How may trruth be found?

willowtreeme · Post by **willowtreeme** » September 2nd, 2008, 1:20 pm

Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.
Carl Sagan

Edward J. Bartek · September 2nd, 2008, 9:16 pm

Akhenaten wrote:
EJB: You say principles are bad because they teach the yongere generation a method of thought and action. You didn't say whether that method and action was good or bad? If it be good, why would you reject it for the bad? How does it fail the criteria of truth?

ejb: I would never say that good principles are bad. In fact, they are the ultimate good. Thus, anything to achieve an ultimate good (Principle) will be good an true. Any goal to an ultimate purpose will be good and true. Any ideal like an ultimate ideal will be good and true. Any idea like an ultimate principle will be good and true. Any idea related to an ultimate premise will be good, true, and rational. Wouldn't you agree?

the concepts of morality inwhich are ingrained such as not killing others, not stealing from others, etc... Such things are, inherently, fine as 'stand alone' ideals. Unfortunately, there are cultural hatreds that invariably come with them. no two cultural ideals align perfectly. In this we find a lack of common belief, and hence a lack of truth.

ejb: In the prior examples, can any rational person disagree with the good, truth, and rationality of these principles? If not, are they not a common reasoning of good and truth? I agree there is an inherent conscience that enables a morality based on belief. But this can be destroyed by disobeying it.

I am not saying that principles are bad, meerly that, as with all things, there is a less pleasant side, which negates the concept of fundamental truth.

ejb? I aree that bad principles make bad truth and good But what is the less pleasant side in the prior examples of good principles? What negates them?

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » September 3rd, 2008, 5:56 am

I do agree with nameless(regret if I misrepresent you, nameless)that beliefs are too often held intransigently. Don't you agree with this, pjkeeley?

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » September 3rd, 2008, 6:03 am

willowtreeme, I would endorse Carl Sagan's opinions almost unquestioningly, including the one you quote.

The only comment that I have is not a criticism but only a comment that C S writes from the point of view of a practical environmentalist and a practial peacemaker.C S is not concerned , as far as I know, with demolishing Platonic ideas about Eternal Verities.

ogdread · Post by **ogdread** » September 3rd, 2008, 3:32 pm

In my opinion, a more appropriate question to begin with would be "may truth be found?"

It seems as though the discovery of fundamental truths (assuming they exist) would require that we transcend our own humanity. The vigilant thinker may be able to set aside many of his/her biases in the quest for greater understanding, but can anyone escape his/her point of view as a human being? We occupy but a very small space in the universe, and we are bound to this perspective. It seems to me that our ability to grasp reality outside of ourselves is extremely limited. To quote an article I read recently, "None of us is capable of pronouncing the last word on anything but the furnishings of our own minds." -- Edwin Dobb

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » September 4th, 2008, 4:51 am

In my opinion, a more appropriate question to begin with would be "may truth be found?"

It seems as though the discovery of fundamental truths (assuming they exist) would require that we transcend our own humanity.

](ogdred)

And this we can never do. A mind is not disembodied.I guess that you endorse , as do I,what Edwin Dobb said according the the quotation you give.

ogdread · Post by **ogdread** » September 4th, 2008, 4:34 pm

You guess correctly, Belinda. It is something that I struggle to accept, however. The quest for truth and unifying principles, although arbitrary, holds an inexplicable allure.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » September 4th, 2008, 5:24 pm

So it does for me too, ogdread. I assume that this bad habit is because of unwitting indoctrination during my childhood.

Edward J. Bartek · September 8th, 2008, 10:34 pm

nameless wrote:
Edward J. Bartek wrote:

Reply #1)'Truth' cannot be 'found'.

ejb: Descartes searced a lifetime to find one undeniable truth, which was, "As I think, so I be." Can you deny his truth? Are you thinking beeing? Did Descarte speak a truth? If not, are you just a dream? If ao, isn't that your truth? Knowing truth seems to avoid a lot of confusiion. Knowing no truth seems to make a lot of confusion with nothing resolved.

nameless · Post by **nameless** » September 8th, 2008, 10:58 pm

Edward J. Bartek wrote:
nameless wrote: Reply #1)'Truth' cannot be 'found'.
ejb: Descartes searced a lifetime to find one undeniable truth, which was, "As I think, so I be." Can you deny his truth?

Not as long as you call it 'his' truth, truth for him. Your 'truth' is your truth, as was his. No, I cannot deny that. I do, however, deny that his(Perspective) is a one-size-fits-all 'Truth' for all Perspectives. It is not for this one..

Are you thinking beeing? Did Descarte speak a truth?

No, I am not thinking, I am meditating, therefore, according to 'him', I am no longer 'being'.
He spoke a very conditional and local small 't' truth. Very local. Like if I said that chocolate ice cream is delicious, it might be 'truth' to thisPerspective, but I certainly wouldn't expect that I feel that 'truth' that everyone 'aught'!

If not, are you just a dream? If ao, isn't that your truth?

So you are saying that whatever you perceive is your 'truth'? For you, the perceiver?

Knowing truth seems to avoid a lot of confusiion.

Then anything that you 'know', 'believe', 'feel', 'think' is 'truth' for you? Pardon, but only religious fanatics, 'true believers' are arrogant enough to think that they "Know the Truth". Yes, in that case "Knowing the Truth" does avoid the "confusion", of attempting critical thought.

Knowing no truth seems to make a lot of confusion with nothing resolved.

Yet it is the beginning of wisdom!!

Blackwater · Post by **Blackwater** » October 8th, 2008, 7:20 am

(Forgive me if I sound like a rambling mad man, but I'm new to this)

As far as I know, according to literary theory, if one attepts to define any action, truth or phenomena, one should start at the beginning.
First, whats language bla bla bla that stuff and then you move further to the falue of the exerpt in the context in which it was used.

For instance; nameless's example with the chocolate ice cream is pretty explanatory, truth lies on the holder or the perceiver. Absolute truth would then be defined as a truth which is universally accepted and agreed upon.
... Or that's how I seem to make it appear logical to myself.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » October 8th, 2008, 12:22 pm

Absolute truth would then be defined as a truth which is universally accepted and agreed upon.

(Blackwater)

Would someone please explain for me the difference between absolute truth and objective truth? I always stumble here.

Blackwater · Post by **Blackwater** » October 8th, 2008, 12:50 pm

(Belinda)

Uhm...

Well, if my memory serves me well, absolute truth and universal truth is basically the same thing. Universal truth I do know is A fact or whatever which is universally acepted, for instance:

When you take water and freeze it, it becomes ice.
- Universal thruth

(I tend to go more to Mukarovsky's side than the New Critics - complete dotls) - literary theory

Objective truth is tricky, for there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity. In the theory I take they refer to it as
'mind-independency'

Basically objective truths are those that are discovered and not created, I think.. something along those lines.

Hope I've got my facts straight:)

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » October 8th, 2008, 2:41 pm

Thank you very much Blackwater.

Objective truth=mind independency. I like that a lot.

Absolute truth= universal truth i.e. a universally accepted 'fact' , perhaps. As you said, about water into ice.

boagie · Post by **boagie** » October 13th, 2008, 8:04 am

Hi Everyone,

Personally I believe that truth is relational, the relation between subject and object and its subjective evaluation is truth, it is of experience, and thus it is as constant as the experience, of course dependent upon sense perception and the process of the understanding.