What is Truth?

[Seattle]

Exactly. Perhaps it is time for people to stop beating on JamesR. (I don't like it when people beat on MR, and I don't like it any more when the target of the bullying is JamesR. (Who isn't a bad guy, though don't tell him I said that.) Leave our R's alone!

Given as how everyone seems to be accusing everyone else of being a "bigot", which is just a woke-speak for "piece of shit", perhaps somebody might want to answer this:

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?

No, it's cultural at its heart. We all share much of the same culture which is why we share a lot of the same values. Some seem obvious.

I don't think everyone is beating up on James. I think some of that is just past actions coming back to "haunt" him. He responds to every post, usually with sarcasm and name calling along with a moral judgement. I've been called a racist, bigot, told that my moral compass needs adjusting and had words put into my mouth that I haven't uttered. No one but a moderator would usually think that was an appropriate way to interact within a social group.

When you do that and become the moral god of the site, it's not unbelievable that there will be some "self-correction" by the members. This is largely a discussion site and not a lecture site. Those wanting discussion generally get it.

Those wanting to lecture and moralize at other's expense can expect some pushback at most any site and in most any environment.

People, when left alone in general, will tend to self-regulate and get along and name calling will be kept to a minimum just as it is on the school grounds as kids turn into teenagers and learn how to communicate and get along with others.

It gets out of whack when one person tries to control everyone else, whether that's a dictator or a moderator that exerts themselves unnecessarily. James the member wouldn't be facing the same comments as James the moderator most likely.

I agree that James shouldn't be picked on, or MR or anyone else. What doesn't work is selective comments. Accusing one person of making a snarky comment while ignoring the snarky comment they were responding to.

It's silly to try to moderate how people talk to each other within certain bounds. There will be sarcastic comments from time to time. Just don't use hate speech, go out of your way to be a pest without provocation, don't moralize at other's expense and everyone should be able to get along.

James is a good guy as are most people here. He is currently just getting the same pushback that anyone would that called that many people that many names. It just caught up with him.

IMO it's no big deal. It would happen to any of us. I'm not going to suggest that he go and reflect on his actions as that is the kind of condescending remark that people are pushing back against.

Just move on and let's not be too sensitive about some long overdue pushback. It is what it is.

In my opinion (not worth much) we don't need apologies or a lot of "reporting" of other members. The group can socialize itself by thinking of online names as actual people. You can occasionally be snarky with your group, you don't usually question their morals or tell them to go and reflect. That's a glass tower approach that always fails.

Let's lighten up a bit.

 

[arfa brane]

I see a direct problem with the question "What is Truth?"

Since you could also ask "Where is Truth?" and then spend a lot of time figuring out why those are (resp. are not) different questions.
Then you could consider "Why is Truth? When is Truth?" etc.

What I'm saying is, the word truth isn't necessarily about what it is; in fact I'd have to conclude that truth is not something you can carve in stone and say "this is what Truth is". Not gonna happen.

And there's a certain inevitable hubris, in asking what truth is, in that the question suggests nobody knows the answer. But that can't be true . . .
To support the above arguments, I respectfully submit this entire thread.

Your Honor.

 

[Michael 345]

Let's lighten up a bit.

Sure

Keeping to the presumed topic of the thread and discussing What is Truth would help

Discussing, more or less, who said what is really not going to illuminate What is Truth

Truth would be a utterance which describes the reality of an occurrence

 

[Seattle]

Sure

Keeping to the presumed topic of the thread and discussing What is Truth would help

Discussing, more or less, who said what is really not going to illuminate What is Truth

Truth would be a utterance which describes the reality of an occurrence

Does your post do that? My post was dealing with the current realities, IMO.

 

[Michael 345]

Does your post do that? My post was dealing with the current realities, IMO.

The current reality is the topic of the post is What is Truth?

Are you claiming the last posted post within the thread should become the current topic topic?

 

[Seattle]

The current reality is the topic of the post is What is Truth?

Are you claiming the last posted post within the thread should become the current topic topic?

The thread topic was about truth. So was my post. All the comments from me and everyone else that you are saying took it off topic were about the OP comments in this thread.

It's hard to stay out of it when the OP apology to another member brought my name up like a piece of trash, bigot, racist, moral compass out of adjustment? All that from an apology to another member?

I don't think you would react any differently, would you?

 

[Michael 345]

would you?

YES

 

[Seattle]

YES

OK, you're a doddering Magoo of an old man, slightly deranged with barely a clue as to what you are talking about. (tongue in cheek of course)

Now, just respond to the OP of "What Is Truth."

 

[Michael 345]

OK, you're a doddering Magoo of an old man, slightly deranged with barely a clue as to what you are talking about. (tongue in cheek of course)

Now, just respond to the OP of "What Is Truth."

I am responding only because otherwise you would be unable to work out my REAL response

<CLICK> Consider yourself Iggyed (well fake Iggyed) just for the purpose of this explanation I have made my response in visible text

Last time I looked I had / have over 50 on Iggy. Truth is a few are gummies but I gave up Iggying those awhile back since they tend not to be around long

<CLICK> You are fake off fake being fake ON Iggy



PS I have never un-Igged anyone

 

[wegs]

I think certain ''truths'' can cause you to change your life, motivate you to try new things, and inspire you. In other words, truths that literally move a person to change might be the most truthful truths of all.

 

[Michael 345]

I think certain ''truths'' can cause you to change your life, motivate you to try new things, and inspire you. In other words, truths that literally move a person to change might be the most truthful truths of all.

Sorry I doubt that what you have stated is correct

I would go with what you believe is the truth can literally move a person even if it is uncertain it is the truth

Prime example is religion. It is unknown, from the thousands of gods claimed to be true, if any of them exist yet each of them can literally move a person who believes the claim they (singular or plural) exist

 

[wegs]

Sorry I doubt that what you have stated is correct

I would go with what you believe is the truth can literally move a person even if it is uncertain it is the truth

Prime example is religion. It is unknown, from the thousands of gods claimed to be true, if any of them exist yet each of them can literally move a person who believes the claim they (singular or plural) exist

That is one way of looking at it. There are however, secular truths that we all live by and that laws are built around. When we see and hear about instances of systemic racism for example, we know that is wrong, right? We should be moved to seek justice, even if we aren't personally afflicted. That is the type of truth that will move a person to change. That's not a ''belief.''

 

[Michael 345]

That is one way of looking at it. There are however, secular truths that we all live by and that laws are built around. When we see and hear about instances of systemic racism for example, we know that is wrong, right? We should be moved to seek justice, even if we aren't personally afflicted. That is the type of truth that will move a person to change. That's not a ''belief.''

I would still be going with beliefs

Some believe one group is better than another group. Team sports thrive on such beliefs. The winners determine the truth of the belief, if only for the sport, not other life aspects

Lots more to unpick but it is close to 6am and I should have been asleep hours ago

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Sorry I doubt that what you have stated is correct

There's a truth in growing up, growing older, and being intoxicated and passing out on some guys bed. Maybe it can make you all the wiser; I think that's the sentiment.

 

[Michael 345]

There's a truth in growing up, growing older, and being intoxicated and passing out on some guys bed. Maybe it can make you all the wiser; I think that's the sentiment.

Never done that

 

[Beaconator]

Consider the following statements. Try to rank them on the following 7 point scale:
Strongly agree - Agree - Slightly Agree - Neutral - Slightly disagree - Disagree - Strongly disagree

I'm interested in your beliefs/rankings of these statements, so please post them. However, if you're doing so please enclose your answers in [spoiler][/spoiler] tags so that other people aren't influenced by your answers before thinking about the statements. It is better if you do not read other people's responses before posting your own.

After a few people have posted their opinions, perhaps we can have a discussion about them.

Here are the statements to consider:

1. A statement is true when it corresponds to reality.​

Strongly agree. Reality is the ultimate truth overshadowed by belief.

2. We all share the same reality and only interpret it differently.

Agree. Experience guides interpretations.

3. Truth depends on the opinions and beliefs of people.

Agree. The will of the masses is not to be underestimated. Nor will it ever go without truth. In other words the will of the masses is the ultimate truth.

4. People create words and define their meaning.

Disagree. Their meaning is already defined and a word is created; otherwise truth could be made just by speaking.

5. A statement is true if everyone agrees it is true.

Disagree. At the highest pentacles of truth there will always be disagreements.

6. Strong belief, even without action, can change reality.

Strongly disagree. Truth can’t be changed.

 

[Sarkus]

1. Strongly agree. Reality is the ultimate truth overshadowed by belief.
2. Agree. Experience guides interpretations.
3. Agree. The will of the masses is not to be underestimated. Nor will it ever go without truth. In other words the will of the masses is the ultimate truth.

Bolding and numbering is mine.

In 1 and 3 you equate "reality" and "the will of the masses" as both being "the ultimate truth".
In 2 you also agree that we share the same reality, and thus you are saying, from the equating above, that we all share the same will of the masses, and thus that the will of the masses is everyone's reality, whether we share that will or not.

Moving on...

4. Disagree. Their meaning is already defined and a word is created; otherwise truth could be made just by speaking.
5. Disagree. At the highest pentacles of truth there will always be disagreements.
6. Strongly disagree. Truth can’t be changed.

In 5 you disagree that a statement is true if everyone agrees it is, yet in 1 and 3 you have equated reality with the will of the masses, and expressed reality as the ultimate truth. Therefore, per your responses, the will of the masses - e.g. if a majority, let alone all, believes something to be true - then this is reality, the ultimate truth. But then you disagree that it is true even if everyone agrees it.

Basically, your responses are clearly contradictory, so perhaps some clarification is in order?

And what is a "pentacle of truth", let alone the "highest pentacle"? Do you mean pinnacle?

 

[gmilam]

No need for a 7 point scale. These are true/false questions

1. A statement is true when it corresponds to reality.
​

True

2. We all share the same reality and only interpret it differently.

True

3. Truth depends on the opinions and beliefs of people.

False

4. People create words and define their meaning.

True

5. A statement is true if everyone agrees it is true.

False

6. Strong belief, even without action, can change reality.

False
​

 

[Beaconator]

Bolding and numbering is mine.

In 1 and 3 you equate "reality" and "the will of the masses" as both being "the ultimate truth".
In 2 you also agree that we share the same reality, and thus you are saying, from the equating above, that we all share the same will of the masses, and thus that the will of the masses is everyone's reality, whether we share that will or not.

Moving on...

In 5 you disagree that a statement is true if everyone agrees it is, yet in 1 and 3 you have equated reality with the will of the masses, and expressed reality as the ultimate truth. Therefore, per your responses, the will of the masses - e.g. if a majority, let alone all, believes something to be true - then this is reality, the ultimate truth. But then you disagree that it is true even if everyone agrees it.

Basically, your responses are clearly contradictory, so perhaps some clarification is in order?

And what is a "pentacle of truth", let alone the "highest pentacle"? Do you mean pinnacle?

Well an ultimate truth takes time to understand. It can be slowed or sped up by the masses.

In gambling not every bluff is a true bluff. Most bluffs are semi bluffs. Saying “I have a better than usual chance of winning”.

so in reality the best hand doesn’t always win.

that is the will of man.

Yet the will of truth. The will of the universe, escapes us. We don’t know it’s plan. We don’t know the future.

Yet the future is truth

I enjoy your lines of questioning. You have a brilliant mind.

 

[Yazata]

I am not very sympathetic to the postmodern theory that claims that all Truth is constructed. It sounds like you might not be, either.

I'm not, though I have to admit that I don't really understand literary postmodernism (and am not interested enough to study it).

As far as constructivism goes, I think that it's complex.

I'm convinced that the vast bulk of reality exists independently of what I or anyone else thinks about it. Though that being said, here on Earth there are things like money or law codes or natural human languages, which wouldn't exist at all if human beings didn't exist. So I don't want to dismiss the idea of social facts which by their nature are constructed.

Perhaps the plausibility of social constructivism as a more general philosophy might be a function of whether one is oriented more towards the natural sciences and engineering on one hand, or the "social sciences" and the humanities on the other (where socially constructed realities play a much larger role). I might even speculate that constructivism is more of an urban phenomenon, since people in large cities are almost totally surrounded by people and the works of people (all of it constructed) while rural people still see nature, biology and geology around them. Does that difference influence how one conceptualizes reality?

And that introduces a political angle as well. One reason why the political left is attracted to social constructivism is that they are focused around social change agendas. They want to change the world that they see around them, which wouldn't be possible if those realities are the products of natural law. But if social realities are constructed, then they can be deconstructed and changed as the activists desire. (We see this playing out today with activists trying to displace biological sex with socially constructed "gender".)

Even if we turn our attention to the natural sciences, I'm inclined to see a constructed aspect there too.

Again, I think of facts as existing states of affairs. Human beings have nothing to do with most of those existing states of affairs. If humanity went extinct tomorrow or had never existed, whatever is happening on the exoplanets in the Trappist system would still be happening. As Carl Sagan used to say, there are "billions and billions" of stars out there, most of them with multiple planets probably. Human beings play a minute role in the bigger picture.

But if truth is indeed correspondence between our propositions and the realities that they seek to model, even if we accept that the existence of those realities is not the work of humans, what are we to make of the propositions? Truth and falsity are properties of propositions and human beings are inevitably the origin of our propositions.

The history of science illustrates this very well. We evolve scientific concepts over time and use them to concoct explanatory structures that we hope will mirror reality and model its behavior well enough to be useful. One just has to remember that the natural sciences aren't creating most of the natural reality that it studies, it's just constructing the theories and concepts that we use to understand nature.