Truth, Epistemology, and Purpose

[Eudaimonist]

In humanism, EVERYTHING is debatable. That is not good.

What are you basing that on?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

What are you basing that on?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Human knowledge and experience.
It is supported by examples after examples.

Do you like to try one?

You give me your truth of happiness, I will show you it is not mine with an equally good or better reason.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Human knowledge and experience.
It is supported by examples after examples.

Do you like to try one?

You give me your truth of happiness, I will show you it is not mine with an equally good or better reason.

I don't doubt that you are capable of disagreeing with me. That doesn't support your claim, since that pertains only to humanists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tree of Life]

1. What is truth?

You can use the word "true" in at least three ways. Something can be propositionally true, ontologically true, or ethically true. These three are related and there's much overlap between them.

Propositional truth deals with the correspondence of language to reality. To the extent that language accurately conveys reality it is true. Only propositional sentences can be "true" in this sense. An example would be a statement like: "God created the heavens and the earth." That statement is either propositionally true or false. Non propositional statements such as "shut the front door" cannot be true or false. "God created the heavens and the earth" is propositionally true.

Ontological truth deals with the purity or quality of a thing. True gold, as opposed to fool's gold, is a substance that is purely and truly gold. HBO's popular "True Detective" tells a story of people who are truly, at the core of their beings, detectives. Yahweh is the true and living God.

Ethical truth deals with moral virtue. A person can be "true". This might mean that they're trustworthy, faithful, or not a hypocrite. Yahweh is true to his word and faithful, worthy of our trust.

2. How can I discover and understand truth, whatever that may be?

It depends on what kind of truth you're going for. You can discover propositional truth by examining statements and their relationship with reality.

You can discover ontological truth by first hand experience with the thing in question. How do you know if something is truly gold? You've got to conduct the proper tests.

You can discover ethical truth by getting to know a person and building a relationship with them.

3. Why should I care? In other words, why should I care about what truth is and how to find it?

Also depends on what kind of truth you're looking for.

Propositional truth is usually good to have because it makes the world less confusing.

Ontological truth is good to have if you care about having, say, true gold instead of fools gold.

Ethical truth is good to have if you care about knowing who you can depend on and who you can't.

In short, truth always seems to be useful for living a long and prosperous life.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Very ignorant about religion.

Actually, I've studied a number of religions, much more than most believers have. In fact, according to the Pew Research Center, atheists in general are more informed than believers when it comes to religion.

To the point, though, until such time that you can substantiate your assertions, I dismiss them out of hand. That goes for all supernaturalists, not just religious believers.

 

[Chany]

Alright, after going through the responses, I would like to point out a few things.

The major point that everyone (seemingly) agrees on is the answer to question 3. The main reason we actually care about truth and how to find it is because it affects our lives. Finding truth is more than just a hobby or intellectual exercise. The answers will affect our lives.

Based upon these answers, I will state this: We care about truth because what is true affects our decisions. For whatever reason, we care about the outcomes of our decisions. The only way to accurately make the right choice for the desired outcome is by having the necessary information. The more knowledge one has, the more likely one can make better decisions and achieve desired outcomes and goals. For example, consider the health of a person. If we want to be healthy, we must understand as much as we can about the aspects of health, such as nutrition, anatomy, etc. We want to understand the truth of these subjects so we can make decisions regarding how to be healthy.

This is a maxim of sorts. Anything dealing with truth will ultimately come down to this. Anyway we define truth, how to obtain it, or what propositions are true that does not aid in this maxim is frivolous and pointless; if it does not help in making the right decisions with regards to desired outcomes, it is worthless.

The next point I would like to illustrate is, probably, the annoying one that throws a wrench into things: the problem with the correspondence theory of truth. The correspondence theory of truth claims that truth is that which conforms to reality. For example, the statement that "the earth is round" is true if the earth is, in correspondence with reality, round.

Here's the problem: we have no way of knowing, with 100 percent absolute certainty, that a claim corresponds with reality for all practical purposes. Sure, I can be one hundred percent certain that saying, "I am not omniscient," and, "I (whatever 'I' am) feels sad," corresponds with reality. I am also one hundred percent certain that there is a set, objective reality out there somewhere. Beyond a few other similar examples, however, everything is called into question. This is because there are barriers in between the whole of external reality and my internal self.

First, there is the barrier of comprehension between myself and reality. I may not even be able to grasp actual reality and simply miss major parts of it. I, in the most literal sense, can't handle the truth. It is beyond my mind's capability to process. A way to look at this is to compare the comprehension and understanding of reality an amoeba possesses to that of a human, and the gap of comprehension becomes easy to understand.

Next is the gap of perception. The only thing I am really aware of is my qualia, or subjective personal experience. I don't know what prompts my qualia and how that exactly relates to reality. The classic example regarding this is the brain in a vat: I could, in fact, be a floating nervous system that is prompted to believe exactly what I am seeing, even though what I perceive is not correspondent with reality at all.

There is also the barrier of linguistics. This simply refers to the a problem of communication breaking down when our language tools cannot adequately describe something we perceive or create discrepancies between different people. For example, let's say you see a new color. You have never seen it before and cannot relate it to any other color you have experienced. Let's say you want to describe it to a friend. If they cannot ever see the color, how could explain the color?

In short, this definition of truth fails our maxim. If we are to follow it to its logical end, it leads us incapable of finding out correct information, and, therefore, preventing us from making the right decisions to get the absolute desired outcomes. As I said, there is a objective reality out there, but we are forever cut off from it. We must either modify or change the definition of truth and look at it in a different way. I am sure most of you already have answers or objections.

I will post more tomorrow.

 

[quatona]

In short, this definition of truth fails our maxim. If we are to follow it to its logical end, it leads us incapable of finding out correct information, and, therefore, preventing us from making the right decisions to get the absolute desired outcomes. As I said, there is a objective reality out there, but we are forever cut off from it. We must either modify or change the definition of truth and look at it in a different way.

This, indeed, is the major problem with the idea that "truth" is seeing reality "as it really is".
IMO, all we can possibly strive for (and all that´s in any way useful/meaningful to us) is a working, functional relationship with that which is. IOW: There is no way around "truth" describing things on our terms. Everything beyond that would not only be impossible but completely useless.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't doubt that you are capable of disagreeing with me. That doesn't support your claim, since that pertains only to humanists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Are you more than a humanist?
Then you must be a theist. What is your god or gods like?

 

[juvenissun]

Here's the problem: we have no way of knowing, with 100 percent absolute certainty, that a claim corresponds with reality for all practical purposes. Sure, I can be one hundred percent certain that saying, "I am not omniscient," and, "I (whatever 'I' am) feels sad," corresponds with reality. I am also one hundred percent certain that there is a set, objective reality out there somewhere. Beyond a few other similar examples, however, everything is called into question. This is because there are barriers in between the whole of external reality and my internal self.

There are two sides of every thing: description and interpretation.

A good description can be 100% true. A system can also be described by several 100% true descriptions at the same time. Any "reality" is only a description. But that has nothing to do with truth. Don't get them mixed up.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Are you more than a humanist?
Then you must be a theist. What is your god or gods like?

That is faulty reasoning. The opposite of theist is atheist, not humanist. It is possible to be both not-a-theist and not-a-humanist.

BTW, you didn't address my point. You are not a humanist, and so you can't use yourself as an example of how literally anything is debatable within humanism.

Anything in principle can be debated, though that is only a trivial truth. Any Christian can debate other Christians by playing "Devil's Advocate", even temporarily adopting the position of an atheist. However, when it comes to sincere debate, no Christian is going to take a position that is not definitionally Christian. One should not expect debate of that sort.

The same thing is true for humanists. No humanist is going to debate the essence of humanism itself unless that humanist is playing Devil's Advocate. But that is only a trivial sense in which anything can be debated, just as it is for Christians.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

That is faulty reasoning. The opposite of theist is atheist, not humanist. It is possible to be both not-a-theist and not-a-humanist.

BTW, you didn't address my point. You are not a humanist, and so you can't use yourself as an example of how literally anything is debatable within humanism.

Anything in principle can be debated, though that is only a trivial truth. Any Christian can debate other Christians by playing "Devil's Advocate", even temporarily adopting the position of an atheist. However, when it comes to sincere debate, no Christian is going to take a position that is not definitionally Christian. One should not expect debate of that sort.

The same thing is true for humanists. No humanist is going to debate the essence of humanism itself unless that humanist is playing Devil's Advocate. But that is only a trivial sense in which anything can be debated, just as it is for Christians.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I was a humanist for a good while. And I was the extreme type, the communist. I know everything a humanist knows.

By the way, humanism IS atheism, and vice versa. That is the only way it could be.

 

[Chany]

I was a humanist for a good while. And I was the extreme type, the communist. I know everything a humanist knows.

By the way, humanism IS atheism, and vice versa. That is the only way it could be.

No, Humanism is a specific atheist ideology. An atheist does not have to believe the doctrines of Jumanism to be an atheist. Some atheists, for various reasons, reject Humanism.

You are pretty much saying something like all philosophers are utilitarians, and vice versa.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I was a humanist for a good while. And I was the extreme type, the communist. I know everything a humanist knows.

By the way, humanism IS atheism, and vice versa. That is the only way it could be.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I like your picture of the protestor, that's hilarious!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

cross post, sorry (ie wrong thread).

 

[PsychoSarah]

I was a humanist for a good while. And I was the extreme type, the communist. I know everything a humanist knows.

By the way, humanism IS atheism, and vice versa. That is the only way it could be.

All the evidence needed to know that if you ever identified as either of these things, you were somewhat narrow minded about it. Also, communism is not the conclusion of humanism.

 

[juvenissun]

No, Humanism is a specific atheist ideology. An atheist does not have to believe the doctrines of Jumanism to be an atheist. Some atheists, for various reasons, reject Humanism.

You are pretty much saying something like all philosophers are utilitarians, and vice versa.

A humanist is an atheist. Humanism does not recognize any God. The god in humanism is human.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A humanist is an atheist. Humanism does not recognize any God. The god in humanism is human.

No... Humanists just put people before religion, you can technically be a humanist and religious.

 

[juvenissun]

No... Humanists just put people before religion, you can technically be a humanist and religious.

So technically, which god could a humanist believe?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So technically, which god could a humanist believe?

Any that won't explicitly destroy them for not putting it first. Which does leave some options. Deists for one.