You may check out this definition of truth.... please give me your thoughts??

[Askarim]

1. There is only one Truth, anything that stems from it isn't the Truth.
2. Truth is eternal, even if everyone forgets the Truth tomorrow it will still be itself. Even if we changed its definition, its nature will still be the same.
3. Truth cannot be made anew, nor could it be taken apart, because there is nothing that is made except that it will be destroyed, and there is nothing that is destroyed except that it leaves behind inheritance. And truth can't be destroyed so it leaves behind no inheritance.
4. Truth is Unique, it by definition is different from falsehood.

 

[Black Rose]

1. The way thing work is the truth.
2. The way things work happens on different scales.
3. People have different views on how things work.
4. Because people are different the way things work is relative to their understanding.

>Falsehood.

contrarianism, cynicism, and sophistry are all methods of persons who:

don't give a ****

But it works to get them what they want.

 

[Askarim]

1. The way thing work is the truth.
2. The way things work happens on different scales.
3. People have different views on how things work.
4. Because people are different the way things work is relative to their understanding.

>Falsehood.

contrarianism, cynicism, and sophistry are all methods of persons who:

don't give a ****

But it works to get them what they want.

But the way things work can be contrasting, so how can it be the truth?

 

[dr froyd]

this is not a definition but a list of properties (of something you haven't defined)

 

[Askarim]

this is not a definition but a list of properties (of something you haven't defined)

I just defined the nature of truth. Can you tell me why you don't agree with it? I just want to keep the source hidden to make an objective debate.

 

[Black Rose]

1. The way thing work is the truth.
2. The way things work happens on different scales.
3. People have different views on how things work.
4. Because people are different the way things work is relative to their understanding.

>Falsehood.

contrarianism, cynicism, and sophistry are all methods of persons who:

don't give a ****

But it works to get them what they want.

But the way things work can be contrasting, so how can it be the truth?

The truth is that things work no matter if they are contrasting.

Anything that stops working can't do anything, all things that work do something.
If they don't work they cancel each other out and stop working.

 

[Askarim]

1. The way thing work is the truth.
2. The way things work happens on different scales.
3. People have different views on how things work.
4. Because people are different the way things work is relative to their understanding.

>Falsehood.

contrarianism, cynicism, and sophistry are all methods of persons who:

don't give a ****

But it works to get them what they want.

But the way things work can be contrasting, so how can it be the truth?

The truth is that things work no matter if they are contrasting.

Anything that stops working can't do anything, all things that work do something.
If they don't work they cancel each other out and stop working.

But isn't the definition of falsehood is it is contrasting? I am not trying to be judging, it is my opinion you are free to disagree, I just want to know the reason why?

 

[Askarim]

The one who voted 90% is me, count it out.

 

[Black Rose]

But isn't the definition of falsehood is it is contrasting? I am not trying to be judging, it is my opinion you are free to disagree, I just want to know the reason why?

That is why I posted this:

3. People have different views on how things work.
4. Because people are different the way things work is relative to their understanding.

A person's understanding of how things work does not necessarily mean that they work in accordance with reality. But reality works a certain way regardless of what we think. The contrast is between people not reality itself. Reality works fine by itself even with us impugning on it.

 

[Askarim]

But isn't the definition of falsehood is it is contrasting? I am not trying to be judging, it is my opinion you are free to disagree, I just want to know the reason why?

That is why I posted this:

3. People have different views on how things work.
4. Because people are different the way things work is relative to their understanding.

A person's understanding of how things work does not necessarily mean that they work in accordance with reality. But reality works a certain way regardless of what we think. The contrast is between people not reality itself. Reality works fine by itself even with us impugning on it.

That's why I want to know the reasoning behind your opinion . I am just trying know the truth, aren't you curious about it everything aside?
I think it is a really fascinating definition by itself, that's why I posted.

 

[Black Rose]

But isn't the definition of falsehood is it is contrasting? I am not trying to be judging, it is my opinion you are free to disagree, I just want to know the reason why?

That is why I posted this:

3. People have different views on how things work.
4. Because people are different the way things work is relative to their understanding.

A person's understanding of how things work does not necessarily mean that they work in accordance with reality. But reality works a certain way regardless of what we think. The contrast is between people not reality itself. Reality works fine by itself even with us impugning on it.

That's why I want to know the reasoning behind your opinion . I am just trying know the truth, aren't you curious about it everything aside?
I think it is a really fascinating definition by itself, that's why I posted.

The reason truth works is because, if it did not work is would not be understandable.

But sometimes what we understand is not the truth because that is not how reality works.

Thus truth and reality must correspond to each other or the results you get will fail in the ultimate sense.

 

[Askarim]

But isn't the definition of falsehood is it is contrasting? I am not trying to be judging, it is my opinion you are free to disagree, I just want to know the reason why?

That is why I posted this:

3. People have different views on how things work.
4. Because people are different the way things work is relative to their understanding.

A person's understanding of how things work does not necessarily mean that they work in accordance with reality. But reality works a certain way regardless of what we think. The contrast is between people not reality itself. Reality works fine by itself even with us impugning on it.

That's why I want to know the reasoning behind your opinion . I am just trying know the truth, aren't you curious about it everything aside?
I think it is a really fascinating definition by itself, that's why I posted.

The reason truth works is because, if it did not work is would not be understandable.

But sometimes what we understand is not the truth because that is not how reality works.

Thus truth and reality must correspond to each other or the results you get will fail in the ultimate sense.

Truth and falsehood both coexist in the reality at the same time and reality still works with both of them. So we can not say that reality is the truth or it is the falsehood either because truth and falsehood though exists together in reality, are distinguishable from each other by definition. So reality must be something other than truth and falsehood. Also it doesn't matter what we perceive. What is truth is truth and what is falsehood is falsehood. As I said, their definition may be perceived by us differently but their nature remains the same. I am just doing a humble approach to define them.
What is your definition that is what I want to know and if it is better than the above.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The definition seems pretty tautological in nature. I think for me truth has a fundamental direction. The sciences and certain religions portray truth as a legalism, something that is immutable and empirical, both in the metaphysical sense as well as the physical. For me, truth goes beyond categories themselves, beyond structures and frameworks.

Here's an example from film: in the movie the Kingdom of Heaven, Balian, who surrenders Jerusalem to Saladdin for the safety of its people, asks Saladdin: what is Jerusalem worth to you? And Saladdin replies: "Nothing". Saladdin walks a bit aways and he turns around, seemingly changing his answer, "everything".

What matters perhaps, above all else, is not necessarily the truths we find on earth, but the right recourse of action in the spiritual challenges we face within our own journeys.

In a sense, a spiritual take on Lelibniz's preestablished harmony.

 

[Black Rose]

What is your definition that is what I want to know and if it is better than the above.

The way things are, were, and will be, is the truth.

But our knowledge of this is limited.

 

[Cognisant]

Truth is a matter of degree.

Is the water hot? Depends on the context, I wash my hands with hot water but that hot is far too cold for cooking.

This is not because reality is subjective (though our perceptions of it are) rather because truth depends upon definitions which themselves depend upon context, we simply lack the means to express reality as it is, we only have words that convey an abstract representation.

Giving a definition to truth itself is a fool's errand as the truth is that which is real and thus the only way to define truth (other than with a circular argument) would be to somehow encapsulate that reality within the word. At which point the definition of truth would be that truth is truth where the word "truth" may as well be the true name of god for it contains all that ever is, was, will and could be.

 

[Askarim]

The definition seems pretty tautological in nature. I think for me truth has a fundamental direction. The sciences and certain religions portray truth as a legalism, something that is immutable and empirical, both in the metaphysical sense as well as the physical. For me, truth goes beyond categories themselves, beyond structures and frameworks.

Here's an example from film: in the movie the Kingdom of Heaven, Balian, who surrenders Jerusalem to Saladdin for the safety of its people, asks Saladdin: what is Jerusalem worth to you? And Saladdin replies: "Nothing". Saladdin walks a bit aways and he turns around, seemingly changing his answer, "everything".

What matters perhaps, above all else, is not necessarily the truths we find on earth, but the right recourse of action in the spiritual challenges we face within our own journeys.

In a sense, a spiritual take on Lelibniz's preestablished harmony.

I would have agreed except that I am convinced and committed to a path. We can never know for sure if we are on the right track. But it still doesn't justify our lack of knowledge and perception when we have a whole life to wonder. Having this much time to wonder about what matters most, we can't do justice to it no matter what if at the end we still don't find what is real when we also have the most amazing intelligence among all animals.

 

[Askarim]

Truth is a matter of degree.

Is the water hot? Depends on the context, I wash my hands with hot water but that hot is far too cold for cooking.

This is not because reality is subjective (though our perceptions of it are) rather because truth depends upon definitions which themselves depend upon context, we simply lack the means to express reality as it is, we only have words that convey an abstract representation.

Giving a definition to truth itself is a fool's errand as the truth is that which is real and thus the only way to define truth (other than with a circular argument) would be to somehow encapsulate that reality within the word. At which point the definition of truth would be that truth is truth where the word "truth" may as well be the true name of god for it contains all that ever is, was, will and could be.

I will still say to you please give some thoughts to the definition and if there is any better.

 

[dr froyd]

this is not a definition but a list of properties (of something you haven't defined)

I just defined the nature of truth. Can you tell me why you don't agree with it? I just want to keep the source hidden to make an objective debate.

it's just not a definition to me, but rather a list of properties that "Truth" is supposed to have.

if we say that something is unique, singular, indelible, indivisible, independent of an observer, etc, then it's a "definition" of a huge set of various things that share those properties. I guess you can call that set "Truth" but that set probably contains a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with truth (e.g. can you prove that your definition doesn't also include, say, Falsehood?)

it is possible to define something in terms of it characterizing properties, but that would have to be a much more specific and precise list of properties.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The definition seems pretty tautological in nature. I think for me truth has a fundamental direction. The sciences and certain religions portray truth as a legalism, something that is immutable and empirical, both in the metaphysical sense as well as the physical. For me, truth goes beyond categories themselves, beyond structures and frameworks.

Here's an example from film: in the movie the Kingdom of Heaven, Balian, who surrenders Jerusalem to Saladdin for the safety of its people, asks Saladdin: what is Jerusalem worth to you? And Saladdin replies: "Nothing". Saladdin walks a bit aways and he turns around, seemingly changing his answer, "everything".

What matters perhaps, above all else, is not necessarily the truths we find on earth, but the right recourse of action in the spiritual challenges we face within our own journeys.

In a sense, a spiritual take on Lelibniz's preestablished harmony.

I would have agreed except that I am convinced and committed to a path. We can never know for sure if we are on the right track. But it still doesn't justify our lack of knowledge and perception when we have a whole life to wonder. Having this much time to wonder about what matters most, we can't do justice to it no matter what if at the end we still don't find what is real when we also have the most amazing intelligence among all animals.

Empirical understanding, and the quality which we might call awe or wonder, is an emotion that's fleeting and like most worldly goods, lasts for a certain moment. I too was impressed by calculus and certain physical laws, as well as experiments and insights that were found in psychology or other philosophical or scientific endeavors. But as time passes wonder passes as well. Without direction, whatever technical knowledge of the world we have is no more than a dopamine rush for our own selective enjoyment. As time passes, we have to ask, to what ends does our scientfic understanding lead to?

 

[Askarim]

this is not a definition but a list of properties (of something you haven't defined)

I just defined the nature of truth. Can you tell me why you don't agree with it? I just want to keep the source hidden to make an objective debate.

it's just not a definition to me, but rather a list of properties that "Truth" is supposed to have.

if we say that something is unique, singular, indelible, indivisible, independent of an observer, etc, then it's a "definition" of a huge set of various things that share those properties. I guess you can call that set "Truth" but that set probably contains a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with truth (e.g. can you prove that your definition doesn't also include, say, Falsehood?)

it is possible to define something in terms of it characterizing properties, but that would have to be a much more specific and precise list of properties.

Thank you for your feedback, it gave me something to think about.

I know, the concepts used to define truth are all huge, but as they aren't wrong in their use to describe, it just means a longer definition in my opinion.

 

[Askarim]

The definition seems pretty tautological in nature. I think for me truth has a fundamental direction. The sciences and certain religions portray truth as a legalism, something that is immutable and empirical, both in the metaphysical sense as well as the physical. For me, truth goes beyond categories themselves, beyond structures and frameworks.

Here's an example from film: in the movie the Kingdom of Heaven, Balian, who surrenders Jerusalem to Saladdin for the safety of its people, asks Saladdin: what is Jerusalem worth to you? And Saladdin replies: "Nothing". Saladdin walks a bit aways and he turns around, seemingly changing his answer, "everything".

What matters perhaps, above all else, is not necessarily the truths we find on earth, but the right recourse of action in the spiritual challenges we face within our own journeys.

In a sense, a spiritual take on Lelibniz's preestablished harmony.

I would have agreed except that I am convinced and committed to a path. We can never know for sure if we are on the right track. But it still doesn't justify our lack of knowledge and perception when we have a whole life to wonder. Having this much time to wonder about what matters most, we can't do justice to it no matter what if at the end we still don't find what is real when we also have the most amazing intelligence among all animals.

Empirical understanding, and the quality which we might call awe or wonder, is an emotion that's fleeting and like most worldly goods, lasts for a certain moment. I too was impressed by calculus and certain physical laws, as well as experiments and insights that were found in psychology or other philosophical or scientific endeavors. But as time passes wonder passes as well. Without direction, whatever technical knowledge of the world we have is no more than a dopamine rush for our own selective enjoyment. As time passes, we have to ask, to what ends does our scientfic understanding lead to?

I agree. So we should never stop looking and if we find something higher than us then we should commit to it body and soul. If it is true then it will prove itself again and again and keep doing until our life ends otherwise we won't ever be successful. Commiting to it is the hardest part, there can be no lack in dedication. That's how we can come to truth.

 

[ZenRaiden]

External truth is in principal cohesive, because that is how we know for now.
Our brains are made that way.
Internal psychological truth is not cohesive, especially not for our subconscious mind.
Natural world is same, our interpretation of it can fluctuate wildly.
The world and how we know it is always through our fallible sense organs, but we have technology that can enhance this.
With each new concept we learn in life we can rearrange our interpretation of truth.
Though certain patterns in nature are recurring always with math precision like the maldebrot pattern or golden ratio or eulers number etc.
So there seems to be a certain order to universe that is always universal and never changes.
That does not mean we eventually find more sophisticated patterns in universe that will be in some complex way more intricate and more explanatory of our reality.

But for everyday life we can only rely on our bodies to tell us what is true.
And we have science of bias and science of technology to tell us that us humans are terrible at getting at and grasp of truth from our eyes unable to remember basic facts and details to our often misguided sense of time all the way to our inability to reason well, which are all humans "blessed with".
We have the biological machinery of slightly more cerebral ape.
Those few cubic centimeters of grey matter however gave us the ability to unlock civilization evolution tree so we had that extra cerebral punch to organize ourselves to live in massive mega communities called nations, just like ants, but unlike ants we also have more agency as individuals and more developmental power.

So these large nations ameboid creatures that sometimes swallow each-other and trade little chemicals with each-other or even parasite on each-other have a body made of individual units called humans just like cells in human body.

We are just a higher order patter in the universe with unique programming that involves some weird brain that allows us to sense the environment through analysis and synthesis of facts, instead of light, smell, touch or sound.

We can change our cerebral mass to fit the environment shape to fit the environment better and even change our instinctual programming to circumvent facts of nature our own default instincts cannot.