What is the philosophical nature of "truth"? Is it objective, or subjective, or both/either? What can be considered true/false, e.g. are facts "true", or are only propositions true or false? If truth is that (a proposition or otherwise) which corresponds to reality, does this just push the question back to "what is reality?" and whether there is an objective and subjective reality, etc? Are there different kinds of "truth" - e.g. scientific truths, personal truths, normative truths, etc? Does opinion matter when considering whether something is true or not? I would suggest that most people's view of truth starts (and maybe ends?) with the Correspondence Theory, the notion that truth corresponds with a fact, or some reality. This was a view held and promoted by Betrand Russell et al. There are competitive theories, such as the Coherence Theory of truth, such that a truth is such that coheres with a set of beliefs. It ultimately seems to resolve into relativism, and with a "true for me, not true for you" type of truth - i.e. subjective. There is the Identity theory, where a propositions are not true if they correspond with fact, but are facts themselves, and there are other theories of truth out there in the philosophical ether. A further question of interest crossed my path, that one may like to wade into: "Is there any factual truth to moral propositions? How can the idea of objective moral truths be made consistent with a correspondence theory of truth and fit into a physicalist sort of 'scientific' realism?" While the premise of these questions may rely on one's view of the earlier questions, they are interesting questions that may serve well as an example of what we mean as "truth" - especially on the matter of objective/subjective. Or maybe it is just putting in additional layers without getting to the heart of it. Let's see. So, have at it. A lot of questions above, but really just a thread to share and discuss one's philosophical view of "truth", if one has any to share. Mod Note Edited to reopen with OP's permission.
I’m reminded of a quote “we don’t see things as they really are, we see things as we are.” It’s likely nearly impossible to keep personal bias out of our worldviews and how we see “truth.” Since this thread is posted under philosophy, I’m coming from a philosophical point of view.
Both - It's part of being an individual. As a Christian, I'd call truth a personal relationship with God, which involves both objective reality and my personal subjective truth or reality as an individual. I'm totally biased and need to be.
So what do you do if there is a contradiction in "truths"? Or is it a case of one (subjective) only kicking in, so to speak, when the other (objective) is unobtainable/unattained? How do the two interact? Which takes precedent, or does that scenario never arise?
As a Christian required to honor the holy spirit of truth, and having the understanding clear that deception, error, and falsehoods are part of the discernment and diviidng process of the relationship, if something is found to be erroneous, I am obligated as a Christian to view it as such and lean on truth as my guide. My own understanding isn't always on spot, so acknowledgment of truth is a necessity according to my faith and should be, even if I weren't a "Christian".
With my view of religion - it is the world's biggest con job - a statement like "As a Christian required to honor the holy spirit of truth" I feel sorry for you buying the con With indications you are a bot that's funny If a accurate description is given of a happening I would class such description as true (the truth) When statements about feelings are made are such expressions and judgements about feelings discernible as being true (the truth) or not? My opinion - think not Looks and sound's like bot when spoken Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Buying into the con? How many territories on earth are you aware of that the majority of their populations don't prescribe to some sort of religion? I don't know of any. So, you also seem to equate the concept of true, at least when it comes to people like myself, who happen to be religious, as something less than and by your own admittance, a con. I view true to equate to something true, whether it be a subjective truth such as favorite flavor if ice cream, or an objective truth such as the age of this country. Deceit is part of life. People lie. That is a major theme as well as a warning given to those of us who read the scriptures for the caution, so we might avoid deception. True is true. Honesty is a spirit of truth. We can discern the difference between honest people and dishonest people by that method. We call them fruits. Sometimes we fall short when it comes to study and understanding, but that is a human tendency and not isolated to the religious world. Do you find the act of people being deceived something to laugh about? I don't. I'd much rather people be well informed and capable than to fall for a con, which oddly enough brings us back to your perspective on religious belief and practice. How informed are you?
It might even be the case. Albeit a person is probably intervening at times, judging from the initial posts to the forum (elsewhere) being more lucid and fewer dashes of eccentric phrasing. I suppose it could also just be traditional human doublespeak or doubletalk activity, but the style really does seem to reflect the new chatbot variety of relying on statistical-regulated selection of the next words rather than quasi-randomly borrowing and patching together tracts of text. (Can compose poetry, prose, etc, to boot.) Guess it boils down to whether there's already a web roving or forum deployable software for the latest phases. _
Well spotted and very much correct When the subject is religion I am tempted However the religion con, for me, is a sad reflection on evolution and since evolution is not sentient pointless to show emotion towards the process which has brought religion into being If being religious subjectively works for you fine If I, subjectively, feel the opposite I would only step in if life threatening to you Ya, perhaps, maybe but no Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Evolutionary process and finding no point of showing emotion towards it, the process itself, is I guess a coping method? Difficulty is part of the process, which I myself find difficult to not show emotion toward. It's likewise difficult not to show emotion towards difficulties polar opposite, which would be more ease. I'm fairly certain both are guides in life. Between ease of passage and difficulty, the strait gate, so to speak of life, helping us as sentient beings navigate, is the bridge I think - the channel, if you will, between good and evil, or rather the walk the line part of life. I find it difficult to show no emotion towards this process, due to this process being essential for and to our ongoing development as sentient beings.
And then there is this, from another forum I help moderate and not addressed to me, but oh so true. Does that ring a bell? I believe it is called "character assassination".
Bots are more sophisticated now - they can follow, like and quote posts on most social media platforms. I thought at first, that the writing style is similar to another member who doesn’t post anymore, but they weren’t banned. But, now, I’m leaning towards thinking it’s a bot because the posts seem detached from connecting with the topic or other users, despite using the quote feature to appear like it’s making a connection. If that makes sense. Hmm!
I doubt that any single theory can subsume all instances of particular statements or representations that are presented as "true". If an _X_ is accepted, then the underlying standard being consciously or unconsciously used to justify its validity can contingently vary across them all (correspondence, coherence, pragmatic, consensus, constructivist, etc). A particular profession or culture might be rigidly devoted to a single criterion for what it allows in as "truth", but people and society in general bounce from one to another, depending on what route it takes to get something established or rejected. Often done informally -- only after the fact when an observer might construe how a community or clique arrived at "_X_ being the truth" as fitting one or more formulations of such.
As far as both arguing with it and being offended by its remarks went, I saw a less sophisticated one fool members of a Usenet group years ago. Despite their being well aware of the "demonstration prone" (or trickster?) AI engineer slash marketer who occasionally posted there. The workers who used primitive ELIZA back in the '60s could hardly avoid knowing what it was, but still attributed emotions and good advice to it. OTOH, mundane alternatives abound. If English isn't one's native language -- there can be plenty of oddities arising in the parlance. Especially if a translator app is mediating in a roundabout way. At any rate, though this might very jaggedly concern "truth" or "getting at the truth", I don't want to clutter the thread with another "branching off". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! _
