the description if indeed the description is correct.

Thus one might concluded that this Analytical way of deterimining truth is 'objective' and not 'subjective' because the actual state of affairs forces it's objective nature onto the description.

(assuming the description does indeed correctly describe the state of affairs)

2.) The Experiential Way

I've also described a second specific way that a correspondence can be set up. Instead of creating a description of the state of affairs as we did to define Analytical Truth we simply jump right in and experience the state of affairs directly. And we say that this experiences is "The Truth" of that state of affairs.

This kind of 'truth evaluation' can never be false. It simply is what is what is it. In a very real sense it is the foundational primordial 'truth' of a state of a affairs.

I gave the example of jumping in a snow bank naked and making snow angels in the snow to discover the truth of that state of affairs.

The 'truth' of the state of affairs in this case is to simply experience the state of affairs directly.

In this case truth is clearly subjective in that everyone will experience this state of affairs subjectively. In fact, there would be no other way to experience it.

~~~~~

So by being very specific about what I mean by truth I give detailed examples of precisely what I mean by truth, and I even give concrete examples of how truth can be evaluated or determined. Plus I even address the limitations and domain of applicability of these concepts of truth.

~~~~~~

Yet you proclaim that my description of truth is 'Wrong' and that it constitutes a "False Belief".

~~~~~

Why should I accept that? Why should I think that my views on truth are wrong just because you say so?

~~~~~~

So no, just because our views conflict I don't assume my views are wrong. But evidently YOU DO!

~~~~~

I'm not even calling your view "wrong".

I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of how your view of truth can actually be evaluated in a meaningful way concerning any specific example you care to choose.

Until you offer that up, how I can say that your description of truth is "wrong"?

I can't even see where you have a "workable definition" of truth to even be right or wrong.

Until you state clearly what is being "corresponded" and how that correspondence is being evaluated, then I have NO CLUE what you even mean by "truth".

From my perspective you simply haven't even presented a meaningful, well-defined idea of truth yet.

From my perspective you appear to simply be dreaming of some lofty idealized and totally unattainable esoteric philosophical unicorn of truth.

That's totally meaningless to me until you can bring it into the world of practicality and show how a specific correspondence can actually be evaluated in a meaningful way.

~~~~~~

So I'm not saying that you are 'wrong'. I just don't see how your idea can have any practical value, or actually be evaluated in a meaningful way. Until you can show that, what practical value does your definition have?

That's all I'm asking.

In the meantime, you are proclaiming that my workable definitions of truth are 'wrong' and 'false beliefs'.

And, of course, I don't accept your totally groundless opinion of my definitions of truth. You have no meaningful grounds to back up your empty opinion.

It's just meaningless empty hot air.

You've made some really good points here that I would like to comment on if I may.

You have mentioned the esoteric philosophical ideal of "Absolute truth".

But what is "Absolute Truth"?

I think this is probably central to the whole human concept of 'truth'

If we have no crystal clear definition of what we mean by 'truth' then we can never have a clear and meaningful assessment of whether or not we actually have obtained it.

Is this a fair observation?

So we must ask "What do we mean by truth?", before we can even begin to assess whether or not we have obtained it.

Well, Creative states:


Well, if we accept this, then we have no choice but to recognize that there are indeed different kinds of truth.

I've already defined two of them

1. Analytical truth
2. Experiential truth

In the case of Analytical Truth we are corresponding an analytical description with what we consider to be the state of affairs.

This type of truth is indeed dependent upon man-made concepts, because that's the only way that we have of describing things.

Can we ever know whether our analytical descriptions of a state of affairs match the state of affairs perfectly and correctly?

Probably not. Therefore we can probably never know Analytical Truth.

That idea of truth is probably not knowable, nor achievable.

~~~~~~~

However as the Zen Masters would say, "We can know truth, simply be still and know the truth"

What they are talking about is the "Experience" of the state of affairs. Why bother muddling things all up with artificial descriptions? If you want to know truth, just experience it.

You're experience is your truth. It's the only truth you can ever truly know. And yes, it's entirely subjective. Your truth will never match up with anyone else's truth. Every person is their own truth (i.e. their own experience of the state of affairs)

In fact, this is what falls out from Creative's definition.

If he refuses to acknowledge a specific detailed description of correspondence with fact/reality, then clearly the mere experience of fact/reality is that correspondence.

So Creative's definition of truth cannot even be analytical at all. It can only be experiential. He can only be referring to the truth of Zen or the truth of the Tao. The entirely subjective truth of experience.

Therefore Creative's definition of truth can only be the subjective experience of existence.

And it would be totally meaningless to speak of planets orbiting suns as being 'truth' since no one can actually experience that.

The only way we can even begin to speak about planets orbiting suns is via descriptions that include abstract concepts such as "orbit", etc.

Thus, any philosophical notion of 'pure absolute truth' must necessarily be in the form of what the mystics have been teaching for eons. The experience of life is truth. Period.

No need to analyze it at all.

Pure philosophical truth and spiritual truth would be one in the same. Whatever you experience, is your truth. It's totally subjective.

That would indeed be the purest unadulterated form of pure correspondence with fact/reality.

By Creative's definition this would be the purist form of TRUTH.

Therefore, the purest form of truth is indeed subjective without doubt.

Creative's claim is:



Abra's question is:



My question is this:

Assuming that Creative's definition of truth is the best and most concise then how can truth in and of itself have any real meaning?

In order for it (truth) to have any meaning, it has to be realized and even believed or agreed upon.

Truth itself is not anything. Its just a correspondence to fact/reality. It is a connection.

A correspondence to fact/reality means that the claim matches reality or matches the state of affairs (even if no person alive knows what the state of affairs really is for sure.)

People think they know what reality is, and they think they know what the state of affairs is.

They think they know.

But what does it take to know without thinking?

I think it takes the experience of being.

Exactly, I just covered that in the post preceding yours.

If we accept Creatives definition of truth:


Then the most obvious question to ask next is "What would be the purist most unadulterated way of knowing a correspondence with fact/reality?"

Well, attempting to describe fact/reality using language would be futile. Even Creative seems to be in agreement with that. He passionately demands that truth does not require language.

Therefore we can toss out the "Analytical Truth" models.

We must move to the spiritual or experiential model of pure unadulterated truth (pure experience of the state of affairs)

That would be the purest form of truth. (i.e. the purest correspondence with fact/reality)



That's exactly right. Even by Creative's definition the purest unadulterated correspondence with fact/reality that we can know would be the experience of being in that state of affairs.



And that pure unadulterated primordial truth would indeed be entirely subjective.

Looks like we've finally arrived that the very thing that has eluded philosophers for eons.

Or maybe Socrates was right?

Maybe Socrates simply hit the nail on the head long go.

Truth is subjective.

Dr. Richard Feynman addressed this issue:

"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something."

What's he truly saying here?

He's basically saying that if you want to know the truth of something toss out your analytical approach of trying to analysis it via descriptions and just go out and experience the damn thing.

So there we have it. Richard Feynman recognized that "Real Truth" is indeed the actual experience of the state of affairs. Anything else just muddles up the whole goal of knowing the truth of something.

So it appears that Jeanniebean's "existential truth" wins hands down.

Truth, in it's purest unadulterated form cannot even be put into word, it can only be experience.

And thus the purest form of truth is to subjectively experience the state of affairs directly.

We have finally captured the "Holy Grail" of Pure Philosophical Truth.

I must confess that this has indeed been a quite fruitful thread.

We have captured the "Holy Grail" of Pure Philosophical Truth.

And we have recognized the limitations and imperfections of the analytical approach to truth.

We've done it all.

There's nothing left to do.

We understand truth perfectly now.


Let's have a party!

Yes, I am claiming that you've set truth out in the wrong way. I firmly stand beside that claim as well. I've already given good reason for it... several times over, from several different aspects. Those range from showing it's inadequacy for being able to take into account well-known and well-documented fact, to simply being invalid. There is no stronger method of refutation. Whether or not you accept these things has nothing to do with the brute strength of the refutation itself.

A description cannot correspond between itself and fact/reality. You're position falls apart RIGHT THERE, because that is what must be the case for your position to be true. That cannot be true. It ends in circularity. Calling a description 'truth' wrongfully equates a description with truth. It is called a conflation. It does not even make any sense to say such a thing because it results in self-referencing circularity, as the first sentence in this paragraph clearly shows. It is corrected by setting truth out correctly.

A description which corresponds to fact/reality is true. A description which is thought/believed to correspond is called true. Calling something true, and being true are two very distinct instances. Calling a verified description 'a truth' is to confuse verification with truth. It is a fatal flaw in logic. It is a mistake in thought.

I've already clearly shown the absurdity and the circularity that follows from that mistake. The position that you're arguing for hinges upon mistakenly calling a verified description 'a truth', when it is anything but truth.

Until you come to terms with that, there can be no further progress made.



I've laid my position out consistently throughout this thread. Clarification of that position comes in several different forms; my own claims, my rejoinders to objections, my objections, my answers to questions that are asked, and the questions that I've asked. The information is there, it has been given to you throughout our dialogue.



Re-read the thread. It's been put to good use throughout.



This constitutes fact in evidence that you're not paying attention to what I write, and is yet another example of setting truth out in the wrong way. "Truth value" is not truth. It is a measure of coherency. An argumant can be completely coherent and false. "Truth value" is therefore, not truth. I'm arguing correspondence. I've already addressed the difference many pages back with a bit on Kant, and what constitutes classical philosophy, etc.

I wonder if you even know what the words that you've put to use even mean. This is not a conversation taking place within a casual register. This is philosophy, and it is a discipline. The register is formal. The way you've set things out here leads to nowhere by requiring some sort of omniscient perspective of actual truth, in order for the claim to make sense.

Truth is correspondence to fact/reality, so here's what the above says.

"I take the position that, in so far as I can see, your definition is not complete until you acknowledge the actual truth(correspondence) that is being evaluted for a measure of coherency(truth value)."



Nonsense.

Coherency(truth value) does not measure truth.

DOGMA

To me it seems like a mistake in the use of terms (semantics) rather than a flaw in logic.

The presupposition of truth/reality correspondence in thought/belief formation is the basis of meaning. Looking for the meaning of truth is a fruitless endeavor. It is the wrong way around. Truth presupposition gives meaning.

That is why if a listener knows what it would take for a speaker's claim to be true, then he automatically knows what the speaker means.



No. It doesn't. We all initially engage truth in the exact same way. The presupposition of truth/reality correspondence is what meaning is based upon.



Not anything material. But who claims that all is material?



I don't.



States of affairs are undoubtedly often much more complex than we are aware of. That does not mean that in order to know something about the states of affairs that we must know everything about them.



Reality is the overall state of universal affairs(whatever that may be).



It would take knowledge completely void of thought/belief. All knowledge is know-how. Experience would have no meaning if it were not somehow tied together by the subject to the subject. The kind of experiences that you two are describing are experiences of knowing how it feels...

That kind of know-how requires thought/belief, because one must relate the experience to themself.

There is no fatal flaw in anything but your own misunderstandings and insistence on nit-picking at absurdities. I've explained precisely what I mean in a practical and meaningful way.

Besides, when I speak of the 'description' I'm obviously viewing that term right there in a far more abstract way from how you seem to be thinking. Apparently you are attempting to 'objectify' "the description itself" as being some sort of physical sentence written out in words or some such nonsense.

When I speak of "the description" I'm talking about the actual concepts that are being conveyed by the 'description'. That, my friend, is the true essence of the description, not merely the objectified linguistic string of words that you are apparently hung up on.

Until you come to terms with that, there can be no further progress made.



Besides, you are the only one who believes that "further progress" is even required.

I'm personally quite happy and completely satisfied with my descriptions of truth. So I have no need for any 'further progress'.

As far as I can see, what you are calling 'further progress' amounts to nothing more than a declaration by you that you haven't yet fully understood my position.

You're continued complaints that there exist some sort of fatal logic in the process is simply nonsense. If you feel that way, it can only be because you don't fully understand the process as I do.

I have already made it abundantly clear that once the description has been recognized to be in correspondence with fact/reality, then even by your definition, it becomes 'truth'

In other words, it satisfies that correspondence.

And that is what we mean when we say that the description is "a truth".

That is what we mean by that! Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I've already clarified this before. It is understood that this is what is meant when we say that the description is 'a truth'.

I even gave a concrete example of how we do this:

State of affairs = The Earth orbits the sun
Description = "The Earth orbits the sun"

Therefore we say that is is "a truth" that the Earth orbits the sun".

And that's all we mean by that. And that's precisely how we do it.

You're failure to understand this does not constitute a logical flaw of any kind whatsoever, must less a 'fatal flaw'.

..to me it seems the battle lies between objective and subjective truths,as humans i believe we dabble in both..there are those things that we want to believe are true the subjective and there are those that have tangible proof the objective..if one were to look for absolute truth ..i would think one would need tangible proof..subjective truths seem to be based on emotion..i suppose it's

a heart/brain sort a thing..but then again i could be totally wrong and thought of as an idiot,by what i've just written in which case the reader would have both objective and subjective truths here..as far as where they are concerned..and if not it would only be someone else's opinion..a quandary of sorts i suppose..but the truth...

I absolutely agree. He's just trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill of semantics.

He's obviously viewing the term "description" in a very narrow semantic way. And I'm using the term "description" in a far broader more abstract way.

That's precisely where the misunderstanding lies, and it has absolutely nothing to do with any logical errors.

There is the key. One must relate the experience to themself.

What are you?

You, might think you are the body. You may think that self is the brain. You may think that self is all things that make up the body, brain, consciousness etc.

This is where you will find the event horizon between the physical/ material worlds and spirit.

This is the end of most conversations with people who do not know or believe in the immortal soul or experience any spiritual awareness.

I think your observation is perfectly correct.

I don't know if you've been following this thread, but we have been discussing two entirely different "kinds" of truth, that spring from the same basic underlying concept of a 'state of affairs' that lies beneath it all.

One type is the Analytical Truth (i.e. truths where we attempt to analyze and describe what actually going on)

The other type of truth is the mere truth of directly experiencing the state of affairs directly. That experienced is then considered to be "Truth".

These two ways of defining what we mean by truth are indeed quite different.

For example, if experience is truth, then if you have a hallucination that is necessarily your truth because you have indeed experienced it.

But that kind of truth would be untouchable from the analytical approach.

So there are indeed entirely different views on what constitutes truth and who's to really say which views have merit and which ones don't?

That people who favor the process of finding analytical truths give little or not value to the truth of experience. Whilst the people who value experience as the ultimate truth, aren't impressed by analytical truths that appear to conflict with their experience.

So it can be a deeply controversial topic to be sure.

I try to recognize both kinds of truths and evaluate them within the limitations of their own domains.

Truth presupposition is the basis for meaning. Chasing one's own tail.



We could have a crystal clear definition of what we mean by 'truth', and be wrong. Some people are crystal clear in the equation of truth to personal belief. They define truth as that which is held to be true, that which they believe to be the case. Using that crystal clear definition, we can have a clear and 'meaningful' assessment of whether or not we have arrived at obtaining truth. It would only follow that everyone has their own 'truth', and that by believing something is the case, we obtain truth.

However, we already know that false beliefs exist. If a false belief exists then truth cannot be rightfully equaled to belief. If a false belief is called a truth, even though it is known to be false, we have arrived at a nonsense. Thus, we can see that having a "crystal clear" definition of what we mean by 'truth' does not necessarily lead to obtaining it, even if one believes that a clear definition allows for a clear and meaningful assessment. Truth can be set out in a "crystal clear" and wrong way.

The mistake is in believing that truth is man-made.

The same applies to what we believe to be reality or fact.

We could be wrong.

Remember this poem from "The Darkside."

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality.
But... there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a DARKSIDE.

Each episode would also end with a second voice-over during the closing credits:

The dark side is always there, waiting for us to enter, waiting to enter us.

Until next time, try to enjoy the daylight.

Ok Creative, let me see if I can address you're philosophical objections directly.

You state the following:


I would like to address two particular issues here, and hopefully this will indeed clarify everything for you in a totally professional manner.



Fine.

But how many times have I told you that I have no interest in classical philosophy?

I don't accept the premises upon which they are based. They make assumptions that I simply do not accept. They are working from a totally unsupportable assumption that everything can be objectified in some sort of absolute fashion.

I totally disagree with their foundational principles.

I've told you this many times over.



I have no problem with that at all.

And within that professional context I will tell you right now that I am not restricting my philosophy to the classical restrictions.

I'm not going to "objectify" some phantom esoteric notion of "truth" that supposedly exists independent from how we define.

I refuse to go there. That's is a failed old-school approach, IMHO.



I'm working more along the framework of modern ideas. I'm working more along the framework of Relativity where everything is relative.

So when I define a notion of 'truth' that definition must be entirely relative to the concepts of the definition itself. It must arise naturally from these definitions.

And so that's how I set about defining it.

So from my professional perspective (which totally satisfies a formal approach) I do not objectify 'truth' as if it has some independent existence beyond the definitions that I give it.

Therefore, I see truth as arising from these definitions.

~~~~~~

So perhaps this explains your continued objections.

You are attempting to hold out a classical approach where the independent objectification of an idealized 'truth' is being sought as though it has existence in its own right independent from how we define it.

I simply disagree with that classical approach.

That's all.

In fact, that approach will naturally lead to the demands that you continually make.

~~~~~

How many times do I need to tell you that I do now work within the restrictions of classical thinking?

Relativity works fine for me. And using a relativistic approach to truth also works fine for me. The truth I define arises naturally from the concept of corresponding a description with a state of affairs. There is simply no need to imagine an independent phantom objective entity that exists independent form this.

That is the vantage point from which I work.

And it's perfectly acceptable. Albeit not the classical approach.

In fact, a good analogy is to compare truth with the concept of a set in mathematics. The concept of a set in mathematics is not objectively defined. What is defined is the properties that a set must have. The concept of set then arises from those conditions.

Well, it's the same way here. I define the properties that truth must have and the concept of truth arises from those conditions.

I have absolutely no problem with this and neither do mathematicians and scientists.

With the scientists, this concept of truth becomes associated with 'objectivity' merely because it is the state of affairs of physical reality to which science is attempting to assign 'truth' to.

It's a flaw in his logic.

1. A verified claim is truth.
2. Truth cannot be false.
3. A verified claim cannot be false.(from 1,2)

The inference is valid and 3. is false. True premisses cannot validly lead to false conclusions.

Where's the mirror?