a question about the truth?

F

fredx

Banned
Banned
Although I am still particularly new to this site I noticed that in the past few days the topics have been sub-par especially in this section, whereas when I first started posting people where making great threads and posting interesting ideas. What happened people?

Anyway, I have something that might get you thinking again.

Karl Jaspers, the most mislabed, underated and probably greatest modern philosopher said that, "truth begins with two".

My question is do you agree with this. Do you see the truth as being something that begins when two people agree with each other, or do you think that you know the truth by yourself.

Personally, I think that it is a little of both but it probably starts with agreement and without a basic agreement, none of us would be able to think in an ordered way and the world will be chaos. The truth then is in a sense necessary for humans and is also in a sense common sense.

I know that these are lofty thoughts and it is a pretty focused but I want to know what you think, and don't worry about sounding stupid because chances are if you post on this site, you are smart enough to make a intelligent response.

Also, I am not asking you to mindlessly throw a million quotes about truth my way that you probably haven't even thought about to take up space, pretend like you have thought about it or because you feel you need to respond, but if you so badly have the need to do that, well, I can't really stop you now can I?

What I am asking is what do you think about this question?
 
Last edited:
There is definitely something to be said for it.

All we know of reality is our own perception.
Perception is skewed by so many factors.

If you apply the thesis, antithesis and synthesis method, then you narrow down what the two observers have in common with their perception.

There you have the source of "common truth" between two observers, therefore you can have a conversation while on the same plane of perception (so to speak).

However, it does not necessarily signify (or even begin to approach) universal truth.

One of them could be right about one aspect of their truth and if the other disagrees, the "actual" truth gets thrown away.

Also, they could both be wrong.
 
wow! mindful response.

One raven said:

"If you apply the thesis, antithesis and synthesis method, then you narrow down what the two observers have in common with their perception."

Perhaps that is a way we do get at the truth.

One Raven said:

"There you have the source of "common truth" between two observers, therefore you can have a conversation while on the same plane of perception (so to speak)."

Interesting

One Raven said:

"One of them could be right about one aspect of their truth and if the other disagrees, the "actual" truth gets thrown away."

I often feel that way too, like when no one agrees with me than my truth gets thrown away, but perhaps it wasn't the truth. I think the scariest and most surprising thing about the truth is that it changes, possibly even from situation to situation.

"Also, they could both be wrong."

A old professor friend of mine once said that there is always a choice on how to handle any situation, celebration or disparagement.

Anyway, thanks you made my day with that response.
 
The idea that 'truth begins with two' seems to relate to dualism. Without dualistic thinking we can have no knowledge, and no truth or falsity. There must be two things for perception or conception to be possible. One might say that you cannot have truth without falsity, and that's two things. Or consider Yin and Yang.

Thus the world as we perceive/conceive it is 'epistemologically dual' (a phrase I overuse but it sums it up). I would have thought that this is how Karl Jaspers meant it. There must be a seperation of one thing into two for the physical world to exist, a problem both philosophy and science have struggled with, both before and since all those clever Greeks.
 
good points...

but it seems like people that know about philosophy are starting to use "dualistic" thinking or the subject/object dichotomy as a crutch or banister to hold on to instead of doing some real thinking of their own.
 
I don't think so. The majority (I think) of philosphers (East and West) try to transcend dualism, this being the only way of finding out what the terms of all our theories actually refer to.
 
“The world may not only be mopre singular than we think, it may be more singular than we can think. “ Robert Kaplan ‘The Nothing That Is’.

This seems likely. Therefore we must think dualistically and 'truth begins with two' as Jaspers said. To reduce the two to one and find out what really 'is' is the aim of most introspective philosophies.
 
something that begins when 2 people agree with each other vs. knowing the truth by yourself?

all i can say is that it's subjective. it varies from person to person and it varies from topic to topic. 2 fools can agree with each other and 1 very intelligent man can uncover the truth by himself.

as far as truth is concerned.....truth has no beginning and no end.
the question you ask can vary from person to person.....so i really can't give an answer. each to his own..i say.
 
machaon said:

"All we know of reality is our own perception."

We can find out how others percieve things also, and only then does what we are looking at become reality. In a way truth and reality are coequal.
 
not really......for me truth is so vast...you can't really categorise it and say...''ok..it originates when.."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top