Is truth a perception?

[Lardlad95]

The only way for the truth to be an actual unbiased truth is for that truth to be objective. However, humans are in no way shape or form objective creatures. Everyone of us here is subjective as hell and you all know it. I try to be objective, but I often find it extremmely difficult if not damn near impossible.

So then, is it really truth if you don't choose to accept it as the truth? If it comes down to the individual then they have the final say on what is true and what isn't, atleast speaking for themselves. So is truth something universal, or is it relative?

Speak to a die hard christian and they will tell you what their truth is, God, and no amount of evidence or rhetoric will convince them of other wise. IN their minds they know the truth.

Conversely is what your saying true simply because u believe it to be true, or because it really is true? Facts and fingures can be manipulated to fit whatever messege you like.

So I ask you, if humans are unable to find and objective truth because they themselves are subjective, is there any such thing as an objective truth?

[Nickademus]

possibly ..... there may or may not be an objective truth ...but human beings will never ever be able to grasp it because we are always subjective and cannot avoid that. but simply because we can't see what is objectively true doesn't mean it doesn't exist. but it also doesn't mean an objective truth does exist.... its an unknown and will always be an unknown ..... see the thread on sollipcism.

its similar as asking if a tree falls in the middle of a rainforest and no one is around tohear it, does it make a sound .... we will never really know. the best we can do is attempt to use our human (subjective) reasoning skills to attribute to a non-human and objective reality. while we continue to rationalize it, it doesn't mean that the event will follow the rational we expect/hope it to follow.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Kant provides somewhat of an answer to this question. He is extremely hard to read and thus explain but I'll throw in his views of space from an essay for example and hopefully it will show what I mean at the end.

According to Kant human knowledge must come about by the dual functioning of both sensibility and understanding. Thus he is stating that we gain knowledge through a union of intuition.


In the Transcendental Aesthetic we shall, therefore first isolate sensibility, taking away from it everything which the understanding thinks through its concepts, so that nothing may be left save empirical intuition. Secondly, we shall also separate from it everything which belongs to sensation, so that nothing may remain save pure intuition and the mere form of appearances which is all that sensibility can supply a priori.

Once he has completed these two acts of isolation Kant offers us ‘two pure forms of sensible intuition…namely space and time, corresponding to what Kant calls outer and inner sense respectively’ . Let us begin with space. The first aspect of space that Kant informs us of is that space is not empirical and secondly that it does not derive from experience. Space unlike objects is a concept that our senses are aware of, we have beforehand an innate understanding of space. We cannot imagine a lack of space but we can imagine space without objects. Thus since we would be unable to imagine of conceive of a world without space then the idea of space cannot have come from our sense or have derived from our experience. Thus space Kant insisted cannot be called empirical. Further Kant goes in an attempt to show that space cannot be defined as a general concept for space is one all embracing thing, there are no ‘sub spaces’ that could be said to fall into the concept of space. To conclude Kant has attempted to show that space is not empirical and that it cannot be called a general concept either.

So Kant can be said to have shown that our knowledge of space is based not on empirical intuition but on a priori intuition. In Kemps words:


this amounts to saying that spatial experience is a function of the human sensibility, our capacity for receiving sensations for objects outside us is so ordered that these objects are always perceived by us as extended in space.

Space is thus a necessary means for us in apprehending how things appear to us but does not necessarily have a relation to how things may be ‘in themselves’.

What I am trying to point out is Kant's objective subjectivity or universal subjectivity. We asll use the same means to determine what the world is like say and through our universal means of understanding the world we can determine what the world is.

[elijahcraig]

The only way for the truth to be an actual unbiased truth is for that truth to be objective. However, humans are in no way shape or form objective creatures. Everyone of us here is subjective as hell and you all know it. I try to be objective, but I often find it extremmely difficult if not damn near impossible.

Let’s try an example.

Let’s say we both see something, make it a chair. Can we agree that that chair is a chair? If so, then it is objective. It is no longer merely subjective.

If you can see a chair as a chair, you should be able to do this with nearly everything.

Your argument falls dead to anyone who isn’t just being stubborn.


So then, is it really truth if you don't choose to accept it as the truth?

If 99 people agree the chair is a chair, and 1 person disagrees, the truth is that the chair is a chair and that 1 person is wrong.


If it comes down to the individual then they have the final say on what is true and what isn't, atleast speaking for themselves. So is truth something universal, or is it relative?

Universal.

Relative truth can certainly be established. But anyone who claims “That is not a chair,” will be laughed out of the room if they are serious.

Universal truth for example:

Everyone can agree that the chair is a chair. Everyone can agree that a book is a book. Everyone can agree that I am typing on a computer.

The problem is that there are complex truths which the human mind disagree on when they are investigated. This is called interpretation of truth.


Speak to a die hard christian and they will tell you what their truth is, God, and no amount of evidence or rhetoric will convince them of other wise. IN their minds they know the truth.

Why does it matter what a person wants to recognize as truth?

God is a complex truth question. And no amount of human inquiry will decide most likely.

But someone convinced of a truth such as a die hard christian is not anyone to hold up as a holder of the truth, but one indoctrinated by dogma.

Speak to a die hard christian and they will tell you what their truth is, God, and no amount of evidence or rhetoric will convince them of other wise. IN their minds they know the truth.

Conversely is what your saying true simply because u believe it to be true, or because it really is true? Facts and fingures can be manipulated to fit whatever messege you like.

So I ask you, if humans are unable to find and objective truth because they themselves are subjective, is there any such thing as an objective truth?


You can also use Kant's line to defend the point.

[Nickademus]

possibly ..... there may or may not be an objective truth ...but human beings will never ever be able to grasp it because we are always subjective and cannot avoid that. but simply because we can't see what is objectively true doesn't mean it doesn't exist. but it also doesn't mean an objective truth does exist.... its an unknown and will always be an unknown ..... see the thread on sollipcism.

its similar as asking if a tree falls in the middle of a rainforest and no one is around tohear it, does it make a sound .... we will never really know. the best we can do is attempt to use our human (subjective) reasoning skills to attribute to a non-human and objective reality. while we continue to rationalize it, it doesn't mean that the event will follow the rational we expect/hope it to follow.

[God of Imperia]

the truth is the truth, it's how you interpretate it that is subjective ...

[Dawood]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:57 AM
Speak to a die hard christian and they will tell you what their truth is, God, and no amount of evidence or rhetoric will convince them of other wise. IN their minds they know the truth.
No, they don't know the truth, they have FAITH, the eternal curse of humanity.
If you just replace faith with facts they should be fine.

[God of Imperia]

What about faith in a person? Should that also be replaced by facts? Why can't someone believe in a god (as long as it keeps with believing and not killing or forcing others to believe), why is that wrong? Some people need to believe that there is this father like person that watches us all, that there is life after dead.

[Eastside Revolt]

"Let’s say we both see something, make it a chair. Can we agree that that chair is a chair? If so, then it is objective. It is no longer merely subjective.

If you can see a chair as a chair, you should be able to do this with nearly everything.

Your argument falls dead to anyone who isn’t just being stubborn."

Irony

Well if you think about, may it not be the only one who sees the subject as more or other, than a chair, who is being objective?

"If 99 people agree the chair is a chair, and 1 person disagrees, the truth is that the chair is a chair and that 1 person is wrong."

Now what if that chair is actually a............... weapon for instance, would that not entail an undifinable thruth?

[God of Imperia]

What do you mean? If 99 people say that it is a weapon and 1 not then I guess it is a weapon, but what is your point?

[Eastside Revolt]

My point is that the "chair" could be seen as a subject for sitting upon, or for smashing with, there is no objective truth about the chair.

[Invader Zim]

It depends, you can get facts. For example 1+1=2 is true. God does/does not exist is true depending on which you believe.

[elijahcraig]

Then that would be a debate on what the chair is used for. The chair is a chair no matter if it is used to hit someone with or sit on. Just as a sword is a sword whether you choose to stab someone with it or keep it in a collection in your den.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:10 PM
It depends, you can get facts. For example 1+1=2 is true. God does/does not exist is true depending on which you believe.
No, truth equals fact, for something to be a fact it must be possible to PROVE it.


What about faith in a person? Should that also be replaced by facts?

How do you mean? Like trust?


Why can't someone believe in a god (as long as it keeps with believing and not killing or forcing others to believe), why is that wrong?

Why can't I believe that frogs can talk? Because it obiously is not true. If I believe that I am a fool. However it is not wrong, just bloody stupid.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:02 PM




What I am trying to point out is Kant's objective subjectivity or universal subjectivity. We asll use the same means to determine what the world is like say and through our universal means of understanding the world we can determine what the world is.

The same means? How so? Do not our previous experiences affect our perceptions of the world? At the beginning of life we al start off with the same mans, but those means adapt to our experiences and thus affect how we view new experiences. THe same means don't last for very long.

Oh and as far as the rest of your post, 'll reply to it later when i find my notes on Kant that I have somehwere in my room

[Lardlad95]

Let’s try an example.

Let’s say we both see something, make it a chair. Can we agree that that chair is a chair? If so, then it is objective. It is no longer merely subjective.

If you can see a chair as a chair, you should be able to do this with nearly everything.

But it's only a chair because the majority of society has decided it's a chair. Just because the majority decides that it is true does that make it true? THe majority of the world believes in some type of afterlife or spiritual realm, does that mean that hell really does exist? THe majority of AMerica is christian, does that mean Jesus was the son of God?


If 99 people agree the chair is a chair, and 1 person disagrees, the truth is that the chair is a chair and that 1 person is wrong.

That isn't objective truth though. When the majority of the world believed that nymphs inhabited trees did that make it true?


Relative truth can certainly be established. But anyone who claims “That is not a chair,” will be laughed out of the room if they are serious.

Or if burned at the stake for heresy like so many nonconformists havebeen in the past


Everyone can agree that the chair is a chair. Everyone can agree that a book is a book. Everyone can agree that I am typing on a computer.

The majority can, but the majority has been wrong before


God is a complex truth question. And no amount of human inquiry will decide most likely.

True




But someone convinced of a truth such as a die hard christian is not anyone to hold up as a holder of the truth, but one indoctrinated by dogma.

Untrue. Alot are indoctrinated. But some people come to it through searching inside of themselves.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Dawood+Apr 3 2004, 11:08 PM--> (Dawood @ Apr 3 2004, 11:08 PM)
[email protected] 3 2004, 11:10 PM
It depends, you can get facts. For example 1+1=2 is true. God does/does not exist is true depending on which you believe.
No, truth equals fact, for something to be a fact it must be possible to PROVE it.


What about faith in a person? Should that also be replaced by facts?

How do you mean? Like trust?


Why can't someone believe in a god (as long as it keeps with believing and not killing or forcing others to believe), why is that wrong?

Why can't I believe that frogs can talk? Because it obiously is not true. If I believe that I am a fool. However it is not wrong, just bloody stupid. [/b]
No, truth equals fact

Sinse when? Truth is a belief, if you are an athiest you believe that it is true to say god doent exist. But you cant prove it, but you still think of it as truth.

[elijahcraig]

The same means? How so? Do not our previous experiences affect our perceptions of the world? At the beginning of life we al start off with the same mans, but those means adapt to our experiences and thus affect how we view new experiences. THe same means don't last for very long.

Oh and as far as the rest of your post, 'll reply to it later when i find my notes on Kant that I have somehwere in my room

I think you should just read up on Kant as opposed to us having some long drawn out debate over something you’re a little fuzzy on or whatever.


But it's only a chair because the majority of society has decided it's a chair. Just because the majority decides that it is true does that make it true?

What do you mean, “society has decided it’s a chair”?

A chair is a chair. Or, for another example, the Tree is a Tree. All cultures have the tree, and all humanity can testify that a tree is a tree, by whatever name they call it.

Language is a representation of a thought, it doesn’t matter what any one culture has designated it’s name to be. The idea behind it is the same. Although some have constructed other uses for trees, other gods, other whatevers, it is still a tree—despite what other functions they assign to it.


THe majority of the world believes in some type of afterlife or spiritual realm, does that mean that hell really does exist? THe majority of AMerica is christian, does that mean Jesus was the son of God?

The problem is as follows:

Simply claiming something does not make it true. What makes a proposition true? Proof. You can prove that the tree is a tree—you cannot prove the idea that god exists. You can trace the origins of the belief in god to their anthropological origins though and most likely show why the belief arose.


That isn't objective truth though. When the majority of the world believed that nymphs inhabited trees did that make it true?

Certainly not. The reason that you can claim that the chair is a chair or the tree is a tree is because there is some proof.

The belief that nymphs populated trees as some sort of deity has been examined by Frazer at length in his “Golden Bough,” (nearly 800 pages of tracing such belief), and has been followed up by countless others.

The idea of the soul is the same—how the evolution of the soul as an idea was transformed by different epochs, etc. The idea of the soul traces back to attempting to understand the functions of the body. Primitives believed that a smaller person lived inside themselves, materially. And could escape. Why did they believe this? Because they had no way to analyze the inner-workings of the body. We now do. Technology destroys many beliefs in “truth.” Or, should I say—waters these beliefs down. For example, the anthropomorphization of the god from the sun to the tree to the godman to the external god etc. The idea of the external god arose because of the increasing knowledge of the tribes, and because of survival needs. For instance, in India (I don’t remember the exact province, many are sited in various places of comparative studies), the Man at the head of the tribe was labeled the Leader, Godman, King, Ruler, etc. Every ruler was to be killed after one year of rule. This occurred because existence was believed to pass away if the godman—in which existence was tied up—grew old or died. So they killed him every year in order to make sure this did not happen. Well, since the Ruler also had religious power, one king, after finally realizing that this belief probably wasn’t true, or either he just didn’t want to die, expanded the term of the king to 12 years. And even after 12 years of rule, he made it where those who had to kill him and become the new Godman, had to make it through the entire standing army (primitive militia) in order to kill him. And if he did not (the group of young men were supposed to kill him and then fight it out to see who was king, giving the basis for Freud’s dialectic), the King retained term for another 12 years. This is an example of the watering down of belief in societies. The externalizing of the god was the result of the vegetation ceremonies gradually losing meaning, and later generations inventing gods and personalities to go behind the idea of the vegetation coming and going—spring and summer winter and fall, etc. This was an attempt to rationalize the ceremony. The may pole is an example. The societies eventually sacrificed animals instead of humans, and eventually symbolic things like drinking “the blood of Christ” instead of actually committing an act of eating boar or slaughtering the boar (such as the Attis/Adonis/Osiris/Dionysus myths).

That is tracing “truth” through the historical process.

You can’t trace the concept of “The tree is a tree” to anywhere other than primitive language differentiations and such. The tree has always been a tree and always will.


Or if burned at the stake for heresy like so many nonconformists havebeen in the past

This makes no sense in any context of reasonable debate. The two things you compare are completely incomparable.


The majority can, but the majority has been wrong before

Can you give me an example of such a thing EVER being disputed? This isn’t a debate on the unknown—we know the chair is a chair. Whether God exists is a matter of opinion.

The tree being a tree is an elementary truth which no one rejects.


Untrue. Alot are indoctrinated. But some people come to it through searching inside of themselves.

There is no way to be a die hard christian if you have any grounding in reality. Those who are: are either bigoted and close minded, or merely die hard conformists.

[dark fairy]

:unsure: I didn't read what people wrote but here's my take on it... someone looks at something, then someone else looks at something and it looks different...it is not that one person is lying it is just that their truths are different and this can ba applied in more important circumstances...such as the life and death of someone... for some it could be a good thing truely and from some a tragety...


man i can't spell... :unsure:

there are different ways of looking at this... :unsure:

[God of Imperia]

I can't believe that half of the post in this topic are about the fact that a chair is a chair ... The truth itself is a objective fact, but does that mean something? truth has many many versions, and some might be true, others false, it merely how you interpretate your truth. It is almsot impossible to prove what the truth is, it is easyier to prove that something is not true...

[Dawood]

Originally posted by Enigma+Apr 4 2004, 02:53 AM--> (Enigma @ Apr 4 2004, 02:53 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:08 PM

[email protected] 3 2004, 11:10 PM
It depends, you can get facts. For example 1+1=2 is true. God does/does not exist is true depending on which you believe.
No, truth equals fact, for something to be a fact it must be possible to PROVE it.


What about faith in a person? Should that also be replaced by facts?

How do you mean? Like trust?


Why can't someone believe in a god (as long as it keeps with believing and not killing or forcing others to believe), why is that wrong?

Why can't I believe that frogs can talk? Because it obiously is not true. If I believe that I am a fool. However it is not wrong, just bloody stupid.
No, truth equals fact

Sinse when? Truth is a belief, if you are an athiest you believe that it is true to say god doent exist. But you cant prove it, but you still think of it as truth. [/b]
Truth is not a belief, it is an objective fact. Then there is the matter of people THINKING they know the truth, but that is another matter.

[God of Imperia]

That's what I said no?

[Lardlad95]

A chair is a chair. Or, for another example, the Tree is a Tree. All cultures have the tree, and all humanity can testify that a tree is a tree, by whatever name they call it.Language is a representation of a thought, it doesn’t matter what any one culture has designated it’s name to be. The idea behind it is the same. Although some have constructed other uses for trees, other gods, other whatevers, it is still a tree—despite what other functions they assign to it

Theres a problem though. As far as the chair goes, humans created the thing, then assigned a function to it. Or actualley, they created with a function in mind. So it's hard to seperate this object from it's function. There is a function to something you create. There is not a function to something that exists unto it's self. Chairs do not evolve, there was a purpose in mind for the chair. So what the chair does is a key part of how you view the chair. The chair is a chair because we decided that it does that we think a chair is supposed to do. Humans create things with a purpose in mind, nd purposes change from person to person.

We had no hand in creating trees, granted we purposely grow them now so they serve a function, but we did not create it. When trees first came into being there was no purpose for them, so we can distance them from concepts such as function.



Simply claiming something does not make it true. What makes a proposition true? Proof. You can prove that the tree is a tree—you cannot prove the idea that god exists. You can trace the origins of the belief in god to their anthropological origins though and most likely show why the belief arose.

When people say prove, they really mean prove to other people. I can prove to myself that magic pixies inhabit my mousepad. Why? Because to me my arguements make sense, the "proof" i claim to have is real proof in my mind. Theists can prove to themselves and other theists that god exists. The arguements and "evidence" are acceptable to them. However the "evidence" they show you isn't satisfactory.

"Proof" depends on your definition of what proof is. To someone inclined to believe in god, testimonials of God's divine internvention in someone's life is proof. The problem is that you want empirical proof, so what you would consider proof isn't the same as what a theist would consider proof.

The only reason anyone believes anything is because they find some reason for it to be true. To the primitive man there was a proof of a deity's existence. What was that proof? "No other explanation". To them that was proof. To us it isn't, and since it isn't we wouldn't believe it. If I saw proof that capitalism was a good system then I would be locked away in the cappie cage. Problem is 1) I don't see proof, and 2) the proof that cappies claim to have isn't proof to me. People don't believe in God for no reason. They have a reason, that reason involves proof. But that doesn't mean that the proof is necassarily good or even reasonable.

And I agree that the concept of god can be traced back to primitive people. But I only agree because the "evidence" used to prove this point is what I would consider real evidence.


Certainly not. The reason that you can claim that the chair is a chair or the tree is a tree is because there is some proof.

I would tend to agree. But only because I see scientific proof as a valid type of proof.


The belief that nymphs populated trees as some sort of deity has been examined by Frazer at length in his “Golden Bough,” (nearly 800 pages of tracing such belief), and has been followed up by countless others.

I'll go get that book.


The idea of the soul is the same—how the evolution of the soul as an idea was transformed by different epochs, etc. The idea of the soul traces back to attempting to understand the functions of the body. Primitives believed that a smaller person lived inside themselves, materially. And could escape. Why did they believe this? Because they had no way to analyze the inner-workings of the body. We now do. Technology destroys many beliefs in “truth.” Or, should I say—waters these beliefs down. For example, the anthropomorphization of the god from the sun to the tree to the godman to the external god etc. The idea of the external god arose because of the increasing knowledge of the tribes, and because of survival needs. For instance, in India (I don’t remember the exact province, many are sited in various places of comparative studies), the Man at the head of the tribe was labeled the Leader, Godman, King, Ruler, etc. Every ruler was to be killed after one year of rule. This occurred because existence was believed to pass away if the godman—in which existence was tied up—grew old or died. So they killed him every year in order to make sure this did not happen. Well, since the Ruler also had religious power, one king, after finally realizing that this belief probably wasn’t true, or either he just didn’t want to die, expanded the term of the king to 12 years. And even after 12 years of rule, he made it where those who had to kill him and become the new Godman, had to make it through the entire standing army (primitive militia) in order to kill him. And if he did not (the group of young men were supposed to kill him and then fight it out to see who was king, giving the basis for Freud’s dialectic), the King retained term for another 12 years. This is an example of the watering down of belief in societies. The externalizing of the god was the result of the vegetation ceremonies gradually losing meaning, and later generations inventing gods and personalities to go behind the idea of the vegetation coming and going—spring and summer winter and fall, etc. This was an attempt to rationalize the ceremony. The may pole is an example. The societies eventually sacrificed animals instead of humans, and eventually symbolic things like drinking “the blood of Christ” instead of actually committing an act of eating boar or slaughtering the boar (such as the Attis/Adonis/Osiris/Dionysus myths).

That is tracing “truth” through the historical process

I don't disagree. But I doubt that the people who actualley believed each one of these concepts would agree with you. We are exaimining their actions from the exteriror. What you said could either be true and these people changed their beliefs conciously as a result of chaning times, which I agree with. OR, these people did see these ceremonies and beliefs as true and te connection you made is circumstantial. The people that originally changed these concepts and actions probably did change them conciously, but I"m fairly sure that the average believer didn't.

The person who wrote Hebrews probably did it solely to get people to have faith in their religion, knowing damn well what he said was a load of BS. But I know that the average person who ischristian doesn't view the book as a tool to perpetuate the faith. They view it as something that uplifts them and secures them in their beliefs.

So basically what I'm saying is that yes these ideas change for a reason, but it's only the person who starts the change who sees the reason and does the change on purpose. The king who switched the time limit to 12 years knew why he did it, he didn't want to be killed. But did the average person see it that way?


You can’t trace the concept of “The tree is a tree” to anywhere other than primitive language differentiations and such. The tree has always been a tree and always will.

Once again though trees lack a function. Religions do have a function as they were created. So you are right, you can't trace it the same as you would a religious concept.


This makes no sense in any context of reasonable debate. The two things you compare are completely incomparable.

you know what I meant. I'm not saying that someone who denies that a chair is a chair will be burned at the stake. What I'm saying is that people who don't conform to what the majority believe are ostracized, usually.


Can you give me an example of such a thing EVER being disputed? This isn’t a debate on the unknown—we know the chair is a chair. Whether God exists is a matter of opinion.

The tree being a tree is an elementary truth which no one rejects.

I never says it has, I"m saying it could be. If someone could empirically prove a tree isn't a tree, as odd as that sounds, then more power to them. It's a tree because up until now nothing disputes the current arguement that it is a tree.

JUst because no one has doesn't mean that it can't or wont be. I'd fairly sure no one would as the matter is irrelevant. But simply because we've never seen a valid arguement saying that a tree isn't a trree doesn't mean that someone couldn't present one.


There is no way to be a die hard christian if you have any grounding in reality. Those who are: are either bigoted and close minded, or merely die hard conformists.

In your reality. And honestly you are the one who is being closed minded and bigoted. You assume that anyone who is a christian is a bigot, or doesn't listen to anyone else, or is a conformist. Honestly you need to stop forming such prejudices about people.

[elijahcraig]

Theres a problem though. As far as the chair goes, humans created the thing, then assigned a function to it. Or actualley, they created with a function in mind. So it's hard to seperate this object from it's function. There is a function to something you create. There is not a function to something that exists unto it's self. Chairs do not evolve, there was a purpose in mind for the chair. So what the chair does is a key part of how you view the chair. The chair is a chair because we decided that it does that we think a chair is supposed to do. Humans create things with a purpose in mind, nd purposes change from person to person.

No. Chairs are for sitting. Any other secondary function does not change the fact that it is a chair.

It does not matter whether we “invented” the chair or its function. It only matters that it is universally accepted that the chair is a chair.


When people say prove, they really mean prove to other people. I can prove to myself that magic pixies inhabit my mousepad. Why? Because to me my arguements make sense, the "proof" i claim to have is real proof in my mind. Theists can prove to themselves and other theists that god exists. The arguements and "evidence" are acceptable to them. However the "evidence" they show you isn't satisfactory.

"Proof" depends on your definition of what proof is. To someone inclined to believe in god, testimonials of God's divine internvention in someone's life is proof. The problem is that you want empirical proof, so what you would consider proof isn't the same as what a theist would consider proof.

I also don’t care what the Insane man in the asylum thinks is true—the point is that he is insane, and has no proof or right to truth that “god told him to do this,” just as the Christian has no right to truth in saying “God exists.” The fact is that whether God exists is not an answerable question. What someone claims to be a “truth” does not make it a truthful thing, but a mere opinion. Truth has absolutely nothing to do with whether some arrogant jackass is going to claim he has all the “answers” to life.

BTW, what you are engaging in here—just to warn you—is very much INTELLECTUAL MASTURBATION. At least in this time in the world.


The only reason anyone believes anything is because they find some reason for it to be true. To the primitive man there was a proof of a deity's existence. What was that proof? "No other explanation". To them that was proof.

But we now know that they had no access to truth. They had a lack of proof, not “proof.” They thought people lived inside them. We now can study the insides of person and we know that is not true.


To us it isn't, and since it isn't we wouldn't believe it. If I saw proof that capitalism was a good system then I would be locked away in the cappie cage. Problem is 1) I don't see proof, and 2) the proof that cappies claim to have isn't proof to me. People don't believe in God for no reason. They have a reason, that reason involves proof. But that doesn't mean that the proof is necassarily good or even reasonable.

Reason has nothing to do with it. Lack of reason does.


And I agree that the concept of god can be traced back to primitive people. But I only agree because the "evidence" used to prove this point is what I would consider real evidence.

SO now we’re picking and choosing our objective truths?


So basically what I'm saying is that yes these ideas change for a reason, but it's only the person who starts the change who sees the reason and does the change on purpose. The king who switched the time limit to 12 years knew why he did it, he didn't want to be killed. But did the average person see it that way?

Look: I know you’re attempting to prove a point, but you have to accept the obvious fact behind this: It did not matter what the people thought at the time. It matters what the facts were. If the King did this and had sole control over the population, then he manipulated the population for his gain. The TRUTH is that the King did not want to die, and therefore destroyed any notion of their primitivism from being true. The TRUTH is that the people were fooled.


Once again though trees lack a function. Religions do have a function as they were created. So you are right, you can't trace it the same as you would a religious concept.

Then how do you defend your claim that “truth is a perception”? If this were so, we could all “perceive” trees as differently as we perceive the existence of God. But, obviously, we do not—therefore Truth is not a perception in the way you say, but can be objective.


you know what I meant. I'm not saying that someone who denies that a chair is a chair will be burned at the stake. What I'm saying is that people who don't conform to what the majority believe are ostracized, usually.

I agree completely. But this is very much like what Chomsky thinks of those who deny Human Nature. Because the concept of Human nature has been used to label it with myths such as “innate greed, capitalism,” etc., many Leftist philosophers flat out began to deny Human nature. You are denying the ability to attain objective truth because people have been persecuted for holding minority views. We now know that views should not be discarded. But we also know that the truth is not a complete individual perception—and never has been. ALL individual concepts of truth have been either a) descended from past beliefs (thereby traditionalized in the society), b) influenced by a small strand of thought usually in philosophy or whatever. For example, Joyce believed as he did because of many influences. This is not to say it is not an individual perception to some extent. But to go to the extreme of collective truth or individual truth is, I think, a mistake. And completely foundationless.


In your reality. And honestly you are the one who is being closed minded and bigoted. You assume that anyone who is a christian is a bigot, or doesn't listen to anyone else, or is a conformist. Honestly you need to stop forming such prejudices about people.

Joseph Campbell has a quote very much similar to the one I gave you. You should look him up.

No, I accept many Christian forms of thought. I love reading Aquinas, Augustine, etc. I also like Gnostic forms of Christianity.

Why do I dislike Christian fundamentalists? I’ve had my personal experiences. I also know that most people are very much of the sheepherd nature and accept any little thing that comes along. And to assume I am prejudiced towards people who are Christian is just stupid. I am prejudiced towards people who merely accept ignorant traditionalist literal interpretations without any question. Half the country thinks the world was created 6,000 years ago. Why? Lack of control over their own minds. Any investigation proves fundamentalist Christianity wrong.

I like Johnny Cash—he was extremely Christian, as well as Bob Dylan. But do you know why I like them? Because they weren’t moronic Sheep.

Period.

[Lardlad95]

No. Chairs are for sitting. Any other secondary function does not change the fact that it is a chair.

It does not matter whether we “invented” the chair or its function. It only matters that it is universally accepted that the chair is a chair.

If you are saying that we can all agree that Object X is indeed an object even if I believe that Object X is really Object Y then fine. We would agree that an object does exist. Though some people think that there isn't even an object at all, only an elaborate illusion. However the fact that there is an object does not mean that the object in question is object x, it means that it's an object, and this object could be object y,h,k or z depending on who you are speaking to.

Also the matter of invention does play a role in how we view an object. Anything you create is created with a purpose in mind. If I build something and say it's a hammer, and I created it, then to me it's a hammer because I built it to be a hammer. Even if what I built looks like and could function as a chair.


I also don’t care what the Insane man in the asylum thinks is true—the point is that he is insane, and has no proof or right to truth that “god told him to do this,” just as the Christian has no right to truth in saying “God exists.” The fact is that whether God exists is not an answerable question. What someone claims to be a “truth” does not make it a truthful thing, but a mere opinion. Truth has absolutely nothing to do with whether some arrogant jackass is going to claim he has all the “answers” to life.

An opinion is an assertion that isn't based on facts. But like I said, to the christian they do have proof. They just happen to interpret the "proof" in a diffrent way then you would. So either factual truth depends on the facts you are looking at, and how you look at them. Or most things in life are opinions, based on what some would call facts,and others would call lies.




BTW, what you are engaging in here—just to warn you—is very much INTELLECTUAL MASTURBATION. At least in this time in the world.

Well regular masturbation is boring, me, me and my hand are having relationship problems.


But we now know that they had no access to truth. They had a lack of proof, not “proof.” They thought people lived inside them. We now can study the insides of person and we know that is not true.

The lack of proof was proof to them. They had no other explanation, thus they figured that the only option was something mystical. You are right, now we know that beings don't live inside us, but they didn't. And even still, I'm sure they would have come up with some way to call our findings lies. Mainly because you can't introduce knew knowledge to someone so simple in such a way. KNowledge is a compelation of findings over time. I wouldn't be able to understand reality television if I didn't know what television was. Thus those primitive people couldn't understand that we are full of organs, if they didn't know about modern science.

Like I said, I never thought the primitive people had good proof. But the lack of proof was proof to them.


SO now we’re picking and choosing our objective truths?

All i'm saying is that how I view things would lead me to believe science more than religion in 9 out of 10 things. Why? Because the type of proof that scientists use is what I would consider as real proof. If I was a religious man then I wouldn't view scientific proof as real proof.


Look: I know you’re attempting to prove a point, but you have to accept the obvious fact behind this: It did not matter what the people thought at the time. It matters what the facts were. If the King did this and had sole control over the population, then he manipulated the population for his gain. The TRUTH is that the King did not want to die, and therefore destroyed any notion of their primitivism from being true. The TRUTH is that the people were fooled.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but you are looking at it from 1) the outside looking in and 2) you are looking at the reason for the change. The only reason we can look at the reason for the change is because we can look back on history. However believers of any particular group don't have that advantage. So I'd rather look at the general believer as opposed to the reason for the change, cuz we all know what that reason was.




Then how do you defend your claim that “truth is a perception”? If this were so, we could all “perceive” trees as differently as we perceive the existence of God. But, obviously, we do not—therefore Truth is not a perception in the way you say, but can be objective.

I just said that you couldn't trace it the same as you would religion. I never said you couldn't do it at all. How you would do it, I'm not sure, frankly I wouldn't care enough to try. However I would never rule out the possibility of it being done. The overwhelming majority of people on earth all agree on what a tree is. But that doesn't mean it is, or will be the only perception. It's highly unlikely that someone would develop a different perception. But there is no doubt in my mind that it could be done.


I agree completely. But this is very much like what Chomsky thinks of those who deny Human Nature. Because the concept of Human nature has been used to label it with myths such as “innate greed, capitalism,” etc., many Leftist philosophers flat out began to deny Human nature. You are denying the ability to attain objective truth because people have been persecuted for holding minority views. We now know that views should not be discarded. But we also know that the truth is not a complete individual perception—and never has been. ALL individual concepts of truth have been either a) descended from past beliefs (thereby traditionalized in the society), b) influenced by a small strand of thought usually in philosophy or whatever. For example, Joyce believed as he did because of many influences. This is not to say it is not an individual perception to some extent. But to go to the extreme of collective truth or individual truth is, I think, a mistake. And completely foundationless.

I see what you are saying, and to a certain extent I agree. I'm not saying "personal truth" to mean that we all have our own individual concept of the truth. I simply meant that the truth isn't one definate thing, it's many things to many people. Even if our views are influenced by outside forces, they are still a perception. They are still based on how we view things. I don't necassarily deny objective truth because of the persecution of the minority. I don't believe in objective truth, because the way at which you arrive at a conclusion is based on how you view things. I've never seen anything in my life that someone couldn't disagree with, and provide proof for. Now this proof may be extremely crappy, but then again if I was in that person's shoes there would be a reason i believed the crappy proof.

I do agree though that you can not go to the extremes of individual or collective truth when analyzing tthe subject. though it's hard to have this dicussion unless we use examples invovling groups or individuals.


Joseph Campbell has a quote very much similar to the one I gave you. You should look him up.

I will, and thank you by the way for all the people and books you've given me to look up. I look forward to reading them


No, I accept many Christian forms of thought. I love reading Aquinas, Augustine, etc. I also like Gnostic forms of Christianity.

We have something in common.


Why do I dislike Christian fundamentalists? I’ve had my personal experiences. I also know that most people are very much of the sheepherd nature and accept any little thing that comes along. And to assume I am prejudiced towards people who are Christian is just stupid. I am prejudiced towards people who merely accept ignorant traditionalist literal interpretations without any question. Half the country thinks the world was created 6,000 years ago. Why? Lack of control over their own minds. Any investigation proves fundamentalist Christianity wrong.

Your right I shouldn't have assumed, I'm sorry. As far as people who accept things solely because they are told to, I agree with you, I don't approve of that either. I've spoken with so many fundamentalists in the past week that I don't know what to do with myself. But in speaking to there is a reason that they believe these things. Some simply were raised that way, others came to god because of some traumatic moment in their lives. Yes they are set in their beliefs and have no scientific basis, but thats not what they feel is proof. Should they be a bit more open minded? Yes, however I don't think all of them are sheep. I think alot don't qustion their beliefs enough, but lets not insult all of them just because their peers have problems.

[elijahcraig]

If you are saying that we can all agree that Object X is indeed an object even if I believe that Object X is really Object Y then fine. We would agree that an object does exist. Though some people think that there isn't even an object at all, only an elaborate illusion. However the fact that there is an object does not mean that the object in question is object x, it means that it's an object, and this object could be object y,h,k or z depending on who you are speaking to.

Functions of the object. It can have many. This isn’t the point.


Also the matter of invention does play a role in how we view an object. Anything you create is created with a purpose in mind. If I build something and say it's a hammer, and I created it, then to me it's a hammer because I built it to be a hammer. Even if what I built looks like and could function as a chair.

We can drop this. It’s a matter of how you use something. There is no reason to say the object is not an object (a chair is a chair). I can use a computer to break a window out of its place, but it is still a computer.


An opinion is an assertion that isn't based on facts. But like I said, to the christian they do have proof. They just happen to interpret the "proof" in a diffrent way then you would. So either factual truth depends on the facts you are looking at, and how you look at them. Or most things in life are opinions, based on what some would call facts,and others would call lies.

Does the Christian have any notion of “fact”? Can you give me one example of the claim that the Christian is working off of “proof” with “facts” or anything useful to a logical debate?

If not, then I think you are going off into a strand of thought which has been characterized by all mental men as “herd thought.”

The individual thoughts of the herd do not concern me, nor do I respect their “rights” to have them. As Wilde said, it is easy to sympathize with suffering, it is not easy to sympathize with thought. Thought has to have some backing.

Aquinas would have been an Atheist these days. Why? He didn’t claim to have “proof” that there was god out of the innate cavities of his mind. He at least formed a logical and coherent argument. Although his argument is obviously devoid of fact nowadays.


Well regular masturbation is boring, me, me and my hand are having relationship problems.

Well, intellectual masturbation is for the castrated.


The lack of proof was proof to them. They had no other explanation, thus they figured that the only option was something mystical.

The concept of “lack of proof” never entered the primal mind. It was a fact. There was no concept of “proof.” They also hurled frogs into the river because they thought it made it rain. There was no lack of proof. It was not provable. It was a fact based on the primitive conceptions of things in the primitive mind.


You are right, now we know that beings don't live inside us, but they didn't. And even still, I'm sure they would have come up with some way to call our findings lies. Mainly because you can't introduce knew knowledge to someone so simple in such a way.

I’m not sure they would have reacted in such a manner. They probably would have been interested. Just like we were.


KNowledge is a compelation of findings over time. I wouldn't be able to understand reality television if I didn't know what television was. Thus those primitive people couldn't understand that we are full of organs, if they didn't know about modern science.

I don’t know what this has to do with anything.

None of this says anything about “truth.” It merely says they were alive at a period of history which lacked the ability (or time, since they spent most of their time trying not to starve and such) to go into the human body and attempt to find out what its workings were. Technology largely resulted in the ability of modern man to do so. Truth has nothing to do with this. They had an interpretation of life. Not true by empirical evidence. Truth to them has no effect on the actual truth (not that I think we or anyone will ever have truth, as it is interpretable by every which way; as Kant obviously said, because we lack empirical evidence).


If I was a religious man then I wouldn't view scientific proof as real proof.

There is no such thing as a “religious man.” There are men/women. Proof is a concept which applies worldround. Dogmatic positions don’t have any effect on proof. You can’t shout, as someone else said once somewhere, “NO!” in the face of obvious empirical evidence. You can’t claim god exists when there is no, as Hume proved at length (and was barely able to put into print), reason to believe that there is a god.

I’m not a scientific man or a religious man. I don’t trust either. Both are functions of the same thing in the human mind, as Campbell would say.


I just said that you couldn't trace it the same as you would religion. I never said you couldn't do it at all. How you would do it, I'm not sure, frankly I wouldn't care enough to try. However I would never rule out the possibility of it being done. The overwhelming majority of people on earth all agree on what a tree is. But that doesn't mean it is, or will be the only perception. It's highly unlikely that someone would develop a different perception. But there is no doubt in my mind that it could be done.

That may qualify as the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.

Do you have ANY example producable which can say a tree is not a tree? What other possible thing could it be?



We are attempting to see if truth is a perception, or exists objectively. If you can establish a tree as an objective tree—then there is no reason to believe that we can’t establish objective tree.

Have you ever read Berkeley? His (your) theory is highly unlikely and highly annoying to intelligent men.


I see what you are saying, and to a certain extent I agree. I'm not saying "personal truth" to mean that we all have our own individual concept of the truth. I simply meant that the truth isn't one definate thing, it's many things to many people. Even if our views are influenced by outside forces, they are still a perception. They are still based on how we view things. I don't necassarily deny objective truth because of the persecution of the minority. I don't believe in objective truth, because the way at which you arrive at a conclusion is based on how you view things. I've never seen anything in my life that someone couldn't disagree with, and provide proof for. Now this proof may be extremely crappy, but then again if I was in that person's shoes there would be a reason i believed the crappy proof.

This is Kant’s Universal Subjectivity. You should go and read him. He has already answered these questions.



I also, in regard to your last comments in post, have a version of Sade’s or Nietzsche’s views on “respecting others beliefs.” I respect those who have high virtue who have great minds. Not necessarily the average Joe on the sidewalk who thinks he knows why there is a God.


I actually think it is an insult to the Artistic spirit to claim that there is a God, or any Fideistic nonsense.

[Lardlad95]

Does the Christian have any notion of “fact”? Can you give me one example of the claim that the Christian is working off of “proof” with “facts” or anything useful to a logical debate?

If not, then I think you are going off into a strand of thought which has been characterized by all mental men as “herd thought.”

The individual thoughts of the herd do not concern me, nor do I respect their “rights” to have them. As Wilde said, it is easy to sympathize with suffering, it is not easy to sympathize with thought. Thought has to have some backing.

Aquinas would have been an Atheist these days. Why? He didn’t claim to have “proof” that there was god out of the innate cavities of his mind. He at least formed a logical and coherent argument. Although his argument is obviously devoid of fact nowadays.

The problem is that you are using your own defenition of "proof" and "fact". Thats fine, we all have a right to view "proof" and "facts" as how we see them. However simply because you think that proof means empirical evidence, that does not mean that everyone's definition of "proof" is the same. Like I said, to a christian surviving cancer is proof of God's existence. How they arrived at this conclusion, well thats for them to argue, but that incident is there proof.

You want everyone to go by your standards, but they simply don't. I understand what you are saying, they don't have any tangible evidence. But they aren't arguing from our standpoint. If they believed that proof was "facts and figures" then they wouldn't be christian.


The concept of “lack of proof” never entered the primal mind. It was a fact. There was no concept of “proof.” They also hurled frogs into the river because they thought it made it rain. There was no lack of proof. It was not provable. It was a fact based on the primitive conceptions of things in the primitive mind.

I never literally meant that they went "Hmm, since we can't prove anything else, lets make up a God". By lack of proof I meant that they found that to be the only explanation they could develop. The "lack of proof" thing was me giving the concept a title from observing it on the outside.


I’m not sure they would have reacted in such a manner. They probably would have been interested. Just like we were.

Maybe, but I still doubt they'd have a clear understanding, or atleast one clear enough to wipe away all their spiritual beliefs.


I don’t know what this has to do with anything.

None of this says anything about “truth.” It merely says they were alive at a period of history which lacked the ability (or time, since they spent most of their time trying not to starve and such) to go into the human body and attempt to find out what its workings were. Technology largely resulted in the ability of modern man to do so. Truth has nothing to do with this. They had an interpretation of life. Not true by empirical evidence. Truth to them has no effect on the actual truth (not that I think we or anyone will ever have truth, as it is interpretable by every which way; as Kant obviously said, because we lack empirical evidence).

It had nothing to do with truth, because I wasn't talking about truth in that particular instance. I was talking about their ability to understand what we know now.


There is no such thing as a “religious man.” There are men/women. Proof is a concept which applies worldround. Dogmatic positions don’t have any effect on proof. You can’t shout, as someone else said once somewhere, “NO!” in the face of obvious empirical evidence. You can’t claim god exists when there is no, as Hume proved at length (and was barely able to put into print), reason to believe that there is a god.

No reason to believe? Lots of people have reasons, they just aren't very good ones. You are asserting that the concept of "proof" is objective. It isn't, because proof is anything needed to prove a point. This can include scientific evidence, or testimonials, or whatever. You are absolutely right, there is no empirical evidence for the existence of god, but I'm fairly sure that the people who believe in god don't view empirical evidence as the only, or even an important form of proof.


Do you have ANY example producable which can say a tree is not a tree? What other possible thing could it be?

No i don't have an example, I just said I didn't. I just said that we can't rule out the possibility. There is mathematical proof for the big bang, but that doesn't make it absolutely true. There are cosmologists and physicists working right now disproving that theory, and proving alternative theories. Now I know that a tree and the big bang isn't the best analogy. But what I"m saying is that the possibility exists for someone to disprove that a tree is what we think it is. There is always theh possibility for people to disprove an idea. and let me just say this one more time, I don't personally have a theory proving a tree isn't a tree, i'm just saying the possibility is there.


We are attempting to see if truth is a perception, or exists objectively. If you can establish a tree as an objective tree—then there is no reason to believe that we can’t establish objective tree.

And if you can disestablish a tree as an objective tree, then there is no reason to believe that we can't disestablish a tree as an objective tree. I"m wondering. Are you saying that I'm personally saying that a tree isn't a tree, or something of that nature? I'm only saying that the possibility exists that someone could disprove a tree as a tree.


Have you ever read Berkeley? His (your) theory is highly unlikely and highly annoying to intelligent men.

No I've not read him, atleast not to the length I assume u have.


This is Kant’s Universal Subjectivity. You should go and read him. He has already answered these questions.

I've read some kant, but like with Berkley I haven't read him at length. I mean I've studied up on his deontological theories, but I've never actualley read all of A Critique of Pure reason, mainly because I can't find a copy.

BUt I"ll be happy to look up the Univesal Subjectivity.


I also, in regard to your last comments in post, have a version of Sade’s or Nietzsche’s views on “respecting others beliefs.” I respect those who have high virtue who have great minds. Not necessarily the average Joe on the sidewalk who thinks he knows why there is a God.

Fine, I can't make you respect someone. However I think it's highly unfair that you wouldn't show some respect to these people's reliefs.



I actually think it is an insult to the Artistic spirit to claim that there is a God, or any Fideistic nonsense.

Really? Why?

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by Dawood+Apr 4 2004, 05:17 AM--> (Dawood @ Apr 4 2004, 05:17 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:08 PM

[email protected] 3 2004, 11:10 PM
It depends, you can get facts. For example 1+1=2 is true. God does/does not exist is true depending on which you believe.
No, truth equals fact, for something to be a fact it must be possible to PROVE it.


What about faith in a person? Should that also be replaced by facts?

How do you mean? Like trust?


Why can't someone believe in a god (as long as it keeps with believing and not killing or forcing others to believe), why is that wrong?

Why can't I believe that frogs can talk? Because it obiously is not true. If I believe that I am a fool. However it is not wrong, just bloody stupid.
No, truth equals fact

Sinse when? Truth is a belief, if you are an athiest you believe that it is true to say god doent exist. But you cant prove it, but you still think of it as truth.
Truth is not a belief, it is an objective fact. Then there is the matter of people THINKING they know the truth, but that is another matter. [/b]
i'm glad someone else has brought this up .... and really that's what it is all about ... subjectivity vs. objectivity. truth is not believe ... we can believe something to be true but that doesn't make it a truth .... it makes it a belief .... it is not something we can know outside our SUBJECTIVE senses. even science is subjective ..... arguably even pure mathematics is subjective. truth, being an objective, is something that is the way it is regardless of human beings and our perceptions of it. thus, since truth is objective and we as human beings can only know the subjective, we can't know any actual objective truths ... we simply rely on subjective 'truths' ... namely that which we BELIEVE is true, but have no actual proof thereof.

[cubist]

truth is a matter of opinions and rational reasonable interpretation of those opinions, the rest comes under fact when the truth is completely prooved it becomes fact

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:06 AM
truth is a matter of opinions and rational reasonable interpretation of those opinions, the rest comes under fact when the truth is completely prooved it becomes fact
you just gave two definitions of truth .... belief is a matter of opinion ... truth is a matter of fact.. not a belief in fact .... actual fact

[peaccenicked]

from Lenin.
4. Does Objective Truth Exist?
Bogdanov declares: “As I understand it, Marxism contains a denial of the unconditional objectivity of any truth whatsoever, the denial of all eternal truths” (Empirio-Monism, Bk. III, pp. iv-v). What is meant by “unconditional objectivity”? “Truth for all eternity” is “an objective truth in the absolute meaning of the word,” says Bogdanov in the same passage, and agrees to recognise “objective truth only within the limits of a given epoch.”

Two questions are obviously confused here: 1) Is there such a thing as objective truth, that is, can human ideas have a content that does not depend on a subject, that does not depend either on a human being, or on humanity? 2) If so, can human ideas, which give expression to objective truth, express it all at one time, as a whole, unconditionally, absolutely, or only approximately, relatively? This second question is a question of the relation of absolute truth to relative truth. Bogdanov replies to the second question clearly, explicitly and definitely by rejecting even the slightest admission of absolute truth and by accusing Engels of eclecticism for making such an admission. Of this discovery of eclecticism in Engels by A. Bogdanov we shall speak separately later on. For the present we shall confine ourselves to the first question, which Bogdanov, without saying so explicitly, likewise answers in the negative—for although it is possible to deny the element of relativity in one or another human idea without denying the existence of objective truth, it is impossible to deny absolute truth without denying the existence of objective truth. “. . . The criterion of objective truth,” writes Bogdanov a little further on (p. ix), “in Beltov’s sense, does not exist truth is an ideological form, an organising form of human experience. . . .” Neither “Beltov’s sense”—for it is a question of one of the fundamental philosophical problems and not of Beltov—nor the criterion of truth—which must be treated separately, without confounding it with the question of whether objective truth exists—has anything to do with the case here. Bogdanov’s negative answer to the latter question is clear: if truth is only an ideological form, then there can be no truth independent of the subject, of humanity, for neither Bogdanov nor we know any other ideology but human ideology. And Bogdanov’s negative answer emerges still more clearly from the second half of his statement: if truth is a form of human experience, then there can be no truth independent of humanity; there can be no objective truth.

Bogdanov’s denial of objective truth is agnosticism and subjectivism. The absurdity of this denial is evident even from the single example of a scientific truth quoted above. Natural science leaves no room for doubt that its assertion that the earth existed prior to man is a truth. This is entirely compatible with the materialist theory of knowledge: the existence of the thing reflected independent of the reflector (the independence of the external world from the mind) is a fundamental tenet of materialism. The assertion made by science that the earth existed prior to man is an objective truth. This proposition of natural science is incompatible with the philosophy of the Machians and with their doctrine of truth: if truth is an organising form of human experience, then the assertion that the earth exists outside human experience cannot be true.

But that is not all. If truth is only an organising form of human experience, then the teachings, say, of Catholicism are also true. For there is not the slightest doubt that Catholicism is an “organising form of human experience.” Bogdanov himself senses the crying falsity of his theory and it is extremely interesting to watch how he attempts to extricate himself from the swamp into which he has fallen.

“The basis of objectivity,” we read in Book I of Empirio-Monism, “must lie in the sphere of collective experience. We term those data of experience objective which have the same vital meaning for us and for other people, those data upon which not only we construct our activities without contradiction, but upon which, we are convinced, other people must also base themselves in order to avoid contradiction. The objective character of the physical world consists in the fact that it exists not for me personally, but for everybody [that is not true! It exists independently of “everybody”!], and has a definite meaning for everybody, the same, I am convinced, as for me. The objectivity of the physical series is its universal significance “ (p. 25, Bogdanov’s italics). “The objectivity of the physical bodies we encounter in our experience is in the last analysis established by the mutual verification and coordination of the utterances of various people. In general, the physical world is socially-co-ordinated, socially-harmonised, in a word, socially-organised experience “ (p. 36, Bogdanov’s italics).

We shall not repeat that this is a fundamentally untrue, idealist definition, that the physical world exists independently of humanity and of human experience, that the physical world existed at a time when no “sociality” and no “organisation” of human experience was possible, and so forth. We shall now on an exposure of the Machian philosophy from another aspect, namely, that objectivity is so defined that religious doctrines, ‘which undoubtedly possess a “universal significance”, and so forth, come under the definition. But listen to Bogdanov again: “We remind the reader once more that ‘objective’ experience is by no means the same as ‘social’ experience.... Social experience is far from being altogether socially organised and always contains various contradictions, so that certain of its parts do not agree with others. Sprites and hobgoblins may exist in the sphere of social experience of a given people or of a given group of people-for example, the peasantry; but they need not therefore be included under socially-organised or objective experience, for they do not harmonise with the rest of collective experience and do not fit in with its organising forms, for example, with the chain of causality” (45).

Of course it is very gratifying that Bogdanov himself “does not include” social experience in regard to sprites and hobgoblins under objective experience. But this well-meant amendment in the spirit of anti-fideism by no means corrects the fundamental error of Bogdanov’s whole position. Bogdanov’s definition of objectivity and of the physical world completely falls to the ground, since the religious doctrine has “universal significance” to a greater degree than the scientific doctrine; the greater part of mankind cling to the former doctrine to this day. Catholicism has been “socially organised, harmonised and co-ordinated” by centuries of development; it “fits in” with the “chain of causality” in the most indisputable manner; for religions did not originate without cause, it is not by accident that they retain their hold over the masses under modern conditions, and it is quite “in the order of things” that professors of philosophy should adapt themselves to them. If this undoubtedly universally significant and undoubtedly highly-organised religious social experience does “not harmonise” with the “experience” of science, it is because there is a radical and fundamental difference between the two, which Bogdanov obliterated when he rejected objective truth. And however much Bogdanov tries to “correct” himself by saying that fideism, or clericalism, does not harmonise with science, the undeniable fact remains that Bogdanov’s denial of objective truth completely “harmonises” with fideism. Contemporary fideism does not at all reject science; all it rejects is the “exaggerated claims” of science, to wit, its claim to objective truth. If objective truth exists (as the materialists think), if natural science, reflecting the outer world in human “experience,” is alone capable of giving us objective truth, then all fideism is absolutely refuted. But if there is no objective truth, if truth (including scientific truth) is only an organising form of human experience, then this in itself is an admission of the fundamental premise of clericalism, the door is thrown open for it, and a place is cleared for the “organising forms” of religious experience.

The question arises, does this denial of objective truth belong personally to Bogdanov, who refuses to own himself a Machian, or does it follow from the fundamental teachings of Mach and Avenarius? The latter is the only possible answer to the question. If only sensation exists in the world (Avenarius in 1876), if bodies are complexes of sensations (Mach, in the Analysis of Sensations), then we are obviously confronted with a philosophical subjectivism which inevitably leads to the denial of objective truth. And if sensations are called “elements” which in one connection give rise to the physical and in another to the psychical, this, as we have seen, only confuses but does not reject the fundamental point of departure of empirio-criticism. Avenarius and Mach recognise sensations as the source of our knowledge. Consequently, they adopt the standpoint of empiricism (all knowledge derives from experience) or sensationalism (all knowledge derives from sensations). But this standpoint gives rise to the difference between the fundamental philosophical trends, idealism and materialism and does not eliminate that difference, no matter in what “new” verbal garb (“elements”) you clothe it. Both the solipsist, that is, the subjective idealist, and the materialist may regard sensations as the source of our knowledge. Both Berkeley and Diderot started from Locke. The first premise of the theory of knowledge undoubtedly is that the sole source of our knowledge is sensation. Having recognised the first premise, Mach confuses the second important premise, i.e., regarding the objective reality that is given to man in his sensations, or that forms the source of man’s sensations. Starting from sensations, one may follow the line of subjectivism, which leads to solipsism (“bodies are complexes or combinations of sensations”), or the line of objectivism, which leads to materialism (sensations are images of objects, of the external world). For the first point of view, i.e., agnosticism, or, pushed a little further, subjective idealism, there can be no objective truth. For the second point of view, i.e., materialism, the recognition of objective truth is essential. This old philosophical question of the two trends, or rather, of the two possible deductions from the premises of empiricism and sensationalism, is not solved by Mach, it is not eliminated or overcome by him, but is muddled by verbal trickery with the word “element,” and the like. Bogdanov’s denial of objective truth is an inevitable consequence of Machism as a whole, and not a deviation from it.

Engels in his Ludwig Feuerbach calls Hume and Kant philosophers “who question the possibility of any cognition, or at least of an exhaustive cognition, of the world.” Engels, therefore, lays stress on what is common both to Hume and Kant, and not on what divides them. Engels states further that “what is decisive in the refutation of this [Humean and Kantian] view has already been said by Hegel” (4th Germ. ed., pp. 15-16).[48] In this connection it seems to me not uninteresting to note that Hegel, declaring materialism to be “a consistent system of empiricism,” wrote: “For empiricism the external (das Ausserliche) in general is the truth, and if then a supersensible too be admitted, nevertheless knowledge of it cannot occur (soll doch eine Erkenntnis desselben [d. h. des Uebersinnlichen] nicht stattfinden können) and one must keep exclusively to what belongs to perception (das der Wahrnehmung Angehörige). However, this principle in its realisation (Durchführung) produced what was subsequently termed materialism. This materialism regards matter, as such, as the truly objective (das wahrhaft Objektive).”[Hegel, Encyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse [Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Outline], Werke, VI. Band (1843), S. 83. Cf. S. 122.]

All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception. That is true. But the question arises, does objective reality “belong to perception,” i.e., is it the source of perception? If you answer yes, you are a materialist. If you answer no, you are inconsistent and will inevitably arrive at subjectivism, or agnosticism, irrespective of whether you deny the knowability of the thing-in-itself, or the objectivity of time, space and causality (with Kant), or whether you do not even permit the thought of a thing-in-itself (with Hume). The inconsistency of your empiricism, of your philosophy of experience, will in that case lie in the fact that you deny the objective content of experience, the objective truth of experimental knowledge.

Those who hold to the line of Kant or Hume (Mach and Avenarius are among the latter, in so far as they are not pure Berkeleians) call us, the materialists, “metaphysicians” because we recognise objective reality which is given us in experience, because we recognise an objective source of our sensations independent of man. We materialists follow Engels in calling the Kantians and Humeans agnostics, because they deny objective reality as the source of our sensations. Agnostic is a Greek word: a in Greek means “no,” gnosis “knowledge.” The agnostic says: I do not know if there is an objective reality which is reflected, imaged by our sensations; I declare there is no way of knowing this (see the words of Engels above quoted setting forth the position of the agnostic). Hence the denial of objective truth by the agnostic, and the tolerance—the philistine, cowardly tolerance—of the dogmas regarding sprites, hobgoblins, Catholic saints, and the like. Mach and Avenarius, pretentiously resorting to a “new” terminology, a supposedly “new” point of view, repeat, in fact, although in a confused and muddled way, the reply of the agnostic: on the one hand, bodies are complexes of sensations (pure subjectivism, pure Berkeleianism); on the other hand, if we re-christen our sensations “elements,” we may think of them as existing independently of our sense-organs!

The Machians love to declaim that they are philosophers who completely trust the evidence of our sense-organs, who regard the world as actually being what it seems to us to be, full of sounds, colours, etc., whereas to the materialists, they say, the world is dead, devoid of sound and colour, and in its reality different from what it seems to be, and so forth. Such declamations, for example, are indulged in by J. Petzoldt, both in his Introduction to the Philosophy of Pure Experience and in his World Problem from the Positivist Standpoint (1906). Petzoldt is parroted by Mr. Victor Chernov, who waxes enthusiastic over the “new” idea. But, in fact, the Machians are subjectivists and agnostics, for they do not sufficiently trust the evidence of our sense-organs and are inconsistent in their sensationalism. They do not recognise objective reality, independent of man, as the source of our sensations. They do not regard sensations as a true copy of this objective reality, thereby directly conflicting with natural science and throwing the door open for fideism. On the contrary, for the materialist the world is richer, livelier, more varied than it actually seems, for with each step in the development of science new aspects are discovered. For the materialist, sensations are images of the sole and ultimate objective reality, ultimate not in the sense that it has already been explored to the end, but in the sense that there is not and cannot be any other. This view irrevocably closes the door not only to every species of fideism, but also to that professorial scholasticism which, while not recognising an objective reality as the source of our sensations, “deduces” the concept of the objective by means of such artificial verbal constructions as universal significance, socially-organised, and so on and so forth, and which is unable, and frequently unwilling, to separate objective truth from belief in sprites and hobgoblins.

The Machians contemptuously shrug their shoulders at the “antiquated” views of the “dogmatists,” the materialists, who still cling to the concept matter, which supposedly has been refuted by “recent science” and “recent positivism.” We shall speak separately of the new theories of physics on the structure of matter. But it is absolutely unpardonable to confound, as the Machians do, any particular theory of the structure of matter with the epistemological category, to confound the problem of the new properties of new aspects of matter (electrons, for example) with the old problem of the theory of knowledge, with the problem of the sources of our knowledge, the existence of objective truth, etc. We are told that Mach “discovered the world-elements”: red, green, hard, soft, loud, long, etc. We ask, is a man given objective reality when he sees something red or feels something hard, etc., or not? This hoary philosophical query is confused by Mach. If you hold that it is not given, you, together with Mach, inevitably sink to subjectivism and agnosticism and deservedly fall into the embrace of the immanentists, i.e., the philosophical Menshikovs. If you hold that it is given, a philosophical concept is needed for this objective reality, and this concept has been worked out long, long ago. This concept is matter. Matter is a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to mall by his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them. Therefore, to say that such a concept can become “antiquated” is childish talk, a senseless repetition of the arguments of fashionable reactionary philosophy. Could the struggle between materialism and idealism, the struggle between the tendencies or lines of Plato and Democritus in philosophy, the struggle between religion and science, the denial of objective truth and its assertion, the struggle between the adherents of supersensible knowledge and its adversaries have become antiquated during the two thousand years of the development of philosophy?

Acceptance or rejection of the concept matter is a question of the confidence man places in the evidence of his sense-organs, a question of the source of our knowledge, a question which has been asked and debated from the very inception of philosophy, which may be disguised in a thousand different garbs by professorial clowns, but which can no more become antiquated than the question whether the source of human knowledge is sight and touch, healing and smell. To regard our sensations as images of the external world, to recognise objective truth, to hold the materialist theory of knowledge—these are all one and the same thing. To illustrate this, I shall only quote from Feuerbach and from two textbooks of philosophy, in order that the reader may judge how elementary this question is.

“How banal,” wrote Feuerbach, “to deny that sensation is the evangel, the gospel (Verkündung) of an objective saviour.”[Feuerbach, Sämtliche Werke, X. Band, 1866, S. 194-95.] A strange, a preposterous terminology, as you see, but a perfectly clear philosophical line: sensation reveals objective truth to man. “My sensation is subjective, but its foundation [or ground—Grund] is objective” (S. 195). Compare this with the quotation given above where Feuerbach says that materialism starts from the perceptual world as an ultimate (ausgemachte) objective truth.

Sensationalism, we read in Franck’s dictionary of philosophy,[Dictionnaire des sciences philosophiques [Dictionary of the Philosophical Sciences], Paris, 1875.] is a doctrine which deduces all our ideas “from the experience of sense-organs, reducing all knowledge to sensations.” There is subjective sensationalism (scepticism and Berkeleianism), moral sensationalism (Epicureanism),[49] and objective sensationalism. “Objective sensationalism is nothing but materialism, for matter or bodies are, in the opinion of the materialists, the only objects that can affect our senses (atteindre nos sens).”

“If sensationalism,” says Schwegler in his history of philosophy,[Dr. Albert Schwegler, Geschichte der Philosophie im Umriss [Outline History of Philosophy], 15-te Aufl., S. 194.] “asserted that truth or being can be apprehended exclusively by means of the senses, one had only [Schwegler is speaking of philosophy at the end of the eighteenth century in France] to formulate this proposition objectively and one had the thesis of materialism: only the perceptual exists; there is no other being save material being.”

These elementary truths, which have managed to find their way even into the textbooks, have been forgotten by our Machians.

[cubist]

truth is a matter of fact,

so when i say i tell you the truth i am the son of god. It is fact?

i beg to differ comrade.

when i back up my truthful comment with evidence it becomes fact.

[elijahcraig]

The problem is that you are using your own defenition of "proof" and "fact". Thats fine, we all have a right to view "proof" and "facts" as how we see them. However simply because you think that proof means empirical evidence, that does not mean that everyone's definition of "proof" is the same. Like I said, to a christian surviving cancer is proof of God's existence. How they arrived at this conclusion, well thats for them to argue, but that incident is there proof.

This argument has strayed into idiocy, I don’t feel like continuing this part. Let’s just say: You can’t “invent” proof of something; simply because you believe something to be true, it has absolutely nothing to do with it actually being true.

You could believe a giant purple elephant controls my hands, a green octopus is the blood inside my penis, and a fat naked syzygy is the eternal hope of mankind—all of these things can be “proved” by your “logic.” The only problem? It has absolutely NO relation to reality. And, as Nietzsche once said, you can get the same effect by entering a lunatic asylum.


There is mathematical proof for the big bang, but that doesn't make it absolutely true.

This is disputable, that a tree is a tree is not.


There are cosmologists and physicists working right now disproving that theory, and proving alternative theories. Now I know that a tree and the big bang isn't the best analogy. But what I"m saying is that the possibility exists for someone to disprove that a tree is what we think it is. There is always theh possibility for people to disprove an idea. and let me just say this one more time, I don't personally have a theory proving a tree isn't a tree, i'm just saying the possibility is there.

I’m not debating this anymore either. This is grade A idiocy. A tree is a tree. You are attempting to argue a point which has no foundation except to insist on “individual” right to “proof” and “truth.” This is a mistake.


And if you can disestablish a tree as an objective tree, then there is no reason to believe that we can't disestablish a tree as an objective tree. I"m wondering. Are you saying that I'm personally saying that a tree isn't a tree, or something of that nature? I'm only saying that the possibility exists that someone could disprove a tree as a tree.

If you can’t present any tangible logic behind proving a tree isn’t a tree, then this part of the argument is dead as well.


I've read some kant, but like with Berkley I haven't read him at length. I mean I've studied up on his deontological theories, but I've never actualley read all of A Critique of Pure reason, mainly because I can't find a copy.

BUt I"ll be happy to look up the Univesal Subjectivity.

You can also read Kant’s “Foundation of Metaphysics”.


Fine, I can't make you respect someone. However I think it's highly unfair that you wouldn't show some respect to these people's reliefs.

Refer to Nietzsche for my position on “respect” of Christian (or any) belief. Most of the so-called “belief in the truth” found in the world is the result of herd mentality. In fact, probably about 95% of it.


Really? Why?

A general understanding of Nietzschean, Blakean, Joycean, and Shellyean aesthetic is needed to give an answer. I’m not sure you understand these things, otherwise you might not ask why.


i'm glad someone else has brought this up .... and really that's what it is all about ... subjectivity vs. objectivity. truth is not believe ... we can believe something to be true but that doesn't make it a truth .... it makes it a belief .... it is not something we can know outside our SUBJECTIVE senses. even science is subjective ..... arguably even pure mathematics is subjective. truth, being an objective, is something that is the way it is regardless of human beings and our perceptions of it. thus, since truth is objective and we as human beings can only know the subjective, we can't know any actual objective truths ... we simply rely on subjective 'truths' ... namely that which we BELIEVE is true, but have no actual proof thereof.

Read Kant and Hume, they’ve both disproved this notion.

[Lardlad95]

ok Elijah, to put this to rest. All I simply meant in teh "tree" discussion was this.

All I"m saying is that science has "proven" something before, only for it to later be discredited. IT's happened before it, COULD happen again. I'm not even saying it's going to happen, I'm just saying it might happen. In fact I'm pretty sure that the majority of scientific findings won't be disproven, but I"m also fairly sure that from now until the end of existence there will be atleast one thing scientists have claimed to prove that is disproven. Are you saying that this can't happen and that everything that is "proven" couldn't possibly be disproven?



Refer to Nietzsche for my position on “respect” of Christian (or any) belief. Most of the so-called “belief in the truth” found in the world is the result of herd mentality. In fact, probably about 95% of it.

I don't disagree. But I still think that there is some individual thought mixed in there. Simply because I followed you into something doesn't mean that your beliefs and mine are exactley the same at every point. I don't see people as complete sheep, they are just very impressionable, and have a mob mentality. But you right, the over whelming majority are there because of a herd mentality.

[elijahcraig]

All I"m saying is that science has "proven" something before, only for it to later be discredited. IT's happened before it, COULD happen again. I'm not even saying it's going to happen, I'm just saying it might happen. In fact I'm pretty sure that the majority of scientific findings won't be disproven, but I"m also fairly sure that from now until the end of existence there will be atleast one thing scientists have claimed to prove that is disproven. Are you saying that this can't happen and that everything that is "proven" couldn't possibly be disproven?

Certainly not.

All that means is that we have interpreted a truth wrongly in the past, and have to reorganize our thoughts on the subject.

Although I dislike science, and math as well. I’m one you’ll find reading Iraneus and Blake in the library, not one attempting to “prove” any scientific truth.

[Lardlad95]

Certainly not.

All that means is that we have interpreted a truth wrongly in the past, and have to reorganize our thoughts on the subject.

Although I dislike science, and math as well. I’m one you’ll find reading Iraneus and Blake in the library, not one attempting to “prove” any scientific truth.

Ok, now that that is settled I think everything is cool. I think we can respectively disagree regarding the "what is proof" thing. I see why someone would say that empirical evidence is the only real proof, I just don't happen to see it that way.

Iraneus? I've never had a chance to read him although I despretely want to, could you tell me some of his works?

Oh and by the way, have you read, Karen Armstrong's "A history of God" I just started it and I want your take on it.

[elijahcraig]

Search on ONline books for "Iraneus' I can't ever find him on Barnes and Nobles or anywhere. He wrote various long theological discourses.

History of God? I've read parts, my teacher has the book in ENglish class. It gives a very different portrait of Mohammed.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:54 PM
Search on ONline books for "Iraneus' I can't ever find him on Barnes and Nobles or anywhere. He wrote various long theological discourses.

History of God? I've read parts, my teacher has the book in ENglish class. It gives a very different portrait of Mohammed.
The only parts of his writings I've read were in the Gnostic Gospels, and they didn't paint him in a flattering light. Frankly though I don't like him from what I've read. Not because of any attacks he had against the gnostics, but because he helped crush such an interesting religion. Frankly if Gnosticism was the surviving type of christianity i don't think I' hate zealots so much...provided they got rid of sme of the mysticism. But I mean anything where people search in themselves as opposed to outisde themselves is cool with me. Though they did seem somewht self rightous and arrogant. I'll be sure to search for it online.

I haven't gotten that far in the book yet, I usually only get time during my breaks at work.

[elijahcraig]

I don't like Iraneus' views, but I like to know his views.

I frankly don't like any theological writings if we are speaking of liking their views, I like them for historical fact.

I like Blake's view of theology.