Truth. Does it exist?

Doesn't this forum prove there is such a thing as "own thinking"? Don't we all think different things? Free will is about making choices, own thinking is merely about having thoughts that are not caused by anyone else than yourself. Isn't that what this is about? If that is the case, then I'd say yes, there is own thinking as I'm having these thoughts right now myself. No one put these thoughts into my brain and I just spit them out.

I frankly do not know what free will is. I only know what it is not. But maybe you are right. Go on with your choices then.

The question is, whether there is such a thing as "own thinking" at all? I do not think so. The precondition of "own thinking" would be "free will", which not only classical philosophy tends to negate.

Doesn't this forum prove there is such a thing as "own thinking"? Don't we all think different things? Free will is about making choices, own thinking is merely about having thoughts that are not caused by anyone else than yourself. Isn't that what this is about? If that is the case, then I'd say yes, there is own thinking as I'm having these thoughts right now myself. No one put these thoughts into my brain and I just spit them out.

When we discover them they exist in the mind. They are not "out there", they are based on our understanding of what qualifies as true and the object we are looking at.

And the prove for this "objects/truth exist only mind-dependently" is where?

there was no such thing as gravity before Newton discovered it and quantified it in human terms.

Was there not? Did we all fly around before Newton discovered it? I don't remember we did. "Gravity" existed long before he discovered it, we just didn't have a name for it. We may have called it something else before Newton named it gravity. But the thing itself, the thing that we call gravity, was always there.

It would still be a fact that there is gravity on earth. As long as there is gravity on earth, it is true that there is gravity on earth. You are not in a position to be able to say that.

Why not? It's basic logic. Does gravity exist on earth right now? Yes, well proven fact. Is it true that gravity exist on earth right now? Yes, because gravity does exist right now. So if gravity continues to exist, is it true that there is gravity on earth? Yes, because logically if A(gravity exists on earth) then B (it is true that gravity exists on earth).

Its nothing to do with logic at all. Without an observer there is no one to make a statement about gravity.

What could you offer to prove that the truth is independent of us?

I'm no expert in any of this, really. I'm not an established philosopher who is publishing her own theories based on detailed research. I've just finished my first year of philosophy in university so really, what do I know? If I had proof for the existence of truth independently of our minds, I'd probably be about 30 years older and teaching philosophy. But I'm not. :p I can't offer proof, I can only offer my reason for believing in the mind-independent theory rather than the mind-dependent one. The reason for that is that our "truths" keep changing. We always discover something new on a regular basis. If truth was mind-dependent thus cannot exist without us, why would it keep changing all the time?

In 30 years you will be inexactly the same position. You will have found that no philosopher would be willing to support your view; that no philosopher has ever supported your view; and that there is still no way you can support your position. At some point in human history someone came up with the idea of truth. Did the idea exist a million years ago, before there were humans? no. And this would be the case now were there no humans. As for truths changing - I agree, and the reason for this is that human perception and knowledge changes. This does not support your idea - it supports mine.

All truth is contingent upon what is of interest to the human mind.

As I said before truth is the relationship being the conscious mind and the object of interest that it perceives. You ask "why does it keep changing'; but you have failed to see the contradiction in your conception. It changes because humans change. Without humans how could truth keep changing? With your idea of gravity you are implying that it exists without humans. Well the fact is that Newtons' conception is now out of date, and a more complex truth exists about the nature of what we like to call gravity.

What could you offer to prove that the truth is independent of us?

What could you offer to prove it isn't?

I am concerned to say the least that a couple of people on this topic including yourself have written that to posit an absolute truth means to posit God, because I no way believe in God but I do posit an absolute truth. That is my prerogative, and since you cannot prove there isn't an absolute truth just as I cannot prove there is, I have proved your theory wrong that one must believe in God to posit an absolute truth.

With almost a decades' experience in Buddhist philosophy (though I'm not a 'Buddhist') and associating with monks and other Buddhist philosophers I can also say with certainty that there are at least a few million people on this planet who are very used to the concept of absolute truth (though they can't prove its existence) and who do not believe in God or a supreme being in any way whatsoever.

If you read Theravadin Buddhist scripture and the attempts to describe enlightenment which is supposed to be oneness with the absolute (not God) it is very interesting as there are many pairs of statements which describe what it is not, as opposed to what it is. This resonates with the Mahayana doctrine which ends '...Emptiness is form'. To the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools of Buddhism, one quality of absolute truth which can be deducted but not consistently directly experienced (unless one is 'enlightened' which is supposed to be difficult to achieve) is 'Emptiness'.

Emptiness is a very complex quality which I am only beginning to understand but it is NOT the same as 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' in the usual sense and it is NOT the same as 'The Void'. Emptiness itself is comprised of qualities such as 'relationship' and 'flow' and it is not easy to grasp with language.

The first half of that same doctrine 'Form is emptiness...' refers to a different kind of emptiness which is the meaninglessness of all human forms and the lack of inherent existence of any human form (be it an idea of truth or a piece of knowledge or a red car) and refutes 'I think therefore I am' as no different an illusion of perception than the red car. (Stephen Hawkings also sees consciousness itself as an illusion). In other words there is only 'consciousness' when there is something to be 'conscious' of (not the other way round as someone else put in this topic- though I would say neither way round is provable so take your pick).

This is linked to another very Buddhist teaching (although also found in many wisdom traditions) of the interconnectedness of all phenomena. If everything is interconnected then everything exists in relation then nothing inherently exists...even Descartes... The ONLY thing, it can be deducted, that inherently exists, is everything, or the absolute...no mention of God whatsoever.

Capiche?

-- Updated July 5th, 2012, 2:31 pm to add the following --

chazwyman,

let me put it more concisely:

Since you cannot prove you exist without defining yourself in relation to something else, (nor can anyone) when you propose that there is no absolute truth you are yourself something that is empty of inherent existence, proposing that there is nothing that exists without you (or without other beings that inherently don't exist)...thus you yourself prove that there is in fact, an absolute truth, definable by AT LEAST the emptiness of your proposition of no absolute truth (an emptiness based on the emptiness of your existence).

-- Updated July 5th, 2012, 2:36 pm to add the following --

(Without gravity there is no observer to make a statement).

-- Updated July 5th, 2012, 3:38 pm to add the following --

Also note that you cannot turn my argument (or rather, the Buddhist argument) on its head in the conventional way. Consider, if I am a being empty of inherent existence uttering the proposition 'there is an absolute truth' you might be tempted to reply that my statement is negated if I am myself empty of existence, but that would not be the case.

Even if everything I utter is relatively untrue, being based on the emptiness of my existence, I am still empty of inherent existence, regardless of what I utter. The emptiness of my existence and thus the existence of an absolute truth, defined by AT LEAST the emptiness of my existence, still stands.

-- Updated July 5th, 2012, 3:45 pm to add the following --

What could you offer to prove that the truth is independent of us?

A more correct answer to my previous, in light of Buddhist philosophy, would be,

'What can you offer to prove that the absolute truth isn't both dependent on us, relatively, and independent of us, absolutely?'


If you prefer it as a statement: The absolute truth wouldn't exist, relatively, without us, but also, we wouldn't exist without the absolute truth.

With almost a decades' experience in Buddhist philosophy (though I'm not a 'Buddhist') and associating with monks and other Buddhist philosophers I can also say with certainty that there are at least a few million people on this planet who are very used to the concept of absolute truth (though they can't prove its existence) and who do not believe in God or a supreme being in any way whatsoever.

If you read Theravadin Buddhist scripture and the attempts to describe enlightenment which is supposed to be oneness with the absolute (not God) it is very interesting as there are many pairs of statements which describe what it is not, as opposed to what it is. This resonates with the Mahayana doctrine which ends '...Emptiness is form'. To the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools of Buddhism, one quality of absolute truth which can be deducted but not consistently directly experienced (unless one is 'enlightened' which is supposed to be difficult to achieve) is 'Emptiness'.

The core principles of Buddhism, i.e. anatta, anicca, co-dependent arising, sunyata do not enable any provision of 'absoluteness' at all.

Whatever is termed as 'absolute truth' would not has any inherent existence (anatta), is impermanent (anicca) and is always conditioned (dependent arising - sunyata - emptiness).

Conventionally, we may use the term 'absolute' but these absolutes are actually relative absolutes, not absolutely absolute. Examples of relative absolutes are absolute temperature, absolute monarchy, etc.

The absolutely-absolute is something that is totally unconditioned and this is not possible with the principles of the pratītyasamutpāda, anatta and anicca.

-- Updated Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:56 pm to add the following --

Here is another take on truth.

1. Empirical objects exist, that is a fact.
This is an experience in the mind interdependent with whatever is "out there".

2. The fact of empirical objects existing is true, i.e. a truth.
There is a process of conformance and judgment between the fact/reality as given and our understanding.
There are different process of conformance, i.e. corresponding theory of truths, coherence theory of truths and others, and they do not necessary agree amongst each other. Which is the true theory of truth?

Nietzche rightly said,
There is no absolute truths, there are only perspectives.

Wittgenstein implied,
What is true or truth is conditioned by our inevitable language games.

Foucault is more precise in saying,
There are games of truths and regimes of truths and what is truth is conditioned by its framework of rules, policies, and authority which are man-made either explicitly or implicitly (note a priori).
There is no truth that is absolutely independent and unconditioned by these man-made games or regimes of truth.

What could you offer to prove it isn't?
I don't need to. All truth ideas of truth evidence of truth come from people speaking about truth. The burden of proof is on you.

I am concerned to say the least that a couple of people on this topic including yourself have written that to posit an absolute truth means to posit God, because I no way believe in God but I do posit an absolute truth. That is my prerogative, and since you cannot prove there isn't an absolute truth just as I cannot prove there is, I have proved your theory wrong that one must believe in God to posit an absolute truth.
That is not proof, it is just a self satisfied circular argument.
With almost a decades' experience in Buddhist philosophy (though I'm not a 'Buddhist') and associating with monks and other Buddhist philosophers I can also say with certainty that there are at least a few million people on this planet who are very used to the concept of absolute truth (though they can't prove its existence) and who do not believe in God or a supreme being in any way whatsoever.
Truth is the inner light of wisdom - Buddhist saying. This supports my view.
If you read Theravadin Buddhist scripture and the attempts to describe enlightenment which is supposed to be oneness with the absolute (not God) it is very interesting as there are many pairs of statements which describe what it is not, as opposed to what it is. This resonates with the Mahayana doctrine which ends '...Emptiness is form'. To the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools of Buddhism, one quality of absolute truth which can be deducted but not consistently directly experienced (unless one is 'enlightened' which is supposed to be difficult to achieve) is 'Emptiness'.
Buddhists are a complex bund some are theists some are not.
Emptiness is a very complex quality which I am only beginning to understand but it is NOT the same as 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' in the usual sense and it is NOT the same as 'The Void'. Emptiness itself is comprised of qualities such as 'relationship' and 'flow' and it is not easy to grasp with language.
Interesting but does not address the question. Emptiness is the absence of desire.- including the desire for truth. To achieve this you also have to abandon the need to find the truth.
The first half of that same doctrine 'Form is emptiness...' refers to a different kind of emptiness which is the meaninglessness of all human forms and the lack of inherent existence of any human form (be it an idea of truth or a piece of knowledge or a red car) and refutes 'I think therefore I am' as no different an illusion of perception than the red car. (Stephen Hawkings also sees consciousness itself as an illusion). In other words there is only 'consciousness' when there is something to be 'conscious' of (not the other way round as someone else put in this topic- though I would say neither way round is provable so take your pick).
Not relevant to the thread.
This is linked to another very Buddhist teaching (although also found in many wisdom traditions) of the interconnectedness of all phenomena. If everything is interconnected then everything exists in relation then nothing inherently exists...even Descartes... The ONLY thing, it can be deducted, that inherently exists, is everything, or the absolute...no mention of God whatsoever.

Capiche? .
Not relevant to the thread.
-- Updated July 5th, 2012, 2:31 pm to add the following --

chazwyman,

let me put it more concisely:

Since you cannot prove you exist without defining yourself in relation to something else, (nor can anyone) when you propose that there is no absolute truth you are yourself something that is empty of inherent existence, proposing that there is nothing that exists without you (or without other beings that inherently don't exist)...thus you yourself prove that there is in fact, an absolute truth, definable by AT LEAST the emptiness of your proposition of no absolute truth (an emptiness based on the emptiness of your existence).
There are two non sequiturs here.
-- Updated July 5th, 2012, 2:36 pm to add the following --

(Without gravity there is no observer to make a statement).

-- Updated July 5th, 2012, 3:38 pm to add the following --

Also note that you cannot turn my argument (or rather, the Buddhist argument) on its head in the conventional way. Consider, if I am a being empty of inherent existence uttering the proposition 'there is an absolute truth' you might be tempted to reply that my statement is negated if I am myself empty of existence, but that would not be the case. .
Not relevant to the thread.
Even if everything I utter is relatively untrue, being based on the emptiness of my existence, I am still empty of inherent existence, regardless of what I utter. The emptiness of my existence and thus the existence of an absolute truth, defined by AT LEAST the emptiness of my existence, still stands.
Emptiness is the absence for the desire for truth.
-- Updated July 5th, 2012, 3:45 pm to add the following --



A more correct answer to my previous, in light of Buddhist philosophy, would be,

'What can you offer to prove that the absolute truth isn't both dependent on us, relatively, and independent of us, absolutely?'
See above

If you prefer it as a statement: The absolute truth wouldn't exist, relatively, without us, but also, we wouldn't exist without the absolute truth.

Spectrum I resonate with your views and defintions, (Foucault good) although I think I didn't explain myself well enough because I still believe there is a common concept of absolute in Buddhism. How about 'relativity is absolute' (nothing is not relative)?

Chazwyman

If 'the burden of proof is on me' then 'the burden of proof is on you' as well for your statement before saying that if someone believes in an absolute they must be a theist, something you stated as a 'truth' which you still haven't proved, which was the essence of my contention with what you wrote, regardless of all the rest.

Regardless of all your criticism, I am convinced of an absolute truth. I do not believe in God whatsoever, so your original assertion about this subject is no more true than mine to the contrary. The burden of proof is on both of us if you like, and neither of us can prove it.

It seems strange that you would miss the point that your assertion that there is no absolute truth is itself an assertion about truth that requires proving as much as any assertion to the opposite. You wrote 'All truth ideas of truth evidence of truth come from people speaking about truth. the burden of proof is on you' and yet failed to apply that to yourself and your own statements about the truth!

Also, the conventional and traditional understandings of Emptiness are not that it is an absence of desire as you have suggested. I believe you are confusing Emptiness with the attainment of Emptiness. To attain Emptiness would be to have an absence of desire, but that in itself is not a description of Emptiness.

-- Updated July 14th, 2012, 12:41 pm to add the following --

Spectrum

Or could I put it this way?

Either everything is relative, making relativity an absolute OR there is an absolute beyond relativity which we cannot comprehend

(thus either way there is an absolute, not provable either way but a good 'working theory' nevertheless? Can't we propose 'working theories' that explain things 'pretty well' without always needing precision and proof?)

And to look at this 'the text' from a Foucauldian perspective, am I not partly exempted if I make these assertions?:

1) In some shape or form, all I want is to achieve power or control over everyone and everything. 2) I think the most enlightened way to do this is mantaining a view of reality which involves compassion for all and harmonious theories of everything / strivings for statements of truth that are as absolute as possible so that they may then be a solid basis for treating people well / achieving social peacefulness and harmony.

(Trying to skirt the edge of 'the text' although always bound within it)

Perspective as truth.

Truth is in a state of flux and the constancy of this flux is directly connected to one's willingness to share perspectives and to examine other perspectives both inwardly and outwardly. Truth is never pure as it is contaminated with rational prejudices and is limited by our sense perception as well.

Isn't it true that I typed the word- truth?

Chazwyman

If 'the burden of proof is on me' then 'the burden of proof is on you' as well for your statement before saying that if someone believes in an absolute they must be a theist, something you stated as a 'truth' which you still haven't proved, which was the essence of my contention with what you wrote, regardless of all the rest.

Regardless of all your criticism, I am convinced of an absolute truth. I do not believe in God whatsoever, so your original assertion about this subject is no more true than mine to the contrary. The burden of proof is on both of us if you like, and neither of us can prove it.

It seems strange that you would miss the point that your assertion that there is no absolute truth is itself an assertion about truth that requires proving as much as any assertion to the opposite. You wrote 'All truth ideas of truth evidence of truth come from people speaking about truth. the burden of proof is on you' and yet failed to apply that to yourself and your own statements about the truth!

I can personally deminstrate my version of the truth by showing you that it requires a relationship. Your claim that truth exists without a conscious mind; that it is absolute requires proof of an extraordinary type. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

-- Updated Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:39 pm to add the following --

Isn't it true that I typed the word- truth?

yes this is demonstrated by the fact that you are in a relationship between what you typed and what you are saying you typed.

yes this is demonstrated by the fact that you are in a relationship between what you typed and what you are saying you typed.

And demonstated by having happened, without question, it is truth. Is it not absolute?

I can personally deminstrate my version of the truth by showing you that it requires a relationship. Your claim that truth exists without a conscious mind; that it is absolute requires proof of an extraordinary type. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I see what you mean, but I do not agree that there is absolutely no evidence. I believe that there are pointers and indications. Just as there are pointers and indications that we are unlikely to be alone in the Universe, but I wouldn't dismiss other sentient beings just because we haven't encountered them. However, ultimately it will be impossible to prove what I sense to be true because no conscious mind can exist outside itself in order to see something without 'perspective'. So yes, your truth is much easier to prove, but still not totally provable as an absolute statement that there categoriacally is no absolute truth. Since you cannot step outside of your conscious mind any more than I, it is still reducible to supposition that there is no absolute truth, because whether there is or there isn't, neither of us will ever be able to know / see it. so yes, of course it is easier to say there isn't because that's all we'll ever know, and it's frustrating for a human being to admit that there is something that they'll never know.

Also I am glad you bring up relationship, because in my previous post I was trying to claim my sense of an absolute partly through relationship. (By relating Buddhist doctrine but that was slightly misleading because I think my point is not a Buddhist one afterall, but is using Buddhist doctrine to illustrate it.) If you admit that there is relationship (the alternative is to say that 'everything is you' which is a valid perspective also but you don't seem to be claiming that), then you admit something 'other' than yourself. If you admit something other than yourself, I would suggest your argument for no absolute becomes a little more shaky (although still valid), because by admitting 'other' you are already saying that something can exist which is not purely the product of your mind. (That is what 'relationship' implies.)

(In Buddhist terms, everything is relationship, since there is no self according to Buddhism, which I was trying to use to demonstrate my point before, although it is not necessary in making my point.)

Thanks for stimulating me.

-- Updated July 14th, 2012, 3:04 pm to add the following --

Perspective as truth.

Truth is in a state of flux and the constancy of this flux is directly connected to one's willingness to share perspectives and to examine other perspectives both inwardly and outwardly. Truth is never pure as it is contaminated with rational prejudices and is limited by our sense perception as well.

I agree with this to a point but I realise now that I may be miscommunicating what I mean by absolute truth.

Human truth is never pure, granted, but what I am trying to assert is that there is a superhuman (beyond human) truth. Maybe it would be better if I used the term 'ultimate reality' (in terms of Physics etc) instead of absolute truth...because what I am trying to refer to is ultimately not something that can be uttered by human beings. Maybe it would be better off if I said and wrote nothing about this, since it can't be known. Maybe the mistake is to try and phrase this in human language, when I should just intuit it if I intuit it, but not try to 'argue' / discuss this sort of thing with others.

Just as it is pointless to get someone to 'believe' in something. I still feel there are indications of an absolute truth in a much more solid way than there are indications for 'God' for instance.

I see what you mean, but I do not agree that there is absolutely no evidence. I believe that there are pointers and indications. Just as there are pointers and indications that we are unlikely to be alone in the Universe, but I wouldn't dismiss other sentient beings just because we haven't encountered them. However, ultimately it will be impossible to prove what I sense to be true because no conscious mind can exist outside itself in order to see something without 'perspective'. So yes, your truth is much easier to prove, but still not totally provable as an absolute statement that there categoriacally is no absolute truth. Since you cannot step outside of your conscious mind any more than I, it is still reducible to supposition that there is no absolute truth, because whether there is or there isn't, neither of us will ever be able to know / see it. so yes, of course it is easier to say there isn't because that's all we'll ever know, and it's frustrating for a human being to admit that there is something that they'll never know.

Also I am glad you bring up relationship, because in my previous post I was trying to claim my sense of an absolute partly through relationship. (By relating Buddhist doctrine but that was slightly misleading because I think my point is not a Buddhist one afterall, but is using Buddhist doctrine to illustrate it.) If you admit that there is relationship (the alternative is to say that 'everything is you' which is a valid perspective also but you don't seem to be claiming that), then you admit something 'other' than yourself. If you admit something other than yourself, I would suggest your argument for no absolute becomes a little more shaky (although still valid), because by admitting 'other' you are already saying that something can exist which is not purely the product of your mind. (That is what 'relationship' implies.)

(In Buddhist terms, everything is relationship, since there is no self according to Buddhism, which I was trying to use to demonstrate my point before, although it is not necessary in making my point.)

Thanks for stimulating me.

No problem, hope to enjoy a chat again at another time.

For me it will always be with a sense of humility that I reflect that all our human hubris and claims to knowledge and truth will always have to appeal to our narrow limited sense of how we conceive the universe we find ourself it. It seems an inalterable 'truth' that all we construct our multiple realities from what we may, and however much we might claim to have found something beyond ourselves we are at all times our only judges. For it is humans that judge, conceive and make truth by reflection, it is humans' interest in the universe that makes a dull fact important enough to be compared against falsity. The universe abides in a state of incomprehension, cold, without feeling beyond and worry or care for truth or lies; acting as it does with cold necessity.

A thing which you cannot know to be true, and which has nothing to do with 1+1=2. It does not matter how much more you look at this, there is nothing more to say about it. Looking at 1+1=2 has no information about microbes. It does not matter how long or how many people look at it - they either accept it as true or not.

The truth is not in perspective. Perspectives can be wrong. Perspectives is where illusions reside. Truth is deeper and lies in the relationship between the subject and the object, it requires reason and experience and discernment. But more than that it is contingent on the limits of the known. For centuries people had perspectives on the universe. For thousands of years they believed that the earth was the centre of the universe. Despite the increase in perspective it was not that that changed it but the reason of a single man, whose perspective did not ADD, but changed completely. This was a case of more being just more wrong. And more perspectives did not make is more true.

1 + 1 = 2... that is a helpful & practical fact we agree on & is a formula that is true (maybe that's why they say Math is the purest philosophy). But 1, 2... these are symbols... that only have meaning when you attach meaning to them. What do they represent? It depends on perspective. What are we counting? And how do we define that which we count? Is that definition completely true, or only partly true? If we considered more possible perspectives (either with a microscope, a telescope, an expert's opinion etc.), could there be more definitions than the one originally concluded?

It also depends on how you define TRUTH. Is truth based on what science states... no more or less? Even if science is changing it's definitions regularly? I believe truth is that which causes influence. This definition of truth is more helpful to me in some ways (like understanding cause/effect & why we do what we do). It also applies to higher dimensions... since what we live in is unique - with a earth that moves around the sun & determines much of our limited time-based perspectives.

If we took away all of our planets - what truth would there be? What perspective would there be? It's all relative! Yes, it's illusional - but there's power in it still! It's like a boy who ran back to camp all dirty, bleeding, scratched up. His dad asked, "What happened?!" He explained how he saw this life-threatening snake & explained what it looked like. His dad said, "Oh, that's not a life-threatening snake." The boy said, "If it can make me jump off a cliff it is!"

Beliefs & perspectives, even if completely illusional, have power to influence & thus are often the catalyst to change. Truth is based on reality... which tends to be measured by change or comparisons. As you mentioned, years ago nobody had ways to compare earth in relation to other planets & based on their limited perspective, they assumed the earth was the center of the universe. As we learn more about the universe & beyond, in relation to our galaxy, our earth will take on more meaning. As it is now, the truth we realize is still limited, yet we are still acting & thinking & discussing based on the perspectives we understand to be true.

So, IMO, the more perspectives, the more truthful & truth (not all truth, but one of many truths) is that which causes influence. I see truth more in perspective, which determines energy & influence, rather than in stationary objects. Godfried Lebniz theorized that the subatomical essence of all is the indestructable "monad", aka perception. It's really mind-boggling to consider higher dimensions & spiritual/energetic possibilities! I agree with what you mentioned to Malkuth, that it is humbling to realize we know so little compared to what there is to know!

newme wrote:

1 & 2... these are symbols... that only have meaning when you attach meaning to them. What do they represent? I agree that 1 + 1 = 2... that is a helpful & practical fact we agree on. Yet, deciding what each represents, depends on perspective. What are we counting? And how do we define that which we count? Is that definition completely true, or only partly true? If we considered more possible perspectives (either with a microscope, a telescope, an expert's opinion etc.), could there be more definitions than the one originally concluded?

What we are counting and the meaning they have is irrelevant when considering the idea of units or units of things They represent units of whatever particular object they are used to represent. The meaning they have is conveying the number of units in a particular circumstance.

Newme wrote:

If we took away all of our planets - what truth would there be? What perspective would there be? It's all relative! Yes, it's illusional - but there's power in it still! It's like a boy who ran back to camp all dirty, bleeding, scratched up. His dad asked, "What happened?!" He explained how he saw this life-threatening snake & explained what it looked like. His dad said, "Oh, that's not a life-threatening snake." The boy said, "If it can make me jump off a cliff it is!"

Yes, but there is an actual truth as to whether the snakes venom is life threatening to the biology of a human. It is true the boy thought this was the case initially, yet this does not make it true. The belief that the snake is not poisonous in this case is a true belief.

What we are counting and the meaning they have is irrelevant when considering the idea of units or units of things They represent units of whatever particular object they are used to represent. The meaning they have is conveying the number of units in a particular circumstance.

Hi Nicholas, Math is true... but it's only one version of truth... it's not all-truth-inclusive. Math in itself is only a formula that is meaningless until you apply it in the real world.

Yes, but there is an actual truth as to whether the snakes venom is life threatening to the biology of a human. It is true the boy thought this was the case initially, yet this does not make it true. The belief that the snake is not poisonous in this case is a true belief.

I agree that the snake itself is said to be not poisonous (by his dad) & is true, assuming his dad knows what he's talking about. Yet, it is a fact that the boy was scraped up, bleeding & in jumping off the cliff, threatened his life. It wasn't the snake that did it, but the boy's belief/perspective of the snake that caused true influence.