Truth

[joon]

What is the criteria of truth? What authoritates what is true and what is not?

[Monty Cantsin]

The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question. Karl Marx's second - Theses On Feuerbach.

The problem of pure induction is that our true theory is always one experiment away from being shattered. We shouldn’t worry about absolute certainty of truth because if we did it would impede our activity. Thus as individuals we approach situations assess them with reason and act appropriately according to our values, objectives and so forth. but ‘reason has always existed but not always in a reasonable form’.

[Clarksist]

The "truth" is truly out there.

But what the absolute and objective truth is, no one can say.

The idea of a graspable and applicable truth is not something which is possible for a human because the basing the truth in something is therefore not objective.

And is therefore biased.

And cannot be truthful.

It is not that we can't know something for certain, but the moment we label the identity of a truth, it is no longer "true".

Very perplexing.

However, we can use the term "true" in a number of cases without really being incorrect. But rather what we say has any "truth", no one can tell. :lol:

This is what nihilists mean when they say "there is no absolute truth", even though that would be an absolute truth.

I have found that the law of "No absolute truths" can be applicable and not an oxy-moron, simply because of the label that truth entails.

If we break from the label and just go on what we are certain of, we will be much better off.

[TheReadMenace]

Or perhaps...

There are many truths? As you guys said, there is no 'absolute truth,' insomuch that there is just one all-encompassing answer or path or whatever. Rather, through our experiences we gain knowledge applicable to situations that we use either constructively or destructively.

The thing I always try to remember is that things can't be seen in black and white - that's for the blind. I try to approach things with several different viewpoints in mind, and examine all the different experiences and consequences of a certain situation.

So our search for 'truth' shouldn't be for that one essence - it should instead be a search for our own personal truths, that is, understanding, experience, and being.

My old english professor and I had a discussion about truth. He said that we should seek '"what's truth" or at least a close proximity to truth, because as you know truth is a slippery devil -- like Proteus, it changes image (though I do believe that it is somewhere within the Ancient Mayan expression of En La Keche -- which basically means we are within each other).'

So we can't really attach a concrete definition to truth, unless we say that one aspect of truth is being - or coming close to being - completely and fully aware of who we are and what we seek.


Andrew

[Gnosis]

What is the criteria of truth? What authoritates what is true and what is not?

Truth is what you make it be.

The only criteria of truth is that you believe it to be truth.

Your own beliefs authoritate what is truth and what is not.

If you say "This is not truth" or "This is truth", than you are subcribing to a truth that without your opinion is not either true nor false but instead both at once or niether at all depending on what you wish to believe.

I believe it is really that simple, and so it is.

[gilhyle]

THe problem of truth is difficult. BUt there is a difference between asking 'when do I know that what I am saying is true?' and asking 'when is a proposition true ?'

The difference is that just because I cannot establish certain criteria of absolute truth that I can apply does not mean that I cannot say what it would be, in theory, for something to btrue.

I can say that to be true would be to 'correspond to a reality that exists independently of me.'

Now it is still true - even while seeming to leave aside the futile search for functional criteria of truth that I can use, that the concept of correspondence is problematic. It is problematic in this sense: I cannot drill down into it to find out what it means in practice. If I cannot do that, I cannot know in any detail what it means.

But it is worth noting that just because the meaningfulness of the concept of truth as correspondence is limited does not mean that it is non-existent. There is an element of meaning fullness in this concept which can act as a guide for a dialectical unification of thoughts and methodologies of different kinds, which can be unified into a critical pattern of thought which reveals the tendency towards correspondence wrapped up in the ideologically bounded unfolding of human thought through history.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Truth is when things are stated and correspond with reality. For example, I hold a stone above the ground and state "when I let go of this stone, the stone will fall to the ground" That is a truth, because when I do so, the stone does indeed fall to the ground and my statement will indeed have turned out to be a truth.

The way to find out the truth when things get considerably more complicated is to start from objectively obvious truths and work your way up, constantly testing your hypotheses against what material reality actually does.