What is truth?

[JSynon]

Hi. I haven't posted on here in a long while. During that long while I've come to realize that my search for objective truth was a search for accidental and indifferent truth. My philosophical interest has always been to determine what it means to be an existing individual human being. That long and familiar quest for objective certainty surely did not help with this endeavor. Does anybody here feel what I feel? I feel I was a fool for quite a lengthy period of time. I spent hours, weeks, and years of my life trying to prove such things as if there is a God or not. This in itself proves that I had no understanding of faith, which requires objective uncertainty and inward passion.

Has anybody here ever read Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript? I would like to post a few quotes for general discussion from this work:

Essentially viewed, the knowing that does not inwardly in the reflection of inwardness pertain to existence is accidental knowing, and its degree and scope, essentially viewed, are a matter of indifference...

In order to clarify the divergence of objective and subjective reflection, I shall now describe subjective reflection in its search back and inward into inwardness. At its highest, inwardness in an existing subject is passion; truth as a paradox corresponds to passion, and that truth becomes a paradox is grounded precisely in its relation to an existing subject. In this way the one corresponds to the other. In forgetting that one is an existing subject, one loses passion, and in return, truth does not become a paradox; but the knowing subject shifts from being human to being a fantastical something, and truth becomes a fantastical object for its knowing.

When the question about truth is asked objectively, truth is reflected upon objectively as an object to which the knower relates himself. What is reflected upon is not the relation but that what he relates himself to is the truth, the true. If only that to which he relates himself is the truth, the true, then the subject is in the truth. When the question about truth is asked subjectively, the individual's relation is reflected upon subjectively. If only the how of this relation is in truth, the individual is in truth, even if he in this way were to relate himself to untruth.

Objectively the emphasis is on what is said; subjectively the emphasis is on how it is said... But this is not to be understood as manner, modulation of voice, oral delivery, etc., but it is to be understood as the relation of the existing person, in his very existence, to what is said. Objectively, the question is only about categories of thought; subjectively, about inwardness. At its maximum, this "how" is the passion of the infinite, and the passion of the infinite is the very truth. But the passion of the infinite is precisely subjectivity, and thus subjectivity is truth. From the objective point of view, there is no infinite decision, and thus it is objectively correct that the distinction between good and evil is canceled, along with the principle of contradiction, and thereby also the infinite disctinction between truth and falsehood. Only in subjectivity is there decision, whereas wanting to become objective is untruth. The passion of the infinite, not its content, is the deciding factor, for its content is precisely itself. In this way the subjective "how" and subjectivity are the truth.

But precisely because the subject is existing, the "how" that is subjectively emphasized is dialectical also with regard to time. In the moment of the decision of passion, where the road swings off from objective knowledge, it looks as if the infinite decision were thereby finished. But at the same moment, the existing person is in the temporal realm, and the subjective "how" is transformed into a striving that is motivated and repeatedly refreshed by the decisive passion of the infinite, but it is nevertheless a striving...

An objective uncertainty, held fast through appropriation with the most passionate inwardness, is the truth, the highest truth there is for an existing person. At the point where the road swings off (and where that is cannot be stated objectively, since it is precisely subjectivity), objective knowledge is suspended. Objectively he then has only uncertainty, but this is precisely what intensifies the infinite passion of inwardness, and truth is precisely the daring venture of choosing the objective uncertainty with the passion of the infinite...

But the definition of truth stated above is a paraphrasing of faith. Without risk, no faith. Faith is the contradiction between the infinite passion of inwardness and the objective uncertainty...

The thesis that subjectivity, inwardness, is truth contains the Socratic wisdom, the undying merit of which is to have paid attention to the essential meaning of existing, of the knower's being an existing person. That is why, in his ignorance, Socrates was in the truth in the highest sense within paganism. To comprehend this, that the misfortune of speculative thought is simply that it forgets again and again that the knower is an existing person, can already be rather difficult in our objective age...

When subjectivity, inwardness, is truth, then truth, objectively defined, is a paradox; and that truth is objectively a paradox shows precisely that subjectivity is truth, since the objectivity does indeed thrust away, and the objectivity's repulsion, or the expression for the objectivity's repulsion, is the resilience and dynamometer of inwardness. The paradox is the objective uncertainty that is the expression for the passion of inwardness that is truth. So much for the Socratic. The eternal, essential truth, that is, the truth that is related essentially to the existing person by pertaining essentially to what it means to exist (viewed Socratically, all other knowledge is accidental, its degree and scope indifferent), is a paradox. Nevertheless the eternal, essential truth is itself not at all a paradox, but it is a paradox by being related to an existing person. Socratic ignorance is an expression of the objective uncertainty; the inwardness of the existing person is truth...

Viewed Socratically, the eternal essential truth is not at all paradoxical in itself, but only by being related to an existing person. This is expressed in another Socratic thesis: that all knowing is a recollecting...

I apologize for the length of the quotation, but I wanted to make sure to get the essential ideas in for a more clear and edifying discussion of K's ideas. The bolded text is my doing because I feel this to be the most interesting / important section of the quote.

Please, feel free to discuss the quote or comment on my first paragraph.

 

[quatona]

Hi. I haven't posted on here in a long while. During that long while I've come to realize that my search for objective truth was a search for accidental and indifferent truth. My philosophical interest has always been to determine what it means to be an existing individual human being.

I´d submit that the attempt to "understand" something or find its "meaning" is always about finding a way to relate to it. Thus the idea that understanding and meaning are a search for "objectivity" is in direct contradiction to the actual goal. Something is objective only if being untouched by our attempts to understand and explain it and our seach for its meaning. Making something the subject of my considerations a priori excludes the result from being "objective". It denies the fact that I am a necessary part in this endeavour. "Perceiving objective meaning" is an oxymoron.
Everything beyond "it is what it is" is necessarily subjective. And I don´t even know why that has such a bad reputation. It´s exactly what we are looking for, after all: A way to relate to that which is. We can call the resulting relation "truth" if we wish to, but it´s the very opposite of "objective".
We often see the question "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around - does it make a sound?". This is a question that plays with two different meanings of "sound". The question for objective meaning, however, can be compared to:
"If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it - what does it sound like?"
Or, even more to the point:
What can be seen in a mirror when nobody is looking?

 

[Vigilante]

I´d submit that the attempt to "understand" something or find its "meaning" is always about finding a way to relate to it. Thus the idea that understanding and meaning are a search for "objectivity" is in direct contradiction to the actual goal. Something is objective only if being untouched by our attempts to understand and explain it and our seach for its meaning. Making something the subject of my considerations a priori excludes the result from being "objective". It denies the fact that I am a necessary part in this endeavour. "Perceiving objective meaning" is an oxymoron.
Everything beyond "it is what it is" is necessarily subjective. And I don´t even know why that has such a bad reputation. It´s exactly what we are looking for, after all: A way to relate to that which is. We can call the resulting relation "truth" if we wish to, but it´s the very opposite of "objective".
We often see the question "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around - does it make a sound?". This is a question that plays with two different meanings of "sound". The question for objective meaning, however, can be compared to:
"If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it - what does it sound like?"
Or, even more to the point:
What can be seen in a mirror when nobody is looking?

Wisdom. OP, take that post to heart.

The more accurately your epistemic 'conceptual structure' resembles the existing ontological structure within which you live (assuming you feel convinced that there is one), the greater the handle on 'truth' you have. You're dealing with three groups of relations here: that which fills your mind/brain, that which you find outside of your mind/brain (which ultimately must function as the source of the first relational group), and the resemblance-relation between the content that fills the mind/brain and the not-mind/brain.

Check out Alfred Korzybski's book Science and Sanity for more. That book probably had more influence in shaping my own epistemic 'conceptual structure' (what I have coined 'Epi-Struc' or 'epistruc') than any book other than the Bible. I no longer even use terms like 'truth' or 'concept' or 'belief' in serious conversations, eschewing them in favor of notions of probability-of-accuracy/resemblance, substructure, and 'feeling convinced,' respectively.

Robert Burton's book On Being Certain also looks interesting, though I haven't read it yet.

 

[Eleveness]

Hi. I haven't posted on here in a long while.

I haven't posted in a while, either. Here's a good topic to comment on.

During that long while I've come to realize that my search for objective truth was a search for accidental and indifferent truth. My philosophical interest has always been to determine what it means to be an existing individual human being. That long and familiar quest for objective certainty surely did not help with this endeavor.

The philosophy of Objectivism might interest you. I understand that a Christian forum is hardly the place to advocate Objectivism (since atheism is an implicit part of it), but since you seem to be searching for objective truth, here is a brief (6-page) summary of the philosophy: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs

Here is a quote from the linked-to page:

Most philosophers have left their starting points to unnamed implication. The base of Objectivism is explicit: "Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."

Existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception. They are the base of all knowledge (and the precondition of proof): knowledge presupposes something to know and someone to know it. They are absolutes which cannot be questioned or escaped: every human utterance, including the denial of these axioms, implies their use and acceptance.

The third axiom at the base of knowledge—an axiom true, in Aristotle's words, of "being qua being"—is the Law of Identity. This law defines the essence of existence: to be is to be something, a thing is what it is; and leads to the fundamental principle of all action, the law of causality. The law of causality states that a thing's actions are determined not by chance, but by its nature, i.e., by what it is.

It is important to observe the interrelation of these three axioms. Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" (Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. "Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

I suppose I should emphasize how antithetical Objectivism is to Christianity. It isn't merely because atheism is an implicit part of the former; it's because Objectivism espouses reliance on one's own senses as one's source of knowledge. Christianity requires its followers to rely on the Bible, one's pastor, etc. for knowledge; such epistemological dependence is anathema to an Objectivist.

 

[Vigilante]

Christianity requires its followers to rely on the Bible, one's pastor, etc. for knowledge; [...]

Some say. On the other hand, if one were to walk into a room without having read a single sentence from the Bible, having not heard one sermon, etc., and experienced this...

A church takes root in unlikely lefty soil
By Tania Ralli
Globe Correspondent

Last winter, as Janice Chen left her home one day, she slipped on her icy front stairs and her head slammed on a step. Pain shot from her neck to her tailbone. She could barely move.

The next Sunday, with braces on her neck, back, and waist, she was persuaded by her husband to go to church, to get out of the house [...]

Chen sat through the sermon in pain. Toward the end, a church staff member asked if anyone was in need of prayer. Specifically, he said, someone with a neck injury on his or her right side. "I thought, What have I got to lose?" Chen said.

She walked back to the back of the room. A member of the church's prayer team placed a hand on her right shoulder and asked God that she be healed. "Within a minute, the pain was gone," she said. "I danced back to my husband, literally." [...]

She says her outlook on life has changed. She's no longer negative or depressed. She feels braver. Most of all, she said, she opened herself to joy.

"If someone told me a year ago, I would not have believed it," she said."

...one's antennae may begin to perk. While the above certainly does not "prove" the existence of a stage-3 or stage-2 deity, much less the divinity of the specific historical figure of Jesus Christ, it isn't difficult to see how it may persuade some of the possibility of supernatural causation at work, even in the "relying on one's own experience" kind of way.

One need not submit to being bamboozled by grandiose stories of ancient history by themselves. I certainly wouldn't. If supernatural causation is understood to have occurred in the past, there is, it seems to me, no a priori reason to believe it doesn't continue today in the present.

/hijack

 

[quatona]

Existence exists

Err...what??

 

[Eleveness]

Err...what??

"Existence exists" derives from Aristotle's assertion, "What is, is." It's an acceptance of the primacy of reality, that one cannot make an object cease to exist simply by pretending that it doesn't exist. It's a commitment to honesty to oneself, to maintaining the accuracy of one's knowledge. To say "what is, is" or "existence exists" is to dedicate oneself to reason and reject faith--another way that Objectivism is antithetical to Christianity.

 

[seeker777]

What is truth?

Truth is relative.

 

[Vigilante]

Truth is relative.

Would you call that statement, itself an apparent proposal of truth, 'relative'?

 

[Eleveness]

Would you call that statement, itself an apparent proposal of truth, 'relative'?

Excellent observation! From the long quote in my post #4: "[The axioms that underpin Objectivism] are absolutes which cannot be questioned or escaped: every human utterance, including the denial of these axioms, implies their use and acceptance."

For example, as you have pointed out, in order for truth to be anything at all--even "relative"--whatever truth is, it is independent of the observations of any one particular person. For how can truth always be relative if its very relativity is itself relative? Unless it's not really relative.

This is what Dr. Peikoff meant by "[E]very human utterance, including the denial of these axioms, implies their use and acceptance." To say or write anything at all is to produce an object (the speech or writing) which itself exists independently of the person who produced it (after it was spoken or written). That speech or writing--regardless of whatever meaning we may ascribe to it--is an object which we cannot will out of existence; it is an "absolute" in the sense that no matter what anyone thinks--even if every human in existence were to perish--that message would still continue to exist.

You may write that "truth is relative"; I submit that if "truth is relative", then reality (the standard by which we determine whether a statement is true) does not exist, since it is ineffective as a means to determine whether a statement is true (since the relativity of truth implies that it is literally anything that anyone says it is).

 

[seeker777]

Would you call that statement, itself an apparent proposal of truth, 'relative'?

Of course.

 

[seeker777]

Math, physics, science, etc... There exists truth.

Religious truth is relative to the individual and the system of belief.

 

[Vigilante]

Math, physics, science, etc... There exists truth.

Religious truth is relative to the individual and the system of belief.

Oh boy...


Alright. I assume what you mean by "religious truth" falls somewhere within, at the very least, propositions concerning the concept of "God." I'm gonna bite on your terminology and offer the following:

The entity of "God," which you represent with your abstracted concept of "God," either does or does not exist. Here we see the Law of Excluded Middle in action: "God" qua entity cannot exist and not exist at the same time. We cannot think otherwise, nor has anyone--to the best of our knowledge--ever experienced it.

Taking your claim that "Religious truth is relative to the individual" to heart, we propose that Alan's and Aaron's concepts of "God" reach a very close approximation. Now the Law of Excluded Middle tells us that the entity represented, at least to a significant extent, by their concepts either does or does not exist. This leaves you to grapple with this:

Alan says, "God exists."
Aaron says, "God does not exist."

And you, by claiming that "religious truth is relative," are forced into a corner where you cannot meaningfully claim that "God" does or does not exist, as that would preclude your attachment to relativism. In fact, you have to be willing to deny (at least in word if not in deed) the Law of Excluded Middle.

If we acknowledge the silliness of this situation, we return to a place where we must choose, "Aaron's knowledge seems closer to experience" or "Alan's knowledge seems closer to experience," in which case we must pronounce the other of them "probably wrong." And in so doing we deny, in both word and deed, the "relativity of religious truth."

 

[JSynon]

Religious truth is relative to the individual and the system of belief.

Vigilante, I do not think that religious truth has anything to do with propositions concerning the concept or existence of God. As opposed to objective truth, which is uninterested and therefore - uninteresting, I understand religious truth as something having to do with the very inward and passionate relationship one can have with the god, deity, universe, nature, neighbor, or whatever else you want to call it. Such a relationship does not depend at all upon any objective certainty.

I'm beginning to wonder if some of you even read the passage I quoted from Kierkegaard.

 

[Vigilante]

Vigilante, I do not think that religious truth has anything to do with propositions concerning the concept or existence of God. As opposed to objective truth, which is uninterested and therefore - uninteresting, I understand religious truth as something having to do with the very inward and passionate relationship one can have with the god, deity, universe, nature, neighbor, or whatever else you want to call it. Such a relationship does not depend at all upon any objective certainty.

I'm beginning to wonder if some of you even read the passage I quoted from Kierkegaard.

I don't have any issue with the meaning by which I think you were using the term 'subjective truth,' which, I don't think, is the same sense in which Seeker777 used 'religious truth' (and if I've made a mistake on this, I apologize to both of you). I was trying to operate on what I perceived to be his epistemic platform. Of course, I find 'truth,' as a term, mostly useless to begin with, but I try to work with people by assuming their own terminology when I can--at least for consistency's sake. If I don't, I have to begin every post with "Let's toss out 'truth,' 'concept,' 'belief,' and let's see how much sense we can make of what we're thinking!" But that's not going to get anyone anywhere without a whole lot of unorthodox presuppositions.

No quarrel, my friend.

 

[Received]

Kierkegaard understood that the end of man isn't an Aristotelean, Enlightenment, objective truth-soaking goal. A life dedicated to this is one dedicated to abstraction, and this leads to despair, which Kierkegaard ingeniously used to refer to a misrelation between two polarities, such as (in this case) abstraction (thought) and concretion (action). The real, important truth for Kierkegaard is subjective truth -- the truth he had in mind when he said "purity of heart is to do one thing: the good." This "good" is the particular truth for each individual, bestowed by the Logos through the Father (realized through the Holy Spirit), that allows each self to be itself -- for the self exists in freedom, and freedom exists only in relation to God and a response to His individual unique Logos-commandment. To be is therefore to become -- to become, to continually fulfill, one's unique commandment in the moment.

And Eleveness is totally right: objectivism is antithetical to Christianity. Real Christianity; the sort Kierkegaard had in mind, but not the sort that the massive majority of Christendom has in mind. But even emphasis on the bible is an attempt at objectivity; it's simply on the far end away from scientific rigor. Kierkegaard would say that the bible is central, but only because the Logos, the Good, has commanded it. Truly, Kierkegaardianly understood, nothing is good or bad in itself.

He's one of the smartest, if not the smartest (unbelievable that Nietzsche was almost contemporaneous with him), human beings who has ever lived. He realized, unlike everyone else, that man can't be formulated; he can't optimally live and satisfy strict rules or laws. He needs unique direction in order to keep the polarities of thought and action in check (thus rooting out his despair). He needs a commanding (but not didactically or condescendingly -- in love) God.

 

[Received]

I'm beginning to wonder if some of you even read the passage I quoted from Kierkegaard.

Correction: if they understood it. That ain't a sneeze-your-way-through work. Then again, none of his pseudonymous writings are.

 

[Sockroteez]

Vigilante, I do not think that religious truth has anything to do with propositions concerning the concept or existence of God. As opposed to objective truth, which is uninterested and therefore - uninteresting, I understand religious truth as something having to do with the very inward and passionate relationship one can have with the god, deity, universe, nature, neighbor, or whatever else you want to call it. Such a relationship does not depend at all upon any objective certainty.

I'm beginning to wonder if some of you even read the passage I quoted from Kierkegaard.

Might I suggest that you give a brief commentary on the gist of what the passage from 'K' is saying, how it relates to your current questioning, etc... Cuz for 1, some people simply have not read 'K', and for 2, it's tough to get a grasp on where a guy like 'K' is 'coming from' with a few quotes... I myself have little experience with 'K', so in order to really discuss, I have to conjure up some info on his thoughts... all in all, I think this kind of discussion is great...

BTW... as for your studies in Philosophy, are you seeking to find 'truth' in them, or using them to spark your own mind in your own pursuit? I myself do the latter of the two... (without the luxury of college classes )

 

[Quietuss]

First I'd like to ask that anyone who's first thought is that this is irrelevant, please think about this with a more open mind.

Dude, get money. You want some truth? Here it is...
We all have two options; do what feels good now, or do what feels good later. We've all experienced a situation (I'm gonna go ahead and assume this anyways) in which we did something that felt great at the time but bit us in the ass later. Vice versa we've all done something that sucked at the time but payed off big in the end. There's a down-side to every action we make, the "truth" is we want to minimize this down-side. You have three main tools to help guide your decision making process in the "truest" direction.

1. Instinct
2. Experience
3. Knowledge

This however is where it gets a little peculiar. For example: Say you have some of those frosted cookies from Meijer and you've never eaten them before. Your instinct mite tell you to eat them because it will satisfy the sensory urge of hunger and good tastingness. While at the same time knowledge of basic biology can tell you that eating those cookies will make you fat. At this point It's your job to decide whether or not to eat the cookies. You have two choices both with two possible outcomes.
1. Eat the cookies.
A. Your desire to eat the cookies was greater then your desire stay fit, and in the long run this caused you minimal down-side.
B. You eat the cookies but later regret it causing a greater down-side.

2. Don't eat the cookies.
A.Your desire to stay fit drives you to overcome your desire to eat resulting in a minimal down-side.
B.You spend a day suffering with cookies on your mind fighting the urge to eat them causing a greater down-side.

Now it's up to the indevidual to make a decision. Say you chose to eat the cookies and you really enjoyed them. The next day you wake up and realised you put on a few pounds and this upsets you. At this point it is unclear which outcome has occured. The peculiar part is that only after you have made the dicision can you decide whether or not your decision resulted in minimal down-side. Think about that for a minute.

 

[billwald]

Thinking is not a sin? Christianity invented thought crime. The only sin St Paul ever admitted to was a thought crime - the only sin out of the Big Ten that couldn't be prosecuted.