What is Truth?

[dumpsterdiver45]

The law of identity is the metaphysical basis for truth but truth is conceptual and can not be inherent in the object.

Why can't it? On what basis? How are you able to show that truth can't be inherent in things? It seems to me that there's considerable evidence in everyday life that truth is in things.

We don't say that rock over there is true.

I do. If we look deeply into it, the rock, like anything else, is naught but information. Truth is in information. Truth in matter (physical laws of nature) is the material world's example of absolute truth. This duality exists in both material and spiritual realms. Some things are mutable, some immutable. Matter can be falsified and changed, but its absolute truth remains. The human soul can be falsified, but eternal prescriptive statutes remain.

We say the fact that that rock over there exists is true or that rock over there is sedimentary or igneous because it corresponds to the state of affairs in reality.

I agree, we just see the circumstances differently. For me, truth in the living information of the intellect unites with all the instances of truth--the rock's spatiotemporal location, its form, texture, geographical relationships, etc.--necessary to form the relation "correspondence". For me, correspondence itself isn't truth, its a way of confirming particular instances of truth which naturally exists in all things.

The statement that blonds or brunettes exist does refer to something that is real because unreal things do not exist. It is not some ethereal notion. The object that we are calling blond or brunette exists and is real and the terms blond and brunette are our names we give to the respective colors of hair to differentiate and identify them and to communicate that identification to others.

Right. By 'etheral' I only meant that blonde and brunette are concepts, universals. My point was whether we refer to a particular blonde or blonde as a universal we accept tacitly and semantically that blonde is a real thing because truth in our being unites with truth in the thing and affirms via the same truth-truth correspondence noted above about rocks. My analogy was weak. I don't think very fast on my feet, as I'm typing. Sometimes takes me days or weeks to generate a decent analogy.

 

[True Scotsman]

Why can't it? On what basis? How are you able to show that truth can't be inherent in things? It seems to me that there's considerable evidence in everyday life that truth is in things.


I do. If we look deeply into it, the rock, like anything else, is naught but information. Truth is in information. Truth in matter (physical laws of nature) is the material world's example of absolute truth. This duality exists in both material and spiritual realms. Some things are mutable, some immutable. Matter can be falsified and changed, but its absolute truth remains. The human soul can be falsified, but eternal prescriptive statutes remain.


I agree, we just see the circumstances differently. For me, truth in the living information of the intellect unites with all the instances of truth--the rock's spatiotemporal location, its form, texture, geographical relationships, etc.--necessary to form the relation "correspondence". For me, correspondence itself isn't truth, its a way of confirming particular instances of truth which naturally exists in all things.


Right. By 'etheral' I only meant that blonde and brunette are concepts, universals. My point was whether we refer to a particular blonde or blonde as a universal we accept tacitly and semantically that blonde is a real thing because truth in our being unites with truth in the thing and affirms via the same truth-truth correspondence noted above about rocks. My analogy was weak. I don't think very fast on my feet, as I'm typing. Sometimes takes me days or weeks to generate a decent analogy.

you've said a lot here to consider. please give some time to chew on it a bit. I wish I had all day to discuss things like this because I dearly love it, but unfortunately I have to earn those little green tickets. LOL.

 

[TillICollapse]

Why can't it? On what basis? How are you able to show that truth can't be inherent in things? It seems to me that there's considerable evidence in everyday life that truth is in things.


I do. If we look deeply into it, the rock, like anything else, is naught but information. Truth is in information. Truth in matter (physical laws of nature) is the material world's example of absolute truth. This duality exists in both material and spiritual realms. Some things are mutable, some immutable. Matter can be falsified and changed, but its absolute truth remains. The human soul can be falsified, but eternal prescriptive statutes remain.


I agree, we just see the circumstances differently. For me, truth in the living information of the intellect unites with all the instances of truth--the rock's spatiotemporal location, its form, texture, geographical relationships, etc.--necessary to form the relation "correspondence". For me, correspondence itself isn't truth, its a way of confirming particular instances of truth which naturally exists in all things.


Right. By 'etheral' I only meant that blonde and brunette are concepts, universals. My point was whether we refer to a particular blonde or blonde as a universal we accept tacitly and semantically that blonde is a real thing because truth in our being unites with truth in the thing and affirms via the same truth-truth correspondence noted above about rocks. My analogy was weak. I don't think very fast on my feet, as I'm typing. Sometimes takes me days or weeks to generate a decent analogy.

What truth is inherently in this rock ?

You said the following:

"It seems to me that there's considerable evidence in everyday life that truth is in things."

... and you highlighted your use of the word "is". How about this instead:

It seems to me that there's considerable evidence in everyday life that truth is.

And then leave it at that. The truth is. Untruth is not. Truth is a descriptive status we use concerning things that "is", or "are". Etc.

In such a context, the rock has no inherent truth, rather it's an example of "is". It's an example of is, and it being "true" is descriptive of it's status.

Truth is then not inherent to a thing, rather it's descriptive of the status concerning a thing. IOW, truth is not "in" a thing. It's a descriptor used in communication ABOUT things.

Thoughts ? I'm thinking out loud here

 

[Wryetui]

Truth is what is.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Truth is then not inherent to a thing, rather it's descriptive of the status concerning a thing. IOW, truth is not "in" a thing. It's a descriptor used in communication ABOUT things.

So in your view is truth something only in the mind about something instead of a quality in the thing being referenced?

 

[TillICollapse]

So in your view is truth something only in the mind about something instead of a quality in the thing being referenced?

Firstly I wouldn't call this "my view". I'm really just thinking out loud and exploring in doing so. Having said that ...

In *this* view ... yes, pretty much. "Truth" is not a quality in the referent. It is a descriptor of the referent.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

yes, pretty much. "Truth" is not a quality in the referent. It is a descriptor of the referent.

How are relations like coherence, unity, harmony, etc. able to have a generally universal base of appeal? If truth is decided by the intellect and there are millions of intellects with different ideas, then truth is decided by and applicable to each person. In other words isn't this a definition of relativism? Not so hard to grasp in material things maybe, but this becomes problematic in normative issues.

How would you falsify the idea that truth is a quality in everything that exists?

 

[TillICollapse]

.

How are relations like coherence, unity, harmony, etc. able to have a generally universal base of appeal? If truth is decided by the intellect and there are millions of intellects with different ideas, then truth is decided by and applicable to each person. In other words isn't this a definition of relativism? Not so hard to grasp in material things maybe, but this becomes problematic in normative issues.

I don't think it necessarily means "truth is relative" to only a single individual.

When a person recognizes some*thing*, and wants to communicate concerning that thing to another person, we need common ground. Language itself is arguably a social phenomenon and social tool, considering the idea that no private language (understood by only a single individual) would have any coherency anyways. So in such a context, language necessarily is something that is understood by more than one person. So when you have a group of people who recognize the same*thing*, and attempt to communicate it, they have a common ground when they come to consensus about what they are recognizing and identifying.

One of the ways we define truth is often that it is in accord with reality. Thus a group of people identifying something which we are wanting to be able to describe as "true" are often, at a minimum, attempting to do so by considering input from others, not just themselves. Thus we can begin to move beyond the relative recognition by a single individual to establish consensus on what we are identifying and recognizing. We can even use other things which aren't "thinking people" as relation points to further attempt to establish the descriptor of "truth", so we are not relying solely upon our own selves (i.e. by testing things, for example). So truth isn't decided by the intellect, it's recognized by the intellect as applicable to what is being recognized. From there, we can attempt to establish it collectively.

How would you falsify the idea that truth is a quality in everything that exists?

Define truth and then attempt to conceive of a manner which proves the proposition to be false. "Everything" seems beyond our grasp, however. How can you falsify that a little green space man the size of a squirrel isn't hiding somewhere currently in the multiverse ? Seems a bit beyond our grasp to be able to falsify. Similarly, if you want to establish that a certain quality exists in EVERYthing, it seems a bit beyond our ability perhaps.

 

[paulm50]

The truth is what one knows at a given time. What Man knew in 2,000 BC, was changed in 200 BC, and has been changing faster in the last 200 years than ever before.

In the last 20 years, ordinary people are able to find the truth. Something that was denied to them prior to the 1500 AD. On the pain of death. People were told the bible is the truth, as the priests related it to them. The Church was scared people would find the real truth.

Would fundamental Christians like to deny access to the truth, today?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

if you want to establish that a certain quality exists in EVERYthing, it seems a bit beyond our ability perhaps.

I think you're right. Because truth is an abstraction, proofs for or against it seem to be principally logical.

But flip side of the coin, if everything exists in a value-fragmented state, our existence, that of other agents and our contact with real things in both material and supernatural realities would play out in objective and subjective states of affairs that lend themselves to degrees of predictability. I think a case can be made for this.

 

[TillICollapse]

I think you're right. Because truth is an abstraction, proofs for or against it seem to be principally logical.

I almost brought up type-token relationship in the previous post, but I avoided it because I didn't want to go in that direction necessarily

But flip side of the coin, if everything exists in a value-fragmented state, our existence, that of other agents and our contact with real things in both material and supernatural realities would play out in objective and subjective states of affairs that lend themselves to degrees of predictability. I think a case can be made for this.

Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by "value-fragmented state" ? I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to assume.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by "value-fragmented state" ? I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to assume.

Most information can be falsified, but not all. Theoretically information that exists in space and time is subject to falsification because material stuff is mutable. Falsification is a mutation of truth; we have a multiplicity of informational "parts", hence value-fragmentation. I mentioned earlier that the physical laws provide truth to matter that can't be changed. This is absolute truth in material form. I'm a compatibalist largely because compatibility is easily seen in the material world--matter is subject to change despite remaining under the control of immutable laws.

Example of truth in matter: a newly built house retains its truth to the extent it fulfills what it was designed for, to provide comfortable, safe housing for humans. Eighty years later the house falls into disrepair (became falsified relative to its design and purpose) and has to be torn down. Truth in matter is relative, the house lost its original truth. The true (healthy, good) apple that lays on the ground long enough falsifies (rots) and loses its ability to provide tasty nutrition. Even though matter undergoes change, it remains in all its stages of change still subject to immutable physical laws.

But truth in human spirit or the soul is also mutable, we seem able to stain (falsify) our souls with choice. Spiritual laws seem to mirror physical laws in some respects. As matter is falsified or corrupted even while its constituents remain subject to physical laws, the falsification of the human soul that becomes corrupt is still in subjection to absolute prescriptive truth. If absolute Truth declares the universe will be restored to a wholly true (perfect) state (1Cor 15), the soul can decay in mutable time, but will not be able to resist its restoration to a true state just as matter that changes is still subject to absolute laws.

This metaphysic of truth is a prelude to the logical, allegorical theology of the restoration of all souls. The Bible is designed in an allegorical sense to be understood in the same way the metaphysic of truth plays out; in the spiritual realm of value-fragmented souls, the Bible is God's way of revealing how He'll restore each soul. Literal hermeneutics can't uncover this, only condemnation and eternal separation is possible in the literal. In metaphor, sheep and goats and wheat and tares (Mat), good and bad figs (Jer), saved and unsaved (Rom 11 and just about anywhere else in the Bible) are representations of value fragmented individual souls. In the literal, whole persons are saved and other whole persons are destroyed or tortured eternally. In the higher truth of metaphor good and bad, sheep and goats represent true and false elements within each soul. The false will be destroyed to accommodate restoration to a wholly true state. The Bible has nothing to do with the rejection of whole persons.

More than you asked for, sorry; just showing correlation of the metaphysic with Scripture.

 

[Chany]

I like the question "what is truth", however, let's start with a quick statement. As alluded to in quatona's post, "truth" is just a word. It can have different meanings based on context. Also, because "truth" is just a word, we can technically define it any way we desire. We are probably going to try to define it to refer to the concept we usually mean when people talk to one another, but I think it is important to remember there is no correct answer to "what is truth". Ultimately, there are no correct definitions, only good or bad ones based on how well the definition expresses the concept the word is trying to illustrate.

 

[TillICollapse]

Most information can be falsified, but not all. Theoretically information that exists in space and time is subject to falsification because material stuff is mutable. Falsification is a mutation of truth; we have a multiplicity of informational "parts", hence value-fragmentation. I mentioned earlier that the physical laws provide truth to matter that can't be changed. This is absolute truth in material form. I'm a compatibalist largely because compatibility is easily seen in the material world--matter is subject to change despite remaining under the control of immutable laws.

Example of truth in matter: a newly built house retains its truth to the extent it fulfills what it was designed for, to provide comfortable, safe housing for humans. Eighty years later the house falls into disrepair (became falsified relative to its design and purpose) and has to be torn down. Truth in matter is relative, the house lost its original truth. The true (healthy, good) apple that lays on the ground long enough falsifies (rots) and loses its ability to provide tasty nutrition. Even though matter undergoes change, it remains in all its stages of change still subject to immutable physical laws.

But truth in human spirit or the soul is also mutable, we seem able to stain (falsify) our souls with choice. Spiritual laws seem to mirror physical laws in some respects. As matter is falsified or corrupted even while its constituents remain subject to physical laws, the falsification of the human soul that becomes corrupt is still in subjection to absolute prescriptive truth. If absolute Truth declares the universe will be restored to a wholly true (perfect) state (1Cor 15), the soul can decay in mutable time, but will not be able to resist its restoration to a true state just as matter that changes is still subject to absolute laws.

This metaphysic of truth is a prelude to the logical, allegorical theology of the restoration of all souls. The Bible is designed in an allegorical sense to be understood in the same way the metaphysic of truth plays out; in the spiritual realm of value-fragmented souls, the Bible is God's way of revealing how He'll restore each soul. Literal hermeneutics can't uncover this, only condemnation and eternal separation is possible in the literal. In metaphor, sheep and goats and wheat and tares (Mat), good and bad figs (Jer), saved and unsaved (Rom 11 and just about anywhere else in the Bible) are representations of value fragmented individual souls. In the literal, whole persons are saved and other whole persons are destroyed or tortured eternally. In the higher truth of metaphor good and bad, sheep and goats represent true and false elements within each soul. The false will be destroyed to accommodate restoration to a wholly true state. The Bible has nothing to do with the rejection of whole persons.

More than you asked for, sorry; just showing correlation of the metaphysic with Scripture.

You're using some terms so much differently than I would use them, to avoid learning a new language at this point I'm going to drop out of the convo. No offense, and thank you

 

[quatona]

I like the question "what is truth", however, let's start with a quick statement. As alluded to in quatona's post, "truth" is just a word. It can have different meanings based on context. Also, because "truth" is just a word, we can technically define it any way we desire. We are probably going to try to define it to refer to the concept we usually mean when people talk to one another, but I think it is important to remember there is no correct answer to "what is truth". Ultimately, there are no correct definitions, only good or bad ones based on how well the definition expresses the concept the word is trying to illustrate.

Yes, and it´s a pet peeve of mine: Semantics questions that pretend to be epistemic questions.
I suspect that the realization of this difference tends to get lost very early in people´s lives: When children learn to speak, parents always tell them "This is a [X]" or ask "What is this?", while the accurate wording would be "We call this [X]" or "What do we call this?".

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I think it is important to remember there is no correct answer to "what is truth". Ultimately, there are no correct definitions, only good or bad ones based on how well the definition expresses the concept the word is trying to illustrate.

I disagree. You’re certainly free to hold the belief that there are no correct answers or definitions but this seems to me just word play. We all proceed through life on the basis that there are correct answers, or at least answers that contain high degrees of correctness, and we approach it as though we’re better off knowing things as correctly as we can than knowing false things.

Your post, like all others, is itself an assumption of true knowledge. How would you falsify the view of truth in the op?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Yes, and it´s a pet peeve of mine: Semantics questions that pretend to be epistemic questions.

A pet peeve of mine is that atheists and fundamentalist Christians try to force their rules on others as though those rules have the power to dictate what arguments others can use or how we should believe. Epistemology is, from my layman’s point of view, a really interesting field of study. It also seems to consist almost entirely of theories of how we might have knowledge, and even more theories to support or deny those original theories.

The theory of truth I contend for has interesting connotations for the motives driving why atheists want to relegate truth to simple semantic exercises and impose alleged ‘epistemic necessity’ in places it has no foothold. I think my view has sufficient tendrils of correspondence from ontology to semantics to psychology and may even contribute a bit to how we know. ..at least for those of us not beholden to epistemic intolerance.

All the same, thanks for your input.

 

[quatona]

A pet peeve of mine is that atheists and fundamentalist Christians try to force their rules on others as though those rules have the power to dictate what arguments others can use or how we should believe. Epistemology is, from my layman’s point of view, a really interesting field of study. It also seems to consist almost entirely of theories of how we might have knowledge, and even more theories to support or deny those original theories.
The theory of truth I contend for has interesting connotations for the motives driving why atheists want to relegate truth to simple semantic exercises and impose alleged ‘epistemic necessity’ in places it has no foothold. I think my view has sufficient tendrils of correspondence from ontology to semantics to psychology and may even contribute a bit to how we know. ..at least for those of us not beholden to epistemic intolerance.

All those sweeping generalisations about atheists make it hard for me to focus on a possibly valid point you might have.
Also, I have no idea how it´s a response to my post which you quoted.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

All those sweeping generalisations about atheists make it hard for me to focus on a possibly valid point you might have

But this is an emotional appeal. Atheists make "sweeping generalisations" all the time about theists. Liberals make sweeping generalisations about conservatives and vice versa. What really matters in serious discussion is whether statements are true or false. The term "sweeping generalization" of course infers the latter. I'll give warrant for my "sweeping generalizations" based on my understanding of truth and how it works in real life when I have time...have hit a busy spell here...but I will say up front that part of the justification for this view is that it has some universal predictive capabilities which may come out in discussion.

 

[quatona]

But this is an emotional appeal.

No, it´s not. It´s an explanation why I have problems reading your posts. Your sweeping generalizations prevent me from focussing on possibly valid points. I am telling you that - in case you want me to acknowledge your possibly valid points - you do yourself a disservice.

Atheists make "sweeping generalisations" all the time about theists.

That may be so, but I wasn´t trying to understand an atheist´s post but yours.

Liberals make sweeping generalisations about conservatives and vice versa.

So? I wasn´t talking to liberals or conservatives. I was talking to you.

What really matters in serious discussion is whether statements are true or false.

Sweeping generalizations about people are false, by their very nature. What I meant to tell you: If you hide the nuggets of your wisdom under false generalizing statements, I don´t feel inclined to dig them out. That´s my feedback to you...if you don´t find it useful, then so be it.