The Truth about Truth

[LienShen]

...

 

[LienShen]

So my question ends up being this;

Is it better to search for the truth, on your own? Or to find the truth written in a book?

At what point does your truth change when you are faced with logical outcomes that are in direct opposition to your personally held belief system?

Is it possible that God did not want us to be sheep, but to be shepards? And that free will had more to do with coming to a truthful faith, then a blind faith?

And is it possible to know what is the truth if we don't apply all the tools necessary to arrive there?

 

[Ledifni]

There is no global, absolute or even combined truth. Two people cannot hold the exact same belief system as one another, and therefore cannot arrive at an actual truth, or even a close representation of the truth because of the subjectivity of the individuals personal experiences that build their system of weights and measures. So can we really assume that anyone is being truthful or can we rightfully accuse anyone of lying when it comes to speaking about their personal reality?

Everything that you think, create, write, erase, and say are merely interpretations of reality and actuality based solely on personal belief. The "truth" is only the actuality that occurs once it is interpreted by an individual and put through their personal but essential system of pitting resistance against desire in trying to balance what they personally believe.

The above is not a new concept, and I strongly disagree with it. I like to call it "belief relativism" -- it's the idea that every truth is an interpretation based on presuppositions and every evidence can be interpreted to support any truth, so that truth is simply a subjective feeling that is completely relative to the individual.

Ironically, this argument is usually used by those who imagine that if all truth is relative and they "know" that their beliefs are true, then they've proved their beliefs (e.g., creationists who will say that yes, evolution has lots of evidence, but that's only because evolutionists presuppose that the natural world can be observed by scientific methods, rather than spiritual methods, which "proves" that creationism is the better "theory"). Many people don't seem to understand that if everybody else's truth is relative, then so is theirs. Now, I don't believe you think that way, Undeniably, but many do.

The most direct refutation of this concept is that if all "truth" is merely interpretation based on unprovable presuppositions, then the pursuit of truth would be useless and would provide no results. For example, if the evidence currently used to support the germ theory can also be validly interpreted to support demon-possession theory, then how is it that we came up with germ theory and use it to create effective medicine? How did we choose germ theory over demon-possession theory, if both interpretations are equally valid?

Of course, it is trivially true that any evidence can be used to support any claim. I say "trivially" because this is only true in the sense that any known evidence plus one or more unknowns (propositions that are unproved or unprovable) will "prove" any claim. For example, if I have two beans, I add two more beans (anybody else watch Black Adder? ), and I count four beans, I could take that as evidence that two plus two makes four; or, I could take it as evidence that two plus two makes ten, if I also assume that the human brain has a counting error that makes us come up with four every time we try to count ten and vice versa. Since there are infinite variations of unknown propositions, literally any truth, no matter how ridiculous, can be "proved" by this method, unless it logically contradicts itself.

The observer who believes that the "two beans and two more beans" experiment proves that two plus two makes ten is relying on the fact that it cannot be proved that two plus two makes four. "If it cannot be proved," he reasons, "then it is no better than my interpretation, and therefore I am justified in saying that mine is the better one." In an example so extreme, it is easy to see where he has gone wrong: he incorrectly assumes that an unprovable proposition is no more likely than any other, and conveniently ignores the obvious fact that although no proposition is provable, some are clearly more accurate than others.

In this case, there is quite a lot of evidence that the brain counts accurately, primarily because when we base our calculations on that assumption, our results are invariably accurate and predictable. As we learns more about mathematical theory, we continually find more evidence that we can accurately count quantities if we use the proper methods. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption, until and unless new evidence proves otherwise. Other assumptions that are supported by little or no evidence are unreasonable for the same reason. Thus, we come to the conclusion that two plus does does indeed make four, and that the dissenter is an idiot.

In short, "belief relativism" is based on the following reasoning:

1) No proposition is provable.
2) An unprovable proposition cannot be considered absolutely true.
3) By (1) and (2), all propositions are equally true.

The fallacy occurs in step (3), because it posits a false dichotomy between "absolutely true" and "absolutely unknown." This step ignores the fact that a proposition may have a degree of truth without being absolutely true. We can say that we are quite certain that two plus two makes four, even though we can't claim to be absolutely certain.

Thus, while it is quite likely that nothing can be proved, and although there are indeed propositions that are completely unknown and yet may be true, it is not accurate to say that all propositions are equally true. One might claim that all of our observations are based on the presupposition that our senses are accurate, and would be quite correct; but that presupposition is a reasonable and justifiable one based on evidence, and observations based on a contrary presupposition are by no means equally valid. If and when evidence surfaces that contradicts the general reliability of human senses, then it will be appropriate to change our assumptions.

 

[tcampen]

I think the "truth" is somewhere in between these two positions. There are objective truths and subjective truths. That the sky is blue on a particular day is an objective truth that reasonable people can acknowledge as such. The position of "My God is the only real God," is a subjective truth, perfectly accurate to the holder of the position (and perhaps even many others), but still personal to the individual, where reasonable, informed people can disagree.

I beleive we can talk ourselves into absurd extremes to accept only one or the other kind of truth, but I'm just too pragmatic for that.

 

[Ledifni]

So my question ends up being this;

Is it better to search for the truth, on your own? Or to find the truth written in a book?

If you are quite convinced that the authors of the book are wiser and more intelligent than you are, then it is better to find truth in the book. Unfortunately, if they are wiser and more intelligent than you are, then you will not be wise enough or intelligent enough to verify their superior wisdom and intelligence.

At what point does your truth change when you are faced with logical outcomes that are in direct opposition to your personally held belief system?

Immediately. What other point could possibly be appropriate? If the evidence on which I base my truth has changed, then it is patently ridiculous to think the evidence must change back to what it was (or to something else that will support my truth); rather, my truth must change to fit the evidence.

I notice that many people cling loyally to their truths when confronted with contrary evidence, and even extol it as a virtue. Yet it seems to me that if one is confronted with contrary evidence and ignores it for even a moment, one has no desire to find truth, but only comfort in falsehood -- indeed, I find it simply astounding that anyone would even have to state such a thing, it is so ridiculously obvious.

How is it possible, Undeniably, that there is even one human being in the entire world who imagines that he can search for truth by ignoring truth? Yet, the majority of the world seems to believe this. It is incredible to me.

Is it possible that God did not want us to be sheep, but to be shepards? And that free will had more to do with coming to a truthful faith, then a blind faith?

If God exists, I think it's quite possible. I could not respect a God who wants us to be blind sheep.

And is it possible to know what is the truth if we don't apply all the tools necessary to arrive there?

Well, that's a tautology -- if we discard a necessary tool, then we will not have the tools necessary to find truth, so we won't find it. The question I believe you are asking is whether it is possible to know the truth if we assume that any tool that leads us where we don't want to go is unecessary -- and I would say that it is possible but unlikely; if we decide where we plan to find truth before we know where truth is, then it's purely a matter of luck whether we get there or not.

 

[Ledifni]

The position of "My God is the only real God," is a subjective truth, perfectly accurate to the holder of the position (and perhaps even many others)

That depends on what you mean by "real." If you mean, "My God is the only God that feels real to me," then you're right. But if you mean, "My God is the only God who is objectively real for the entire universe," then that is not a subjective truth -- it is an unprovable proposition about an unknown objective truth.

 

[tcampen]

That depends on what you mean by "real." If you mean, "My God is the only God that feels real to me," then you're right. But if you mean, "My God is the only God who is objectively real for the entire universe," then that is not a subjective truth -- it is an unprovable proposition about an unknown objective truth.

Your point is well taken. However, I still assert that the nature of religion and spirituality itself falls outside of any chance of objective truth, by its very nature. It cannot be proven objectively, because it deals with the supernatural. The Supernatural, by definition, does not adhear to our natural universe, which is where objective truths that can be recognized by reasonable people exists.

While it is possible a supernatural being could make itself known in an obvious way to the entire world, the way the sky is blue does, such has not happened. I suppose it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspend a final determination on this issue indefinitely, but who's got that long?

 

[LienShen]

If you are quite convinced that the authors of the book are wiser and more intelligent than you are, then it is better to find truth in the book. Unfortunately, if they are wiser and more intelligent than you are, then you will not be wise enough or intelligent enough to verify their superior wisdom and intelligence.

But is it really better to find truth in a book, just because you believe it's authors to be more intelligent or wiser than you? Logic tells us that just because someone is smarter, doesn't mean that they are always right. In fact, I am considered more intelligent than most by IQ tests, but I will be the first to tell you that I am often wrong. People get steered by their belief that someone is wiser and smarter, or that what they have written is believable because millions of other people believe it too. What I am saying is that it is better to question, and find your own truth than to accept another's truth based on sociology or fear of the unknown.

Immediately. What other point could possibly be appropriate? If the evidence on which I base my truth has changed, then it is patently ridiculous to think the evidence must change back to what it was (or to something else that will support my truth); rather, my truth must change to fit the evidence.

I notice that many people cling loyally to their truths when confronted with contrary evidence, and even extol it as a virtue. Yet it seems to me that if one is confronted with contrary evidence and ignores it for even a moment, one has no desire to find truth, but only comfort in falsehood -- indeed, I find it simply astounding that anyone would even have to state such a thing, it is so ridiculously obvious.

How is it possible, Undeniably, that there is even one human being in the entire world who imagines that he can search for truth by ignoring truth? Yet, the majority of the world seems to believe this. It is incredible to me.

But that's the point. Billions of people are blissfully happy in their ignorance. When confronted with realities, they retreat into their comfortable belief system to shelter their long held beliefs. This to me, is highly irrational and illogical and yet it happens to people all around me every day. People like to be comfortable instead of finding truth. I would think that people would want to know, so that there would be no surprises or let-downs. They have the tools, but they don't try. To me, I think that the more untruth you can rule out and the more truth you can find yourself would bring you closer to your faith if that is your path in life, not further away as most would claim.

That's what I'm disappointed with, especially here on these forums. There are people here that just are mechanical repeaters of verse from a book written thousands of years ago as if they have the ultimate truth. They use it as a weapon and not a tool. They are defensive and even offensive in their attacks against people who might offer a different perspective on life and on God. They use dogma as a shield, and out of fear of the unknown, they just keep swinging at logic and facts as if their very life depended on it.

To me, a logical and rational person could present the idea of God to people without having to beat them over the head. They could allow others their coveted "free will" by allowing them to question and come to God on their own terms. But that simply isn't the case. Instead, they attempt to wave a magic wand of fear and peer pressure and make them believe just because they do. I've always been opposed to the indoctrination of children into any belief system, religious or otherwise. I think that children should experience life and figure out things for themselves. We can guide them with morals and values, but they should not be forced to believe what we do.

Giving people the tools they need to find their own truth strengthens them. It assures inner balance and greater understanding of life and all it's intricacies. When we disallow people from doing this, especially at a very young age, we set them up for disappointment. We spur on grandiose ideas of great love and great joy, when the world will probably let them down and then give them the false idea that when these things happen, there is an imaginary friend there to make things all better. He just sits and waits for you to fall, at any given moment. It encourages co-dependence and sets people up for failure. And that's my problem with it.

Well, that's a tautology -- if we discard a necessary tool, then we will not have the tools necessary to find truth, so we won't find it. The question I believe you are asking is whether it is possible to know the truth if we assume that any tool that leads us where we don't want to go is unnecessary -- and I would say that it is possible but unlikely; if we decide where we plan to find truth before we know where truth is, then it's purely a matter of luck whether we get there or not.

It should be luck. What it shouldn't be is based solely on fear and social pressure.

I constantly hear around here that people need to be "saved", and that it's the Christian "right" to save people. But who are you saving if you are not teaching, but preaching instead? What is someone learning from fire and brimstone except to be afraid, and to believe based on that fear? And I constantly see people here encouraging others to ignore things they have already learned because of what was written in a translated book and that the book in question, can never be "in question". So around here, truth is harder to find than in most places. And it's even discouraged.

 

[Cleany]

fantastic topic.

question: what do christians say the least.

answer: i dont know.

 

[Cleany]

I constantly hear around here that people need to be "saved", and that it's the Christian "right" to save people. But who are you saving if you are not teaching, but preaching instead? What is someone learning from fire and brimstone except to be afraid, and to believe based on that fear? And I constantly see people here encouraging others to ignore things they have already learned because of what was written in a translated book and that the book in question, can never be "in question". So around here, truth is harder to find than in most places. And it's even discouraged.

superb

 

[Gerry Hunter]

There is no global, absolute or even combined truth. Two people cannot hold the exact same belief system as one another, and therefore cannot arrive at an actual truth, or even a close representation of the truth because of the subjectivity of the individuals personal experiences that build their system of weights and measures.

This paragraph continues, ends with a question. But I have a substitute question.

Why would anyone believe this statement, since, given the absence of global, absolute, or even combined truth which it postulates, there is no basis to conclude that the statements themselves are true?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Ledifni]

But is it really better to find truth in a book, just because you believe it's authors to be more intelligent or wiser than you? Logic tells us that just because someone is smarter, doesn't mean that they are always right. In fact, I am considered more intelligent than most by IQ tests, but I will be the first to tell you that I am often wrong. People get steered by their belief that someone is wiser and smarter, or that what they have written is believable because millions of other people believe it too. What I am saying is that it is better to question, and find your own truth than to accept another's truth based on sociology or fear of the unknown.

Well, yes, that's the problem I was talking about. It is reasonable to assume that a wiser and more intelligent person will be more likely to find truth, but in that case, you won't be able to check that person's work, because he is wiser and more intelligent than you are. It is impossible, then, to rely on others to provide belief and yet avoid blind faith.

But that's the point. Billions of people are blissfully happy in their ignorance. When confronted with realities, they retreat into their comfortable belief system to shelter their long held beliefs. This to me, is highly irrational and illogical and yet it happens to people all around me every day. People like to be comfortable instead of finding truth. I would think that people would want to know, so that there would be no surprises or let-downs. They have the tools, but they don't try. To me, I think that the more untruth you can rule out and the more truth you can find yourself would bring you closer to your faith if that is your path in life, not further away as most would claim.

That's what I'm disappointed with, especially here on these forums. There are people here that just are mechanical repeaters of verse from a book written thousands of years ago as if they have the ultimate truth. They use it as a weapon and not a tool. They are defensive and even offensive in their attacks against people who might offer a different perspective on life and on God. They use dogma as a shield, and out of fear of the unknown, they just keep swinging at logic and facts as if their very life depended on it.

In a very real sense, their life (that is, their way of life) does depend on it. Of course, if one's way of life is based on ignorance, it's probably a good thing if it gets destroyed and replaced by something better.

To me, a logical and rational person could present the idea of God to people without having to beat them over the head. They could allow others their coveted "free will" by allowing them to question and come to God on their own terms. But that simply isn't the case. Instead, they attempt to wave a magic wand of fear and peer pressure and make them believe just because they do. I've always been opposed to the indoctrination of children into any belief system, religious or otherwise. I think that children should experience life and figure out things for themselves. We can guide them with morals and values, but they should not be forced to believe what we do.

Giving people the tools they need to find their own truth strengthens them. It assures inner balance and greater understanding of life and all it's intricacies. When we disallow people from doing this, especially at a very young age, we set them up for disappointment. We spur on grandiose ideas of great love and great joy, when the world will probably let them down and then give them the false idea that when these things happen, there is an imaginary friend there to make things all better. He just sits and waits for you to fall, at any given moment. It encourages co-dependence and sets people up for failure. And that's my problem with it.

You seem to be saying that rather than indoctrinating our children and our friends with our belief system so that everybody in the world can work together to bash each other over the heads with blind and intractable dogma, we should teach our children and our friends critical thinking skills so that everybody in the world can work together to research and find truth. I agree.

It should be luck. What it shouldn't be is based solely on fear and social pressure.

Ok, I agree with the second part there. But... it should be luck? I mean, luck is involved in any case until and unless we have all the evidence in the universe. But I've always thought that finding truth is better served by eliminating luck (that is, guesses) wherever we can and working towards inescapable conclusions.

I constantly hear around here that people need to be "saved", and that it's the Christian "right" to save people. But who are you saving if you are not teaching, but preaching instead? What is someone learning from fire and brimstone except to be afraid, and to believe based on that fear? And I constantly see people here encouraging others to ignore things they have already learned because of what was written in a translated book and that the book in question, can never be "in question". So around here, truth is harder to find than in most places. And it's even discouraged.

It's not so much that truth is discouraged, I think, but that the search for truth is discouraged. A common opinion around here and in America in general seems to be that going out and searching for truth, that is, doubting one's own beliefs and submitting them to the harsh test of reality, is a pursuit that is more likely to lead away from truth than towards it. It appears to me, hard as it is for me to fathom, that many Americans believe that truth is best found by inventing a belief (or accepting somebody else's invented belief), burying oneself in it, and shutting one's eyes and ears to any evidence, idea, or argument that threatens it in any way.

Of course, everyone will say they value truth. The question is whether truth is determined by examining reality and throwing away any beliefs that don't match it, or by choosing a "truth" and sticking to it no matter what reality says about it.

 

[Ledifni]

This paragraph continues, ends with a question. But I have a substitute question.

Why would anyone believe this statement, since, given the absence of global, absolute, or even combined truth which it postulates, there is no basis to conclude that the statements themselves are true?

Blessings,

Gerry

Well, let me put a variation of this idea to you. I agree that it is impossible for there to be no global truths. However, I think it is true that no human being knows for certain what those global truths are. We can get very close and make very educated guesses at them, but ultimately we are missing evidence and so we can never be certain.

 

[Cleany]

the unfortunate thing from my point of view, is that fear and the need for security is a highly influencing factor in fundementalism. im sure that in most cases it comes from good intentions - trying to prevent harm. yet that is a serious misunderstanding of the gospel because jesus came to cause trouble, and lots of it, and harm was a result of that.

is it a coincidence that (as greed continues unabated in this world) where you find financial security, social security, and emotional security all high on the agenda, you will also find christian fundamentalism, with its emphasis on spiritual security, also very high onthe agenda?

 

[CSMR]

There are some really excellent ideas here, which perhaps benefit from more precise formulation and certainly from more consistent application. I generally agree except with the final part of the argument, which seems to me that the first part of the argument criticizes rather than supports.

There is no global, absolute or even combined truth. Two people cannot hold the exact same belief system as one another, and therefore cannot arrive at an actual truth, or even a close representation of the truth because of the subjectivity of the individuals personal experiences that build their system of weights and measures. So can we really assume that anyone is being truthful or can we rightfully accuse anyone of lying when it comes to speaking about their personal reality? Everything that you think, create, write, erase, and say are merely interpretations of reality and actuality based solely on personal belief.

You are saying something like "a belief system cannot be identical with the truth"? I accept that. However you are wrong to say there is no absolute truth. You even say there is "reality and actuality" that is interpreted. What is that if not absolute truth? We may not attain it even to any extent but it is held out in front of us, yet perhaps ungraspable.

Every Individuals satisfaction of the truth is maximized by their own interpretation of the actual situation itself whichever way best fits with their personal belief system. Truth doesn't get created by anything but the personal interpretation is actually very rarely influenced by something more stable like actuality and facts.
...Considerations consist of attitudes, perceptions, thoughts, choices and decisions based on belief. And all of those things are driven by what we WANT to believe and not by actuality, observation and fact.

Well said. Opinion is formed by relative human processes and is itself relative and separate from absolute truth.

People who rely only on their dogmatic belief system remain firmly planted, without the possibility of seeing the forest over the trees because they rely on interpretations instead of observation and fact. Only truth can set you free.

Confidence in one's beliefs as human beliefs obscures the truth by elevating ones own opinions to that status. (Now suppose someone were to say dogmatically "all belief is false", and another countered "your statement is a belief and so false", and the first were to reply "yes; all belief is false". This is the paradox which understanding the futility of human opinion yet accepting the "existence" of truth leads us, and which I accept.)

So saying that God gives you "free will" is sort of a misnomer in that to believe in something you cannot see, and does not have actuality exists makes you not free. If God gave you free will, to believe or not to believe than you would be able to see all the facts and make all the observations so that you could freely choose what is the truth. But that does not happen, so you are not free to choose really, you are simply allowed to interpret.

Considerable insight here!

The best way to arrive at a truth however is to use all of the tools in your arsenal of all that is, all that isn't and all that is possible.
Opportunities arise when we start introducing a logical (or metaphysical) belief system into the triad of reaching the truth.

This isn't a way to arrive at the truth, as you said before and again later. How a way can be the best you need to make clear.

When we can use logic and knowledge to balance the fear-based and socially based belief systems we all hold dear in our hearts, we can begin to understand that while truth is unattainable we can still use our personal considerations in a positive way.

In what positive way?

When you learn to think and act logically, doors of your mind begin to open and you become less selfish and nihilistic in your very nature. When we become able to see more clearly and accept things more readily, we become less fearful, less depressed, less disappointed, less prone to wild swings of Joy and Sorrow. We become appreciative of all that is, and all that isn't as well as all that is possible in this world. There is more peace in balance and understanding, then there is in universally accepting something without question or logic.

Why are you promoting a one belief system over another? How can we see clearly given what you said about all human belief? Are you now putting other things above the truth - fear, depression, disappointment, humanly possible peace - above the truth, as if to say since we cannot know God, let us worship gods that we can know?

 

[Gerry Hunter]

Well, let me put a variation of this idea to you. I agree that it is impossible for there to be no global truths. However, I think it is true that no human being knows for certain what those global truths are. We can get very close and make very educated guesses at them, but ultimately we are missing evidence and so we can never be certain.

That's where Divine Revelation comes in. You, no doubt would reject that, and that's as may be. However, to accept that God is God is to accept that He can -- and has -- revealed these truths. Certainly not all of them; certainly not in a manner that we can other than apprehend, rather than comprehend. However, unless the assumption that there is no God is accepted, the assertion about not ever being quite certain fails.

As for evidence, Jesus himself noted in a parable that there would be unbelief even if a man returned from the dead to reveal truths, so unbelief should not shock believing Christians.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[:æ:]

Truth is not an attribute of reality. It seems from the comments here that many have either forgotten about, or never learned, the distinction between reality and the statements we make about reality. Truth is not an attribute of reality. Truth is an attribute of statements.

"The sky is blue." That is a true statement. "The sky is plaid." That is a false statement. The sky itself is neither true nor false. It simply is. Period.

Statements are constructed according to the generally accepted symbology, rules of syntax, and grammar. These are defined by us. We decide what "proper" syntax is and "correct" grammar. We decide what words mean. We decide which of the myriad of word-combinations are consistent with the definitions we've given our words. Therefore, the statement "the sky is blue" is true not because of any condition of reality, but it is true because of the rules of grammar we've invented and the definitions we've given to the words used in its construction.

In short, as I've said many times before in threads similar to this, "truth" is a word in human language, and just like every other word, we decide what it means. It is totally subject to our whims and limited only by our imaginations. We do not "discover" truth. We define it, and we can redefine it any time we like.

:æ:

 

[Ledifni]

That's where Divine Revelation comes in. You, no doubt would reject that, and that's as may be. However, to accept that God is God is to accept that He can -- and has -- revealed these truths. Certainly not all of them; certainly not in a manner that we can other than apprehend, rather than comprehend. However, unless the assumption that there is no God is accepted, the assertion about not ever being quite certain fails.

Certainly. But I contend that, whether you realize it or not, you do not know certainly that your premise -- the idea that God is God -- is actually true. Whatever evidence you may have, it is not certainly accurate; if nothing else, you may simply be insane (I am not saying you are, but illustrating that there is always the possibility of being wrong).

It is true, I'll admit, that your conclusions follow logically from that premise and a few other basic ones (for example, the Bible is God's Word). Nevertheless, until you possess all evidence that exists, you cannot be certain that your premises are accurate, and so your conclusions are subject to the same uncertainty.

 

[Ledifni]

Truth is not an attribute of reality. It seems from the comments here that many have either forgotten about, or never learned, the distinction between reality and the statements we make about reality. Truth is not an attribute of reality. Truth is an attribute of statements.

"The sky is blue." That is a true statement. "The sky is plaid." That is a false statement. The sky itself is neither true nor false. It simply is. Period.

Statements are constructed according to the generally accepted symbology, rules of syntax, and grammar. These are defined by us. We decide what "proper" syntax is and "correct" grammar. We decide what words mean. We decide which of the myriad of word-combinations are consistent with the definitions we've given our words. Therefore, the statement "the sky is blue" is true not because of any condition of reality, but it is true because of the rules of grammar we've invented and the definitions we've given to the words used in its construction.

In short, as I've said many times before in threads similar to this, "truth" is a word in human language, and just like every other word, we decide what it means. It is totally subject to our whims and limited only by our imaginations. We do not "discover" truth. We define it, and we can redefine it any time we like.

:æ:

Hold on. Now you're confusing a symbol with an idea. Yes, we can define the word "truth" to mean anything we like, but the current definition (and the one we are using in this discussion) is "the quality of being accurately representative of reality." The arbitrary nature of human words does not imply that the concepts we signify with language are likewise arbitrary.

We do not decide at a whim which statements accurately describe reality. Either a statement is true, or it is not. Redefining the word "truth" would do nothing to change that property of the statement.

Besides, I'm honestly confused how you got the idea that anyone here said truth was an attribute of reality. I certainly didn't say or imply anything like that, nor have I seen anyone else in this thread do so.

 

[:æ:]

Hold on. Now you're confusing a symbol with an idea.

No, I'm not.

Yes, we can define the word "truth" to mean anything we like, but the current definition (and the one we are using in this discussion) is "the quality of being accurately representative of reality."

Tautologically meaningless, and totally irrelevant to the point that I made.

The arbitrary nature of human words does not imply that the concepts we signify with language are likewise arbitrary.

"Arbitrary" is a slippery word. I do not mean to imply that there is no thought or care given to the construction of language. Rather, I simply mean that we have full leeway to restructure language as we see fit. We are not constrained in any way.

We do not decide at a whim which statements accurately describe reality.

Not often, but it does happen, and the point is simply that we can, not that we always do.

Either a statement is true, or it is not.

Not exactly. A statement can be both true and false -- it's truth value depending on the definitions given to the words in use. Example: "I ate the root." That statement can be true when "root" signifies a part of a plant, but it cannot be true where "root" signifies a mathematical object. That's the point that I made. Truth ultimately rests on our definitions, and by altering our definitions, we can change what is "true."

Redefining the word "truth" would do nothing to change that property of the statement.

Wrong, as exemplified above.

Besides, I'm honestly confused how you got the idea that anyone here said truth was an attribute of reality. I certainly didn't say or imply anything like that, nor have I seen anyone else in this thread do so.

Perhaps you should re-read the OP, then. Pay special attention to this sentence:

"The 'truth' is only the actuality that occurs once it is interpreted by an individual and put through their personal but essential system of pitting resistance against desire in trying to balance what they personally believe."


Or you could read where user tcampen said, "There are objective truths and subjective truths."


Or you could read where you yourself said, "...then we will not have the tools necessary to find truth, so we son't find it."


Truth is not something that is found. We find things that exist in reality -- objects, processes, relationships; but truth does not exist in reality. It exists in our minds. It is the word we use to describe the extent to which a given statement accords with the definitions and grammatical rules of the language in which the statement was constructed.

:æ: