How important is truth?

[Thurlor]

I've been thinking about this for quite some time and I still don't really know how to express my point.

In much of what we do in our lives how important is truth (or to be more exact, an accurate perception of reality)? I don't mean this in terms of beneficial falsehoods but rather deceptions that you can't perceive as deceptions until you are told about them (if ever).

To illustrate my point I think I'll try a couple of hypothetical situations.

- A person is seeking vengeance/justice. If they acquire it they feel like they 'have closure'. If they are deceived into believing they have acquired it they still feel they 'have closure'. Therefore the act of vengeance doesn't provide closure, instead the perception of vengeance (true or false) provides closure.

-A person wants to sell something they own. They believe it is worth x and are happy when they get x. If they wrongly believed it was worth x/2 they would still be happy when they got x/2. Their happiness in the deal is not determined by any actual value, but rather what they believe the value should be.

I suppose I'm trying to point out that a lot of what we hold important actually isn't. We only think it is.

I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for truth (because that's just the way I am). I'm just suggesting we should consider whether or not these important truths are really meaningful at all.

This seeming insight of mine has changed so much of how I perceive other peoples issues and problems. I seem less able to apply it to myself.

Sometimes I ramble.

 

[PaulMaster]

I think value outweighs truth. But if ones values are too far removed from the objective, ultimate reality, then mobility may prove impossible.

 

[Yellow]

I think people tend to operate in a system with "hope" and "disappointment", which is generally independent of reality.

We are a species of would-be fortune-tellers. We spend nearly every waking moment in some step of the forecasting process. We predict the weather, we have future events on our schedules, we plan things out step-by-step. We think about what we want for Christmas, and we buy airline tickets months in the future. We set goals, think about what we'd do if a lion stepped onto the train, and look at the TV lineup for the week. We make motha'uckin retirement plans in our 30's.

When reality/the truth interferes with our future predictions, we're destabilized. Some of us (P's, theoretically) can handle these things better than some, but it's still disturbing in at least a minor way. In that sense, truth isn't nearly as important to us as our intentions/hopes/missions.

Truth only takes precedence in our lives in certain situations. When the truth is on our "side", it's hugely important. When we're philosophizing, investigating the natural world, or developing a new technology, we welcome truth. Such truth seekers (myself included) think truth is of the utmost importance. But we're like anyone else when a sudden rainstorm breaks out while we're wearing a skimpy white dress. The truth is, we don't bother to match our undergarments.

 

[Silent Sage]

Truth is only a mental state; reality is subjective. "Truth" calms the masses, puts them at ease. Except when it conflicts with a prior "truth". We seek order, so we must filter through the interpretations and accept a particular one. "The one truth". It's a journey.

Actually, I've written a couple essays regarding this general topic:

The truth as we know it has proven to be subject to change time and time again as we expand our knowledge. It is not absolute, nor is it completely factual. Truth is what the consciousness conceives. Our senses perceive the invention, then we believe it. Reality, as we see it, is merely a function of the mind; our "mental" construction of it is an inaccurate representation because it fabricates prior to revealing. Therefore, truth is reliant on the observer; we can only comprehend a minuscule portion of the truth that is susceptible to our inadequate field of vision. While unable to grasp the full extent of truth, it remains an assemblage of opinions. Given that when any particular opinion is "confirmed", the more it is employed, and the more likely it is to become accepted as a "fact". The nature of reality is yet to be fully unraveled, and by being so, our truths are independent of it, as a whole, in their inconsistency, and remain but a grand travesty. As humans, we impose order where it is nonexistent.
Optical illusions, a well know phenomenon, is just one instance that utilize this concept. The brain edits and distorts information before we view it--hidden from our immediate awareness. Our truth is apart from actual reality; despite being led to think otherwise. The progression of knowledge may alter or invalidate previous "truths". What ensues is a justifiable uncertainty; we only "know" what we can explicitly bear witness to; that is within our confines of space and time. But even familiar knowledge may be deceptive; we now realize that the mind subconsciously warps reality. Nothing can be considered concrete or pure, because everything is vulnerable to interpretation. All objective "truth" is classified by subjective judgment, therefore reality detected by mind consequently becomes subjective.
The conceptual nature of our truths are coherently emanated by the Double Slit Experiment of quantum mechanics. From its findings we conclude that consciousness does indeed have a role in influencing as well as producing measurable results. In studying the interference pattern of electrons, whether they behaved according to a wave-function or a particle-function was dependent on the presence of an observer (Xscholars Department of Mind and Brain). The founding fathers kept this notion in mind that truth is not applicable comprehensively when writing fundamental documents such as the Declaration of Independence to some extent.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Congress 1776). They recognized that "truth" is just a matter of perspective. By regarding their own as legitimate, they provided insight that other truths may not be self-evident, and that not everyone would agree with them, but persist as truths nonetheless--still genuine to an external constituent, perhaps of a disparate variety, defined by its conflicting sentiment.
Examination springs from mind. Mind is diverse, hence the diversity of explanations. Bias is arisen. The flexibility of truth develops into belief, rather than undeniable fact. Aside from being miscellaneous, it is also fragmentary. Restrictions lie within the frame of reference to which we are exposed. The collective experiences of every individual of every second of all expanse beheld by the mind are merely fractions of our potential truth.
This is not only apparent to science or history, but culture as well. We are like five blind men attempting to grasp the physique of an elephant. In the folktale, one approaches the trunk of the elephant, and deduces that an elephant is like a great serpent. Another touches the ear and describes the elephant as a big leaf. A third reaches the leg and claims the elephant to be like a well rooted tree. The fourth runs into its side and notes that the elephant resembles a sturdy wall. The last grabs ahold of its tail and reports the elephant to have the likeness of a rope. An isolated mind is no exception to housing a multitude of truths.
The mind is malleable. When reminiscing, you could very well be conveying a new, manifested truth subconsciously. The Misinformation Effect and Placebo Effect of psychology impart that external factors such as attitude and knowledge are capable of reconstructing a memory in hindsight. Researchers found that misleading post event information can overwhelmingly manipulate a person's response when recounting the event. After being told a "truth", an individual is very likely to convince themselves to disregard any doubt or contradictory belief in a self-fulfilling prophecy (Loftus and Hoffman). Again, our truths and reality do not coincide; they can't.
"Our little systems have their day;/They have their day and cease to be.../We have but faith; we cannot know;/ For knowledge is of things we see..." (Tennyson). Truths are versions of a reality detached from mind. Thus, the creations of mind are not limited to the intangible. The whole wide world boils down to one massive thought. However, if the basis of everything is subjective, might you rationally theorize that that is an objective fact, thereby refuting itself? If I dismiss that analysis as subjective might I only be supporting the analysis? Everything is subjective is implied first by our inability to confront an objective reality. The apparent paradox result of a subjective thought on a subjective thought on a subjective thought, and so on. Yet the paradox cannot be objective, for objectivity is but another subjective thought; a contraption of the mind. Objectivity is always subjective but subjectivity is never objective. That is a truth, a partial truth, and nothing but a truth.

Works Cited​

Congress 1776. “Declaration of Independence.” 4 July 1776. Archives.gov Web. 9 Dec. 2015.
Loftus, Elizabeth & Hoffman, Hunter. "Misinformation and Memory, The Creation of New Memories." University of Washington. March 1989. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.
Tennyson, Alfred. “In Memoriam A.H.H.” The Literature Network. Jalic Inc. 2015. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.
Xscholars Department of Mind and Brain. “Your entire life is an ILLUSION: New test backs up theory that the world doesn’t exist until we look at it.” 21 Nov. 2015. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.


essay 2 (more like a well thought out ramble)

Reality emerges from the self and is relative to each individual observer, therefore, it is constantly shifting. The "self" manipulates reality via the senses and then experiences the world through them. The "self" is what makes all realities significant. The "self" is programmed in such a way that it perceives order in an otherwise chaotic world. It is this distorted reality that the "self" perceives that makes even an objective reality significant. An objective reality can only be considered significant in this indirect manner, despite being the fundamental basis of all realities, because its existence and meaning, can only be captured by the subjective lenses of the "self". An objective reality, by definition, is without an observer, the "self", that which makes all that is outside of the "self" significant. The truth of an objective reality can not be known and the truth of our sensational reality can only be realized by the "self" after piecing together the partial truths of its familiar realities. Dissection of those familiar realities will always only provide mere glimpses of truth. No matter how much they are broken down, they will remain subjective, and ultimately yield partial truths. These hidden, limited truths amidst chaos can only be revealed and accessed by uniting the clues discovered by the "self" from its established order. A mathematical reality serves as a tool to help the "self" interpret and understand its sensational reality. The "self" intrinsically seeks order to facilitate comfort in an otherwise chaotic world. Where no order is perceived, the unknown--not to be confused with the unknown of an objective reality--so rather, where the absence of order is perceived, the "self" attempts to formulate an ideal reality of what lies beyond through theology. A theological reality attempts to answer questions regarding the sensational reality that mathematics cannot. Language is used to communicate the "self's" reality to other "self"s. A confirmed reality strengthens the "self's" bond and comfort with the world. But when extremely differing realities collide they fall back upon themselves and lapse into chaos where comfort of the "self'" diminishes. Too much focus on any one reality, the direct sensational reality, or an underlying mathematical reality, or a mystic theological reality, and the "self" will become out of touch with the others and fail to attain real comfort. To extend the comfort of the "self", the "self" must accept the limits of a mathematical reality to explain the sensational one, and embrace a flexible reality of the unknown that manages to tolerate, welcome, and incorporate advances made by the former. The "self" that can readily adapt to its ever changing realities and effectively synthesize them will attain comfort in an otherwise chaotic world. The purpose of the "self" is to give meaning to everything else, but the purpose of identity, that which distinguishes the "self", is unique.

And another discussing "causality" if you wanna take a look:

I'll be exploring causality (free will, "by choice" vs "by nature") here:


I've been introduced to the topic recently, so I only have a very minimal understanding at the moment. But I like to come up with my own ideas before getting into all the technical stuff anyways. I am not an expert, and I am not claiming any unquestionable factuality to my statements below.



I'd describe free will as the ability to assess a situation and potential outcomes, then following through with one them. In other words: the ability to fulfill an inner desire.



Of course, if we have free will, it is severely constrained. By natural forces, physiological needs, psychological desires, and even the supposed free will of other people. Yet...all those are thought to make free will, abstraction, possible in the first place, that is, external factors, physiology, and psychology.



They give rise to choice (free will), which in turn gives rise to potential outcomes. This interaction and collision results in a continuous flow and growing network of cause/effect relationships. In this way we are also constrained by the past as well.



I'm aware that there's some problem concerning whether a decision should be attributed to an event or the system that allows such a decision to be made? And that scientific/philosophic people tend to go with the latter rather than the former. They do so because the choice itself isn't tangible; we can only observe the effect that it produces. But chemical reactions signify a decision, not a particular decision as opposed to other potential courses of action.



Still, I'm leaning towards the notion that "free will" or inner desire is just the manifestation of the aforementioned factors (an illusion) as the majority is.



I have two questions, however:



1.) If we are not in control of our actions, our decisions, then why is it that we punish "accidents" instead of dismissing them as inevitable?
and
2.) Consider inaction to be a decision. Doing nothing despite a stimulus. Which might be interpreted as our "default state", ignoring a stimulus and the absence of that stimulus are virtually the same thing. I'm assuming this wouldn't start off any electrical impulses, seeing as though the action/impulse is absent. You aren't responding. But if inaction can't be designated to the physical properties that signify decisions, than what can it be designated to? "I will not react". Free will? Inaction can't exactly be called an action itself, that would be rather contradictory.



Any thoughts?

 

[Brontosaurie]

I love a forum that has a thread named like this.

 

[Thurlor]

The main point I'm trying to make is that most of our wants/needs are meaningless. As long as our senses can be fooled without us caring about it until we know better then our wants are meaningless. If you think you are happy/fulfilled then you probably are, regardless of reality.

 

[Tannhauser]

People often (lazily) take on beliefs to regulate their short-term psychological state. Later on, when they are faced with contrary evidence, they will in general not update their beliefs (this is a known cognitive bias). This will result in a lot of cognitive dissonance and possibly practical consequences of having acted on wrong beliefs.

Taking your example with the seller: they sell their thing for x/2 and getting their money and the subsequent good feeling of having achieved what they wanted. Over the next year they observe prices in the open market which indicate it was worth x. They will now have to either admit "it was a mistake, I did not do enough research, I did not care enough about truth", or start inventing explanations; "the guy who bought my thing scammed me" etc

There is also opportunity cost connected to that mistake. You could have got paid x but chose x/2. In the long term, if you keep paying x and receiving x/2, your life will slowly but surely turn to shit.

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

Truth is quite useless. It's quite a redundant concept really that should have been dealt with long ago. But you might object to this. For example, you might say "But what about gravity. It's certainly true that gravity exists right? You can't fight that."

To that I say "Gravity? Is your and everyone else's conception of gravity, including that of the physicists independent of any background interpretation? No. What we interpret to be gravity is a sign, as is everything else and signs (i.e. everything) aren't background independent."

And you might object to that saying "But hold on a second! Doesn't the idea that everything are signs also necessitate some kind of background according to what you said?"

And to that I say "Yes, and you can stop playing your silly linguistic (i.e. logical) games already and do something more productive".

After being subjected to multiple modes of mental torture for trying to grab onto a notion of truth, I've learned to let it free. Now I instead I say "It it works, good. If it doesn't, try again." Utility determines the value of some method/theory, not truth.

Take care.

 

[PaulMaster]

Utility is subordinate to truth.

 

[Gather_Wanderer]

Utility is subordinate to truth.

^What he said

 

[Urakro]

It's a funny thing, I sit and look at all these outlines of stretched and skewed shapes around me, some of them irregular, and some orderly, and yet content to know that they represent something that I understand. This black square in front of me is defined as a 'monitor', of which it presents a visual representation of the operations performed by the super calculator it's connected to. A processor of data networked out through lines to 'servers' which connect me other people. And this is why I sit here staring at this black square tapping my fingers on a button board. All of this I don't literally 'see' but I know and understand it to be that way. It's the way I make sense of all the jumble.

In the example of the seller, the market price of the thing being sold is worth 'x', and this I know to be true. That it was hypothetically sold for half it's price and that the merchant being unaware of the actual worth I know it to be true as well. I know this to be true because if I compare it to the situation of it being false; by posting back that the OP's hypothetical was inaccurate, and that it wasn't worth the variable 'x', and the merchant wasn't initially content being given the wrong due, would mean I didn't even understand the question being asked to begin with and I've completely lost my marbles.

....A binary, logical system which results from the err or false logic of another binary, logical system. Hmm. Actually, nevermind that was stupid.

Oh, which reminds me, the OP was actually asking how important is truth? If in the context of asking to whom, it would be important to everyone, else they'd suffer a violent collapse in their psychological functioning. If asking about on the grand scale of the entirety of all dimensions of space and time, I wouldn't really know, but I'd wager it's not all that important.

If unsure of weather the majority of other people hold the same measure of respect for knowing 'truth' as you do, I wouldn't know that for sure, but I'd also wager a bet that they do. But whatever conclusions they come up with depend on their limited standpoint and temporal path of gathering information and tools/techniques for reasoning it.

 

[Brontosaurie]

^ Gr8 post

 

[Tannhauser]

^ I didn't like it. One can daydream all day long about the meaning of the word "truth". Meanwhile when you cross the road you still have to ask yourself "is it true or false that there is a car heading towards me and is about to crush me?". Just relate truth to physical phenomena and avoid all this pathological solipsism.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Are you zooming in on that sentence about the "grand scale"?

I seemed to get another message than you did.

 

[Tannhauser]

I'm probably zooming in on the last sentence in that post. But now that I re-read the post I have no clue what the real point is. I guess it is something about "truth" being dependent on the context. But that is true for anything one talks about, even if it is a rigorous mathematical concept. I think it is clear OP is talking about truth with skin in the game.

 

[Sly-fy]

Truth is paramount on a cosmic level, with the ultimate truth being the only kind of truth that I`m interested in. However on an individual level, and depending on the individual, sometimes a false perception of truth is easier to swallow. You`re not going to tell a mother that her son, who was captured by the enemy in war was put through extensive torture and that he died a slow death, while crying like a coward, but if you have a heart you will in spite of carrying this knowledge deceive the mother by easing her pain, spearing her the unnecessary truth which would cause more harm than good if it were known. When knowing the absolute truth will not make things better and will rather make matters worse, subjective as this statement may be, I believe that knowledge of the whole truth is not only unnecessary but undesired.

However, in the case of spending more money on something than you should have, and only feeling happy because you think that you ripped the other guy off, while you`re the one who was actually ripped off, that`s when knowing the truth is preferable to risking repeating that mistake due to a lack of knowledge of the facts. However, if the guy who is happy with his purchase is on his death bed, and is unlikely to live long enough to ever make any other transactions, that`s when letting that person know that they had made a mistake is, in my opinion both unnecessary and undesirable, unless they`re really insisting on knowing in case I wouldn`t deny a dying man his last wish to know the truth (but I might still be tempted to sugarcoat it.)

Same as with religion, people who believe in deities (as I myself used to push myself to believe in with no success) believe what makes them feel better and live happier lives, and far be it from me to act as a prick and tell them otherwise. I still however use the argument of God`s presumed existence to argue objectivity and interpret definitions of right and wrong, God-given rights etc. Those are very important concepts I think to appreciate, whether or not God actually exists. If it weren`t for God`s morality, everyone`s subjective "morality" would be no better or worse than anyone else`s except on a purely subjective level, and therefore murder and rape might be acceptable and righteous in the eyes of some while not in the eyes of others and the fabric of the society would fall apart.

Without the freedoms of speech and the right to bear arms being interpreted as God-given rights, but rather government-given rights, (which is absurd since such rights inherently existed before any government was formed) governments would feel like they have the right to take away those rights at a whim. People also might then feel like it was fair and just to allow governments that level of God-like power. That`s why I think that belief in God plays an important role in society, as without an actual God, the role of God would be filled by God-wannabes, as has been the case all too often throughout History with Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jongs etc.

Apologies for straying away from the main topic, doing so is one of my biggest "strengths..." The point is, no matter how we interpret the truth, it is what it is. However, our interpretation of the truth is arguably as important as the real thing, because unless we know the truth, what we think is the truth might just as well be the truth to us.

 

[bvanevery]

Same as with religion, people who believe in deities (as I myself used to push myself to believe in with no success) believe what makes them feel better and live happier lives, and far be it from me to act as a prick and tell them otherwise.

At times I do tell them otherwise, because organized religions have a track record of maiming, torturing, and killing people who refuse to believe in their delusions. Sometimes, failure to understand the truth has serious social consequences. This is one reason to pursue truth, when there is something broadly at stake. But other times the stakes are low, in which case truth is not so important. I don't object to people holding religious views per se, I object to them doing harmful things with those views. There's a point at which what people believe drives their actions though, so at those times, the truth must be spoken and not shirked from.

 

[Sly-fy]

There's a point at which what people believe drives their actions though, so at those times, the truth must be spoken and not shirked from.

I think the problem with religious people being blind to the truth can`t be remedied by simply telling them the facts, as they will rather use their irrational faith to justify every fact you throw out in a way that is consistent with their uncompromisable beliefs. So it`s really a losing battle and therefore not worth fighting. Those who don`t see it themselves, still won`t see it with or without your help, because willingly or unwillingly I just don`t think they`re capable of having that open a mind.

Arguably, there are societal benefits to having religion and a belief in a morally superior higher power and consequences of your actions outside the boundaries of the flawed and often times unfair legal system, but that`s a whole other conversation.

 

[bvanevery]

I think the problem with religious people being blind to the truth can`t be remedied by simply telling them the facts, as they will rather use their irrational faith to justify every fact you throw out in a way that is consistent with their uncompromisable beliefs.

Usually true, but I have some hope that when they hear the same thing many times from different people, they might get worn down. Or otherwise suffer seeds of doubt.

So it`s really a losing battle and therefore not worth fighting.

False. There's usually an audience watching the exchange, and those are the people you really have the most influence over. They witness a contest; they scratch their heads wondering who was right.

 

[RaBind]

I actually don't think truth is essential to a successful life. I measure success in terms of satisfaction and I can derive a lot of that from trivial everyday activities. I actually think being on an all consuming quest to search for truth can be detrimental to success in life. I do want a satisfying life cause if I'm gonna live it I might as well do so hedonistically.

Therefore I think the search for truth should actually be put off till later in life, possibly retirement. I doubt it matters when you reach the truth as long as you get there in the end, at least in my mind I don't see why it should matter. Plus we are all going to face one of life's biggest questions at the end of our lives and we'll all get a dose of truth whether we like it or not.

 

[bvanevery]

You've decided that success is measured in terms of the trivial, so really, everyone and everything is a success. Blowing a hole in someone else's brain pan with a .38 would be a success, as long as you enjoyed it.

I don't find your definition of success to be meaningful in any way, so I'm inclined to disregard it, as wasted verbiage attached to your actual world view. "You just wanna have fun." Ok... do you need to intellectually justify that to others? Like trying to attach the concept to other people's ideas about "Truth" ? Maybe you personally don't but just want some kind of social approval, or you want to promote your own world view and have more people adopt it. Or, maybe your ideas about hedonism don't actually quite sit well with you, you sense the incompleteness of your thinking on this.

I really don't see any big question about death. You die. You're over with. People try to turn it into a question because they are afraid of the truth. There's no evidence for anything other than turning to dust, you're gone, total cessation. When's the last time you looked at a piece of roadkill?

 

[Sly-fy]

Michael Savage dedicated his entire show yesterday to discussing the question of truth, what it is, where it can be found and does it even matter. This kind of stuff is what I find separates him from other talk show hosts as he offers flavorful food for thought.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Acknowledging that there is such a thing as truth allows us to model and understand the world around us. With this acknowledgement allowed humans to transition from hunter/gatherers to develop agriculture, to develop the first city-states, to develop philosophy, to develop the pursuit of scientific understanding and finally to develop the technological cornucopia of this current age. Without this acknowledgement we would be no different than organisms that have no higher order cognitive capacities. Truth allows us to advance. Superstitions, relativistic philosophies and philosophies that are internally inconsistent are regressive.

The main point I'm trying to make is that most of our wants/needs are meaningless. As long as our senses can be fooled without us caring about it until we know better then our wants are meaningless. If you think you are happy/fulfilled then you probably are, regardless of reality.

Our wants and needs are not meaningless because we give them meaning. To ourselves they are objective but not immutable. Comparing from person to person, they are subjective.

 

[Happy]

My approach to truth has changed over the past few years as I've properly moved into adult life. The only questions of truth that matter to me now are ones of perceived pertinence. That is, does it seem important to me? If so, analyse it thoroughly for truth. If not, take it at face value, and save brain power for important questions.

I wonder what importance truth will have to me as I get older...

 

[RaBind]

You've decided that success is measured in terms of the trivial, so really, everyone and everything is a success. Blowing a hole in someone else's brain pan with a .38 would be a success, as long as you enjoyed it.

Spoiler

I actually don't think truth is essential to a successful life. I measure success in terms of satisfaction and I can derive a lot of that from trivial everyday activities. I actually think being on an all consuming quest to search for truth can be detrimental to success in life. I do want a satisfying life cause if I'm gonna live it I might as well do so hedonistically.

No people are only successful if they truly deem themselves to be so.

From my own experience of emotions, desires and feelings I'd say that these things and our own perceptions of reality can be difficult to change and so not everyone can be successful just because they wish to be. It's also crucial to know if it is wise to do so anyway.

If you could choose to be a drug addict whose life consists of continuously/automatically being administered opium throughout life to the point you are essentially a zombie/someone who has experienced the death of ego or something (overrated if you ask me), would you choose to live such a life?

I can only answer for myself and I'd say no, simply because my idea of success is partially dependent on aspects of life that I'd lose from such a scenario. I also suspect many people who don't already dream of such a life might also agree with me.

So yea that's scenario where I don't think I could believe my life to be a success.

Then there's the point about changing your ideas about success to view yourself as successful.

If you do this you are essentially discarding reality/the illusion/everything, and I so I don't do this. If you genuinely succeed in doing so, you'll probably also have fucked yourself and cease to be what is generally understood to be yourself. I won't say I'm against it but I think I'll give the orthodox route to success a go before this.

"To each his own" with regards to the second bit. I don't claim knowledge of anyone else's subjective experiences.

I don't find your definition of success to be meaningful in any way, so I'm inclined to disregard it, as wasted verbiage attached to your actual world view.

Likewise.

"You just wanna have fun." Ok... do you need to intellectually justify that to others? Like trying to attach the concept to other people's ideas about "Truth" ? Maybe you personally don't but just want some kind of social approval, or you want to promote your own world view and have more people adopt it. Or, maybe your ideas about hedonism don't actually quite sit well with you, you sense the incompleteness of your thinking on this.

I donno, I'd like to think that I do have some vague but valid justifications for at least certain behaviours that I do have some consciousness of.

Spoiler

Like trying to attach the concept to other people's ideas about "Truth" ?

Don't quite get what you mean by this. I think you mean that you think "You just wanna have fun." is irrelevant to truth and that I'm trying to "attach the concept to other people's ideas about "Truth"" for whatever reason?

Well if so that's not quite why I included that. I think there is some truth that can be derived from it so it not really irrelevant.

I sense the incompleteness of my thinking on a lot of things.

I really don't see any big question about death. You die. You're over with. People try to turn it into a question because they are afraid of the truth. There's no evidence for anything other than turning to dust, you're gone, total cessation. When's the last time you looked at a piece of roadkill?

To the question "is there anything after death?" all I can say is "maybe" and I think that what all anyone should be about to say about it.

 

[bvanevery]

Acknowledging that there is such a thing as truth allows us to model and understand the world around us. With this acknowledgement allowed humans to transition from hunter/gatherers to develop agriculture,

Hm, no. Religion is a model of how the world works around us, for instance Rain Gods. Also it is not certain that things went in the order you think. Some theorize that animal husbandry came first, and some that religion came first, as a unifying social organizer that allowed other things to develop due to the common cooperation. The social cooperation does not have to be based on truth, it has to be based on commonly shared communication symbols.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

There is only one truth - none.

 

[PaulMaster]

There is only one truth - none.

Non truth cannot be the only truth.

This sentence is false.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

This sentence is false.

Yes. That's what I'm trying to get through to everyone.

But no one will fucking listen.

 

[QuickTwist]

Truth is important to our understanding of the world - it is how we gauge our survival instincts - and that determines if we made a good decision or not.

It was inevitable that the human species would come up with a word like "truth." Truth is an all encompassing catch all term used to tell if something is good or bad. False at its core is almost always bad, associated with lie, kill, cheat and ignore. Truth on the other hand almost has a psychological component that gives hope to people at the mere mention of the word.

So it is the idea of truth that the human condition yearns for. To have closure, to be complete, and to have nothing lacking. Safe.

The words truth/yes and false/no are so powerful that I imagine lawyers will try and get witnesses to use either yes or no in how they phrase to question. Same info, different word. Also I know I've seen countless advertisements saying something along the lines of "Yes you can."

There is also true/false in programming language, but I think that is not exactly what we are talking about here.

 

[Seteleechete]

As important as you make it.

 

[Matt3737]

It seems there's a few different theories of truth being floated around in this thread. I think the OP is using either a deflationary theory of truth or a redundancy theory of truth.

Both are used to demonstrate that the 'truth' of any statement is merely the assertion of the statement and doesn't add or attribute any such property of 'truth' to the statement.

As Gottlob Frege once noted:

It is worthy of notice that the sentence "I smell the scent of violets" has the same content as the sentence "It is true that I smell the scent of violets". So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth.

I think a few others have asserted the traditional view of truth as a correspondence theory. That truth is a measure of accuracy between statements and the objective reality to which they refer.

I, personally, subscribe to Tarski's semantic theory of truth because I believe it is the best middle ground between each of these other theories. That is that truth is merely a semantic property of sentences. This attributes it as a property of sentences, thus allowing for correspondence, but also limits or deflates truth to being only a semantic property of sentences or statements rather than an absolute or objective property.

This was done in order to address mathematical paradoxes such as the liar's paradox: This sentence is false.

Tarski's undefinability theorem, stated and proved by Alfred Tarski in 1936, is an important limitative result in mathematical logic, the foundations of mathematics, and in formal semantics. Informally, the theorem states that arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic.

The undefinability theorem shows that this encoding cannot be done for semantical concepts such as truth. It shows that no sufficiently rich interpreted language can represent its own semantics. A corollary is that any metalanguage capable of expressing the semantics of some object language must have expressive power exceeding that of the object language. The metalanguage includes primitive notions, axioms, and rules absent from the object language, so that there are theorems provable in the metalanguage not provable in the object language.

Truth is only as important as you believe it to be.

 

[Urakro]

I'm probably zooming in on the last sentence in that post. But now that I re-read the post I have no clue what the real point is. I guess it is something about "truth" being dependent on the context. But that is true for anything one talks about, even if it is a rigorous mathematical concept. I think it is clear OP is talking about truth with skin in the game.

I believe there is truth, and I'm not a solipsist if that is what you read into my absurd post. I tend towards the side that there is consistency independent from my consciousness. And if so, those consistent things can be considered 'truth'.

I had a strange urge to write that, even though that was not what was asked in the topic of this thread, which I find a little uninteresting - "how important is truth to other people?"

Uniting together my crazy thoughts on what is 'truth' , and the real question, I was making a bet that without any importance of truth, there would be extreme chaos in the individual. Such a person couldn't just blatantly say "I have no interest in truth", when the very statement conflicts with itself. A person who really had no interest in truth would be so involved in fantasy as there could be no proper interface to the real world, making that person a total invalid and unable to meet any of his basic needs. So I think truth is very important to a lot of people, whether what they reason is actually completely accurate or not, at least there is a striving for it to meet their demands from their environment.

 

[bvanevery]

As Gottlob Frege once noted:

It is worthy of notice that the sentence "I smell the scent of violets" has the same content as the sentence "It is true that I smell the scent of violets". So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth.

Let's see if this multiquote thingy will work. Hm, nope. Had to do that manually.

Anyways, what if the speaker is lying? For either sentence. I don't think the sentences contain information about whether the speaker is lying or not. They are merely claims, and they could be true or false. Saying "it is true that..." has no value if we don't have a reason to believe someone is telling the truth or lying.

The sentences differ in the way the phrase "I smell the scent of violets" is encapsulated. In one case the speaker directly relates his experience. In the other case, he frames his experience as something to be evaluated. But again, these intents of speech are not contained in the sentences themselves. They are contained in the human behavior we commonly imagine to be occurring when such words are spoken.

 

[Matt3737]

Let's see if this multiquote thingy will work. Hm, nope. Had to do that manually.

Anyways, what if the speaker is lying? For either sentence. I don't think the sentences contain information about whether the speaker is lying or not. They are merely claims, and they could be true or false. Saying "it is true that..." has no value if we don't have a reason to believe someone is telling the truth or lying.

The sentences differ in the way the phrase "I smell the scent of violets" is encapsulated. In one case the speaker directly relates his experience. In the other case, he frames his experience as something to be evaluated. But again, these intents of speech are not contained in the sentences themselves. They are contained in the human behavior we commonly imagine to be occurring when such words are spoken.

True, which is why I think deflationary and redundancy theories go a bit too far. They do make an interesting point in demonstrating how 'truth' is a meta-statement about other statements or sometimes self-referentially which can make it redundant: It is true that this sentence is a true statement.

It misses the essential element of correspondence that proscribes the usage of 'truth' or 'falsity,' yet we can also take it too far when we hypostatize it beyond semantics.

 

[JimJambones]

I have no idea what truth really even means.

 

[JimJambones]

I do have a tendency to oppose dogma or theories that cannot be falsified. I somehow feel justified in thinking their "truths" are either too certain or too vague.

 

[bvanevery]

I have no idea what truth really even means.

No idea? In any context at all? Like if someone's lying to you, you don't know what that is?

 

[QuickTwist]

No idea? In any context at all? Like if someone's lying to you, you don't know what that is?

You know, you don't really strike me as much of an INTP, fwiw.

 

[bvanevery]

You know, you don't really strike me as much of an INTP, fwiw.

I was going to say the same thing about you earlier, but I refrained, 'cuz I'm P. Your tendency to communicate in a single sentence strikes me as rather un-N and likely S.

 

[QuickTwist]

I was going to say the same thing about you earlier, but I refrained, 'cuz I'm P. Your tendency to communicate in a single sentence strikes me as rather un-N and likely S.

I actually feel no shame for being an S or N or I or E or T or F or J or P actually.

 

[bvanevery]

For the record at this time I have no conclusion about what your MBTI is, QuickTwist.

I actually feel no shame for being an S or N or I or E or T or F or J or P actually.

I don't think anyone should be expected to feel shame about their MBTI. One of the selling points of the system is no type is regarded as inferior to others. This in contrast to, say, Five Factor Theory which has metrics for how much of a fucked up bad person you are. The MBTI was intended to slot people into different kinds of jobs so that the work wouldn't drive them crazy. As irritating as differently typed people may be to one another, they all have their place in the grand scheme of human endeavors. Compare "crop diversity".

Now having said that... if one were to show up in a forum for a specific MBTI, and then engage in behavior that is mostly irritating to people of that type, because one has a different type that is predictably irritating... well, I don't know how much anyone in a community should have to put up with that. On the one hand, a certain amount of diversity and challenge is good for people, lest people become comfortable in a mutual admiration society. On the other hand, some things get old and I know I sought this forum specifically to get away from certain things. Like if I thought someone was being seriously obstreperously "SJ" about stuff, I'd hope that the moderators would find a way to show that person the door. SJs are the worst IMO.

Similarly, I don't think I should go show up in a *S*J forum and start yanking their chains with things I know are going to bug them.