What is the truth?

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Post by ThomasGR » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:43 am

Whatever method you use, there is no way to expand words to cover the whole concept. Always we have to leave it to one's imagiantion, comprehension or perception.

The only case where concepts and words work nicely together is mathematics. There we have two and 2, there is no more no less, all one has to say is said. And we go two plus three equals five, 2+3=5, or we may make equations of the nth degree, still the beauty of mathematics is present (for a word cover all the concept). On the otherside, mahematics one won't find in nature. Like language, it's a human product. Something man made works well only with another man made.

primitive
Textkit Member
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 11:27 pm
Location: Boston

Post by primitive » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:04 pm

The truth is that which is.
phpbb

amans
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:12 pm

Post by amans » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:33 pm

[face=spionic]h( a)lh/qeia yeudh/j[/face]

ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Post by ThomasGR » Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:23 am

η αλήθεια ψευδής (Truth is false)

:lol: The ultimate truth!

User avatar
Cédric
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:03 am
Location: France
Contact:

Post by Cédric » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:50 am

I kinda agree with Thomas.

To me there's no truth or thousands of thruths... each and everyone of us has his own, because of different cultural, social, linguistic, etc. backgrounds.
I advice my kids to run away from anyone who would tell them "listen, i know the truth" i.e. i try to turn them away from any kind of firm political, religious and philosophical belief.
The only reference we have is us... i know it sounds Protagorean, but at least on this he was right!

That's my truth :lol:

Cédric
phpbb

elis
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:04 pm

...

Post by elis » Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:46 pm

hello

I cant understand how one is to think with out words. You think as 2 separate entities the visual perception of apple and the word of apple, which is true. Then you abandon the second, the verbal perception of apple, and you certify that the first one is good enough. What happens when we have to think something like justice? even if there were inside the soul a non-verbal perception of the concept of "justice", "thought", "existence" or "predication", which I highly doubt, one would be unable to communicate that concept not only to others but to his very self. I reckon language is the sine que non for thought. One thing is to say that language or reason are unable to cover the totalness of what is, and another is to completely ditch these.. let alone that nous/soul can't stay silent. [/i]

It's seems that without language we can only perceive/imagine the particulars, so abandoning language, puts away the universals. But when we do not provide ourselves with universals such as category, class, relation, type we become unable for any opinion, since truth and falsity exist only in the interwining of seperate meanings.

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:19 pm

Cédric wrote:To me there's no truth or thousands of thruths... each and everyone of us has his own, because of different cultural, social, linguistic, etc. backgrounds.
If you really believe this, why in the world did you post objecting to Episcopus' adolescent thread about Lucus? If we're all splashing around happily in our own solipsistic verities — he's got his truth, and you've got yours — what basis could you possibly have to object to him voicing his? You have no grounds on which to assert your truth over his.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by Paul » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:03 pm

annis wrote:
Cédric wrote:To me there's no truth or thousands of thruths... each and everyone of us has his own, because of different cultural, social, linguistic, etc. backgrounds.
If you really believe this, why in the world did you post objecting to Episcopus' adolescent thread about Lucus? If we're all splashing around happily in our own solipsistic verities — he's got his truth, and you've got yours — what basis could you possibly have to object to him voicing his? You have no grounds on which to assert your truth over his.
Touche.

Thank you Will, for pointing out relativism's autophagy. One wonders why the relativist even bothers to speak.

Cordially,

Paul

User avatar
Cédric
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:03 am
Location: France
Contact:

Post by Cédric » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:31 pm

annis wrote:
Cédric wrote:To me there's no truth or thousands of thruths... each and everyone of us has his own, because of different cultural, social, linguistic, etc. backgrounds.
If you really believe this, why in the world did you post objecting to Episcopus' adolescent thread about Lucus? If we're all splashing around happily in our own solipsistic verities — he's got his truth, and you've got yours — what basis could you possibly have to object to him voicing his? You have no grounds on which to assert your truth over his.
Fair point of course.

Because i am only human and that there's a huge difference between theory and practice.
Because i'm as childish as he can be, and because that's part of some "game", we both started in one direction and none of us is going to change it now.
Because i'm touchy and stubborn when talking about some stuff.
Because i'm intransigeant with people who dont think the same as i do on subjects i think - along with others - that i'm right.
Because i dont think being gay is something bad and something i should be ashamed off.

I know i sound like an arogant freak - who knows, i prolly am. I think i'm not far from Socrates on this (oh and yeah, i'm NOT modeste when it's not needed :wink: )

C.
phpbb

jpete
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:11 am

There is a difference between defining linguistics and truth

Post by jpete » Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:46 am

I would like to make two points regarding this topic.

One, I feel some of the posts are mixing up linguistics and philosophy. Forgive me if I've misunderstood what was being said but it seems some have said that because words and concepts can be separated then their is no truth. If one is only speaking linguistically then this is true in a general sense. Each society assigns a concept its own word. This is why there are multiple languages. Because of this, I am called a man in English and a rojel in Arabic. This type of truth is relative- 'man' is not more correct than 'rojel' in its proper place. However, regardless of the word used, my state of existence has not changed. I am still me regardless of how I am labeled. There is a higher truth to what I am that is independent of labeling. Therefore, to say there are multiple truths because there are multiple languages is not very logical.

This leads to my second point. I cannot get onboard with the whole concept of relativism. I am no expert but I have read a variety of philosophy viewpoints and I really believe this total surrender to relativism is a modern phenomena and is poisonous to true discourse on philosophy. Granted, there are many viewpoints but that does not mean there are many correct viewpoints. What we believe to be true will depend on our perspective but there is a higher truth that is independent of all perspective or viewpoint. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to determine what the truth really is. It is this uncertainty that leads mankind to study philosophy and to follow religion (they are separate things), among other things. In these pursuits we hope to at least grasp a slight hint of the truth. In contrast, to say there is no truth or the truth is unattainable is to give into our innate human ignorance. I think that is truly dangerous. To steal from a folk song, I'd rather believe in truth and be wrong than to never believe in truth at all.

Post Reply