April 6, 2008
-
Nothing True is Knowable
New Topic(s)
1. Is Democracy a failure? (Topic to be discussed @ Socrates_Cafe)
2. What is Truth? (Topic to be discussed here)
Truth? I do not believe in it. It is too transitory to nail down. What is true for one person, is false for another. Even science only works in theory because truth is so elusive it seems to fade from any given statement with enough time and research.
An outright lie is something we know for certain to be untrue in so far as our experience tells us. A lie is intentionally misleading. By comparison then, in most instances, truth is merely something that we believe is correct. Believing the veracity of something only makes it true in our minds, not in reality.
Even the “truth” of reality has been called into question with the philosophies of materialism and idealism. Is reality merely matter or is it a construct of thought and belief? Pragmatism would say it doesn’t matter, do whatever works for you. Depending upon how you look at it, light is a wave or a particle. Reality may also be both matter and thought, but your outlook, and the way in which you interact with reality, will cause you to perceive it as more of one than the other. Matter manipulated by thought, or thought as a side effect of matter.
Truth then is a reflection of our perception of reality. Two people can be in agreement by approximation, but no one perceives reality exactly as someone else does. This is why it is impossible for two witnesses to a crime to agree on an exact description when talking to the police. The truth, like reality, is flexible because it is based on personal perception and interpretation. What is a shooting star for me is an alien space ship for someone else. I can dismiss the other person as a kook, but that doesn’t make my observations more true than theirs. This is especially true if my perception is second hand… the person who saw it says that it was a UFO, but I dismiss it as a shooting star without having seen it, (for the sake of argument) deciding it is a shooting star because I simply don’t believe in UFOs.
Truth then is a purely subjective ideal. There is no objective truth, or at least not one that is knowable to our finite perceptions. Science tells us that simply by observing something, we change it with our expectations. Truth is also subject to this rule. Though we can agree on a “truth” by consensus, when our understanding becomes altered through time and observation, this truth may change. If something was never true, but we believed it to be true at the time, was it still true when we believed it, but untrue in the present? And does it matter? If we believed something to be true, and used it as a template for our thoughts and actions, then it affected us and caused us to act in a certain way. In that sense, it is true in so far as it is the origins of our present circumstances. At one time, people thought the world was flat and that sailing too far would cause someone to fall off the edge. We now know this to be untrue, but for the people of that time period, it was a true statement and affected their actions. They simply did not sail too far from home. If the universe is based on idealism, then the simple idea that the earth might not be flat may have been enough to stop Columbus from sailing off an unknown edge. Perhaps up until Columbus (or the Vikings) sailed that far, the earth was flat. How are we to know? We weren’t there, and it is only our modern perceptions and beliefs that dictate the truth that the earth is “round” and always has been.
Because we cannot observe the unfiltered and whole truth, we cannot know it. Truth is not something humanity is familiar with. We have our beliefs, but truth is something we cannot own beyond our perceptions, which are flawed. An imperfect being which observes a perfect truth will not be able to perceive that truth in its entirety and so will have an imperfect understanding of the truth. Even belief, statement, and lie contains grains of truth, but even these were are unable to positively identify from our vantage point. It is not for us to say what is true or untrue. It is more important to decide what we will do with what we believe.
April 5th
This is the second Day of the Megalesia.
In China, this is Tomb Sweeping Day. This is also the feast day if the Chinese goddess, Kwan-Yin or KwanShi-Yin, goddess of mercy, tolerance, and understanding.
April 6th
This is the third Day of the Megalesia.
Comments (15)
All is perspective~yes. It seems to be in the Nature of Things—circle upon circle of cellular perspectives.
Many Blessings~
And that’s the truth! I agree. I suppose that’s why I seek and explore perspectives over truth, because it is far more interesting to hear someones perspective over the “collective” truth.
I’ve linked you – finally. Sorry about that
Your writing resonate well with my writing on the topic. What I appreciate in your entry is the link between truth and what we belief e.g. truth is what we belief to be true. That is something I have not touch on in my entry and which is food for me for further thought.
If it “not for us to say what is true or untrue”, than who?
Are All truths created equal, or might some be understood by we imperfect beings?
@tychecat - It is by the simple medium of our perception that we render any “truth” questionable. By perceiving, we interpret. It’s the interpretation that kinks things up. Oh sure, we can say this or that thing is true, but saying it is so doesn’t make it so. Someone else might have a different “interpretation” of the data and therefore a different truth. That is one of the reasons the word truth should Never be used in conjunction with religion. Religion is all about (personal) interpretation. The only way the word truth should be used is in determining whether someone is lying about something. In which case, the truth is opposite of whatever the liar reveals.
Supposing there is universal agreement about a “Truth”. Does that make it True – if only for that time of universal agreement?
Are there instead, different kinds of truth – universal, conditional, perceived, absolute?
I don’t know that you could get two people to agree on something, let alone a couple billion, so I’m sure universal truths would be few and far between. If you could find “unversal” truths, they’d be more akin to scientific theory (true until more data renders them untrue) and so might as well be called “conditional” rather than universal. Absolute truths? Another doubtful. Nothing can be proven absolutely. A perceived truth would be anything someone could swear to on a witness stand.
One can only speak for oneself in claiming truth unknowable. It is, in fact, quite knowable. Another before you knowing TRUTH gave you the capacity to realize you cannot know it. All language, music, mathematics, art, and physics stems from the first knowing of TRUTH. TRUTH is beyond collective or comparative. It is comprised of a set of absolute trance states that led to mans interpretation of his surroundings.
A universal truth is not one we need agree on. It is one that effects alike. You and I can stand before oncoming traffic. I can insist we are gonna die or at least hurt like hell due such foolishness. You can insist otherwise. The hospital or morgue determines the truth of it. Western philosophies have a history of dealing with Eastern truths through the lens of dialectics. The TRUTH is beyond the traditional Western discussion of truth, simply because it is tradition of logically proving what began in the East as super-logical. Only very few Westerners still have the gift of TRUTH. Those who do not experience it can not even begin to comprehend it through any logical means.
@BADBOYDOOMDADDY - I won’t say you’re wrong, but I don’t agree with you. And that’s okay. Because truth is a personal and perceptual thing and I just don’t perceive that what you say is true. Everyone has personal truths, so we don’t need to agree. No truth is universal however and wars have been fought to enforce them. If these truths were universal, no one would resist them because their veracity would be instantly perceived.
I do not agree that “all language, music, mathematics, art, and physics stems from first knowing of the truth.” If that were true, no one would speak a different language, all music and art would be the same, mathematics would always have contained 9 numbers and 0, instead of 7 (which is how it was before the 9 number system was adopted from the Arabic), and physics would be complete different coming from a base of 7 instead of 9. In short, nothing would change. It would all be the same. Because if the truth were so readily available, there would be no need for evolution, adaptation, or change.
“A universal truth is not one we need agree on.” Here too, it is all a matter of perception. The difference between idealism and materialism. Idealism states that if your will is strong enough, the subjective nature of the universe will be revealed. You can walk through walls or fly or have a car pass through you, because the universe is made of thought and belief, not matter. Materialism says the universe is physical and that’s it. If you stand in traffic, you’re a dead man. Because most people think the universe is made of matter, not thought, it would be my will against yours and six billion other people who think standing in traffic is a bad idea. Yes, I would probably get run over. If however, I could get all sic billion people on this planet to suspend their belief in the physical nature of the universe, then it’s possible, but unprovable that the car might pass through me or me through it. We control our reality as much as it controls us. The more people agree, the more solid their collective belief becomes.
I’m afraid that you and I will never agree on what is and is not truth because we both have a different understanding of what truth is. Please do not drag Eastern and Western thought into the morass. It is only muddying the waters. I meditate and have studied eastern religion as much as I’ve studied all religion. I am not discussing truth from a western or eastern perspective. I am discussing it from a philosophical perspective. Though some might argue, and I’d agree with them, that all religion is philosophy, you’ve clearly elevated your perception of your truth to a pedestal no one else can approach. In a philosophical arena however, where your points must be proven logically to carry any weight, your argument fall short and border on name-calling.
@harmony0stars - Again, this is due your inability to perceive TRUTH. TRUTH demonstrates change rather than defying it. For example, there are seven distinct notes in an octave before beginning again, providing the eighth; after a distinct interval providing a count of nine. The whole is a unit, giving a count of ten. It goes farther. There are two distinct intervals within an octave bringing things to a twelve base system (that a unit giving thirteen), but that gets into TRUTH well beyond you. None of this depends on your acceptance of it, anymore than oncoming traffic. Language follows the same natural progression as mathematics from music. Your opinion doesn’t change that. The similarities in languages, structures, approaches to life, collective super and subconscious, ecstatic states, etcetera are noted in all scientific fields, just as the glaring differences are among laymen. I have personally done research that follows this “TRUTH” back to extant higher primates other than human. Your not having access to some areas of knowledge does NOT diminish TRUTH evident to those who do.
@BADBOYDOOMDADDY - Well, I still don’t agree with you and I hope if you publish your research, that it is better thought out and less accusative than your comments. Just because I don’t perceive your truth, don’t assume that it’s my fault. You could just be wrong or your truth may only apply to you, as I’ve said before.
One should never assume that a personal truth is universal. That assumption doesn’t take into consideration the feelings and perceptions of the other six billion people on this planet. I doubt I am the only one who would disagree with you. Nor do I feel that everyone would agree with me. How lovely it is to not be part of the mainstream of thought, but rather to be unique in my perceptions as you are in yours. Let’s agree to disagree and you can stop trying to bully me with your perceived universal truth.
@harmony0stars - It is very much a failing on your part, as is bestowing ownership of truth on lil ol me. My personal truth is no more true than yours. Neither are you disagreeing with me. You are simply avoiding the issue raised. That issue is that the TRUTHs addressed by early Western schools of philosophy are measurable trance states that, through dialectics, Western minds were attempting to cope with. This is an historic fact. Now, the question can be raised whether these trance states truly exist…but science has settled that. They are measurable. You also are neglecting the commonalities of all world civilizations and the results of Carl Jung’s research into collective mind. One can certainly disagree with Jung’s conclusions. However none can deny the method nor result of the research. One would have to conclude that you are holding an opinion against all odds…as any man of strong FAITH would. I put no credence in such as faith. It is the root of all man’s grief.
You are mistaken, but as you say, arguing with someone who is unwilling to bend is a waste of time. Since you will not acknowledge my arguments as having any validity, this discussion is over. I cannot have a discussion with someone who can only see his own point of view.