Truth. Does it exist?

[Scott]

I'm glad you don't think the words are the same nor the opposite. I also think that knowledge and truth are not the same concept, i.e. interchangeable, nor do I think they are opposite. Thus, they are different. It seems we agree on this point.

According to Wikipedia...

Wikipedia is not a credible source. (If in need of a source for some purpose, I recommend checking the references in the citations on the Wikipedia page near the corresponding information, and finding out if they are credible and say the same thing.)

If somebody asks: "Truth. Does it exist?" I think you are wrong to presuppose a logical context. Because if that was the context of the question, the question would make no sense, as logical truth is already implied in logic.

I agree the question of whether or not truth exists does not make sense. I think anyone who asks the question "does truth exist" probably means "does knowledge exist," using the word knowledge in the traditional way to refer to at least a true belief (although traditionally it has more often been defined more specifically, namely as a justified true belief which I think is vague since justification may be equivocal and/or subjective). In this sense, we can say they may be asking "does 'awareness of truth' exist" where 'awareness of truth' is substituting the word 'knowledge'. If knowledge is taken as you argue to not have such a direct, definitional relationship between a conscious being and the truth, i.e. if true things aren't the only things "worth knowing" whatever that means, then the easily answered and thus presumably open to reinterpretation question of whether truth exists becomes -- as originally written -- even farther removed from knowledge and whatever we may interpret the question to mean.

Wikipedia is not a credible source.

Sorry, I do not believe in credible sources, therefore, I simply do not care about them.

I agree the question of whether or not truth exists does not make sense. I think anyone who asks the question "does truth exist" probably means "does knowledge exist," using the word knowledge in the traditional way to refer to at least a true belief

So we agree that the question really was about knowledge not about logical truth? It is a good thing to have this sorted out by now but I think this was obvious from the beginning. The saying goes that, if all we have got to work with is hammers, everything looks like nails. One cannot take people only by what they say and how. It is the meaning which is important not the words. The believe that words matter is to suffer from a linguist tunnel vision. Words are only pointers to what really matters and not the 'thing itself'.

And I think it makes no sense to teach 'random' people the difference between truth and knowledge when this difference is not common and therefore without a use outside a logical or philosophical context.

But of course; look at yourself and you’ll know the answer yourself.

Perhaps truth doesn't inheritably exist.

Perhaps truth was fabricated and pieced together inside of us to create a window of our own personal perception.

Perhaps truth is a lie/absence of meaning that we chose to create our own truth with.

Perhaps truth is a blank wall that reflects off of everything we allow truth to be.

As I see it, truth exists as a concept. It's application to empirical or metaphysical reality, however, can only be one of degree. Absolute truth cannot be known for certainty. The sky is blue, the earth revolves about the sun. The truths of even such things as these will, I believe, continue to be refined as life and science progresses.

I am just a curious 19 years old boy. As I was reading through some of the forums on this site, I questioned myself, "Is there any TRUTH that nobody can raise a objection?" People see what they want to see and it seems like there should be something more than that. Postmodernism claims that there is no absolute truth. For me this phrase sounds like there is absolute truth but we just haven't figured out how to earn this knowledge. For example, I haven't seen the red car in my life so I think there is no red car. For me that is truth that I believe. I am so sorry if this sounds confusing but can anybody explain this to me?

The claim against absolute truth is the claim that a truth can exist outside our experience of it. Let us say there was a red car orbiting Jupiter, but no one can see it. How would it be meaningful to claim that such a thing were true? Without verification there can be no truth. Historically there have been many claims, now proved to be false, that were once claimed to be absolutely true such as the fact that the earth was the centre of god creation and that al the planets and star orbited it. This was simply the truth. So before Copernicus that was exactly where the earth was located. Now we all know that Copernicus' discovery did not in reality move the earth and planets, but in an ideal sense that is exactly what happened. And it is valuable to see the impact of his discovery in exactly those terms. But we know the earth always went around the sun, right? True enough - true for us. But this is what truth is like. It changes. What is true today is not necessarily true tomorrow. Not even the fact that the earth is not the centre of the universe. So post modernism seems to make this claim - a ridiculous claim it would seem. But the claim is not simply about what is or what is not the case, it has more to do with understanding how we get to create 'truth'. And truth can never be absolute for the simple reason that it always lies between the subject (you- the speaker of truth) and the object of interest. Truth is not a property of the red car. It is a thing that exists in a RELATIONSHIP between the truth sayer and the the object of fact. Truth is not "OUT THERE". If there were no humans there would be no truth. Truth is a human artefact in a carefree and disinterested universe. The universe does not care about the red car; the absolute does not care at all.

Only those that believe in God can claim absolute truth, and the value of that claim rests of the veracity of God's existence - which is weak to say the least.

As I see it, truth exists as a concept. It's application to empirical or metaphysical reality, however, can only be one of degree. Absolute truth cannot be known for certainty. The sky is blue, the earth revolves about the sun. The truths of even such things as these will, I believe, continue to be refined as life and science progresses.

I agree. Truth is in perspective. The more perspectives, the more truthful. There are too many unknowns to claim absolute truth.

As I see it, truth exists as a concept. It's application to empirical or metaphysical reality, however, can only be one of degree. Absolute truth cannot be known for certainty. The sky is blue, the earth revolves about the sun. The truths of even such things as these will, I believe, continue to be refined as life and science progresses.

I agree. Truth is in perspective. The more perspectives, the more truthful. There are too many unknowns to claim absolute truth.

I do not think this equation works;"The more perspectives, the more truthful.". You have a perspective; I can't see how you have more prespective or how that gets you closer to 'the truth", necessarily. But I think you are sort of saying what I was above, in a sense, that truth lies not "out there" in an absolute sense, but it lies in the relationship between your self the subject and the thing you are perceiving(the object). 1+1=2, you cannot get more truthful than that by having more perspective. The truth lies in your agreement with the meaning of the symbols, end of.. I do not think that multiplying the perspectives necessarily makes a thing more true. Sometimes when more people look - the more confused a position gets and you loose truth from your object. Futher observation, more often than not, erodes what was once a truth to a falsity - and thank goodness for that. At other times more people accepting the same delusion can re-inforce a falsehood thought of as true.

-- Updated Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:23 am to add the following --

Truth is different than knowledge. Of course, truth exists.

What does exist mean for that statement to be true or even meaningful.

If there were no humans there would be no truth. Whilst I am happy that a car or a banana exists, and can do so if all the humans disappeared, what happens to truth? If it exists, where is truth?

1+1=2, you cannot get more truthful than that by having more perspective.

Yes you can, and it goes back to how we interpret things - whether we look at the superficial perspective, or consider deeper or broader perspectives. IE: You and I are chatting in a room... how many lives are in that room? You (1) plus me (1) = 2... Unless... you consider the trillions of microbes in each of us.

Truth is in perspective. The more perspectives, the more truthful.

Andrew:

Is there any TRUTH that nobody can raise a objection?

I can think of one, a solopsist could say........

"I am a solopsist, only I exist."

No-one can raise an objection to that truth to the solopsist.

One can raise an objection, it is just the solopsist may not answer or agree. ?

I don't think we live fast enough to keep up with the truth, that's reality for you.

1+1=2, you cannot get more truthful than that by having more perspective.

Yes you can, and it goes back to how we interpret things - whether we look at the superficial perspective, or consider deeper or broader perspectives. IE: You and I are chatting in a room... how many lives are in that room? You (1) plus me (1) = 2... Unless... you consider the trillions of microbes in each of us.

Truth is in perspective. The more perspectives, the more truthful.

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.

I am shocked that such a debate is going on about the meaning of truth. We can't possibly have a discussion about truth and whether it exists if we don't agree on what truth is. Might we add in some definitions?

truth: conformity with fact or reality; actuality or actual existence.

- that which is real, that which exists; an aspect of reality

belief: an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof; confidence; faith; trust

- a claim to truth; a proposition held to be true; an idea which is assumed to be in accordance with reality

knowledge: acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension

- a belief that corresponds with reality; an impeccable (true) belief.

That which follows after the colon is from dictionary.reference.com. That which follows after the hyphen is an additional definition added by myself.

To answer your question, Andrew Lee, the truth does exist. Asking if the truth exists is asking if existence exists--asking if reality is real--asking if truth is true. If you believe anything exists, you believe there is truth--there is something real.

The rest of this discussion is about what people think you meant by asking "does truth exist." They are making claims about knowledge, and how knowledge relates to truth. They are making claims about whether humans can ever really have true beliefs, or knowledge. Oftentimes people say they know something, but really what they are saying is they believe something--if we are using the definitions of the words accurately. Where all the confusion happens is when people don't use the same definitions of words.

I am shocked that such a debate is going on about the meaning of truth. We can't possibly have a discussion about truth and whether it exists if we don't agree on what truth is. Might we add in some definitions?

truth: conformity with fact or reality; actuality or actual existence.

- that which is real, that which exists; an aspect of reality

belief: an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof; confidence; faith; trust

- a claim to truth; a proposition held to be true; an idea which is assumed to be in accordance with reality

knowledge: acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension

- a belief that corresponds with reality; an impeccable (true) belief.

That which follows after the colon is from dictionary.reference.com. That which follows after the hyphen is an additional definition added by myself.

To answer your question, Andrew Lee, the truth does exist. Asking if the truth exists is asking if existence exists--asking if reality is real--asking if truth is true. If you believe anything exists, you believe there is truth--there is something real.

The rest of this discussion is about what people think you meant by asking "does truth exist." They are making claims about knowledge, and how knowledge relates to truth. They are making claims about whether humans can ever really have true beliefs, or knowledge. Oftentimes people say they know something, but really what they are saying is they believe something--if we are using the definitions of the words accurately. Where all the confusion happens is when people don't use the same definitions of words.

The debate is not about the meaning of truth. The question is "does truth exist.?" That means it is not so much an epistemological question but on ontological one. Does truth have thingness. It what sense could an abstract concept be thought to have an existence? How can it be meaningful to suggest that 'truth' or any abstract concept exists outside the human mind to conceive it?


If there were no humans to think about truth, surely truth would no longer exist.

I don't think we live fast enough to keep up with the truth, that's reality for you.

Who are you speaking to?