What is truth?

[Socrates4Jesus]

Truth is that which corresponds to reality.

God is the first cause of everything. All of reality is subjective to God but objective to us.

Jesus is God incarnate. He caused all of reality, therefore the Truth lies in him.

That’s the way I would answer that question anyway :twocents:

Yes, this is that for which i am looking–a simple definition of truth.

Truth = Reality

Does everyone think this is the real definition of truth, or is there a truer one?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

God and Truth are synonymous.

Therefore, Jesus is the Divine Incarnation of Truth.

Given Feanaro’s definition of truth, CV, would you say that when Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life.” that He actually meant, “I am reality”?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

there are 17 replies to this post and not one philosophically addresses the important question of —“WHAT IS TRUTH”

Let’s get to it boys!

Thirst:

Actually, i believe Feanaro had a good philosophical definition of truth: Truth = Reality

What do you think of this idea that truth is only what is real?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Perhaps i’m just playing the fool, for it now occurs to me that any child knows that what is true is the opposite of what is false. Yet, Pilot was not an idiot like me, for why would the Emperor of Rome appoint an bumbling idiot to such an important position as the governor of a nation on the verge of war with the empire? No, the job would require a wise governor, just as the job of commanding the U.S, troops in today’s Iraq required a wise general.

Hence, i have to ask, did Pilot really mean to ask Jesus, “What is truth?” I think the answer is no, he did not. He was not asking about the true nature of truth; rather, he was asking how to know what is true. Perhaps a better way to phrase the question, then, is this:

What is the best way to recognize truth and to distinguish it from falsehood?This, it seems to me, is a different thing from truth; it is wisdom.

Does anyone have an answer to this new question?

 

[Hastrman]

there are 17 replies to this post and not one philosophically addresses the important question of —“WHAT IS TRUTH”

Let’s get to it boys!

The post two above yours gave the only proper answer, the Correspondence Theory: truth is correspondence to reality.

Reality (re alitas, “Other Thing-ness”) is existence independent of the mind of the observer.

Sheesh.

 

[I_like_Mike]

Truth is truth in itself.

It is neither a question for a question can be asked in a way to mislead. It is not an answer for an answer may not want the truth.

Jesus is The Truth.

Even reality is deceptive at times so ‘truth’ is a precious commodity. Truth is something that we can not guarantee is always in our lives but “The Truth” is Jesus and Jesus is always in our lives. We just have to look.

 

[Hastrman]

Truth is truth in itself.

It is neither a question for a question can be asked in a way to mislead. It is not an answer for an answer may not want the truth.

Jesus is The Truth.

Even reality is deceptive at times so ‘truth’ is a precious commodity. Truth is something that we can not guarantee is always in our lives but “The Truth” is Jesus and Jesus is always in our lives. We just have to look.

Um…wha?:ehh:

If you can’t know reality you can’t know truth, and if reality’s deceptive truth is deceptive because truth is a function of reality.

 

[I_like_Mike]

Um…wha?:ehh:

If you can’t know reality you can’t know truth, and if reality’s deceptive truth is deceptive because truth is a function of reality.

Where do I start. Perhaps with the devil. He sits in the minds of people confusing their thoughts. Thoughts so profound that they seem as real as reality.

What we know as real is by our mind arranging what we see, hear, touch, taste, smell and sense. They can all be confused.

What is real is our soul and that it is the property of God. If there is more to us than what is real here on earth then why call that which is less than even we are truth.

I have been on the science forums mostly and they claim to be looking for the truth. The truth they are looking for is that they want you to believe there is no God and that mathematics is the correct and is the “only” correct description of everything.

For forums (science forums) devoted to the truth it is strange that even to talk of the metaphysics … the properties beyond physics annoys them greatly. One has to say metaphysics in their house but it means that they can not understand why their mathematics is failing and not describing reality. The truth there is that so much pride and professional reputation is at stake that they can’t say ‘we have lost it’ because they have no one to turn to.

Then on this forum devoted to the truth so much is written by people seeking to deny the Trinity and that Jesus is the Son of God and the accuracy of what John the Divine was shown. We may not understand it, but we will.

People have come a long way in both directions. No longer are individuals tortured and killed for failing to practice peace in the right way in many parts of the world. In a world devoted to supremacy and surety in human achievement we forget that only God, and only God is supreme and knows for sure.

Cheers, Michael.

 

[brycelaliberte]

Truth is that which is absolute.

My friends and I debate constantly the source of truth, and eventually it comes down to that it is dependent upon God; He is the Truth, at bare essence.

From that which we see we accept as true. Truth must be dependent upon God, for there is no self-defining truths in the world; it is true that there is truth, but we know that the truth is true not because it is true, we know that it is true for God made it so. So, it may be said that whatever is true is whatever God made.

One can say this because they can tell you something is false by knowing what is true, but you cannot know that something is true by knowing that something is false. If truth = A, then truth doesn’t = B, but, if truth doesn’t = A, then we cannot know that truth =/doesn’t = B.

We know that there is truth, but this cannot be proven. For if I were to say that “There is no truth,” I must admit that I have told what then must be a truth, but if that were a truth, then it must be true that what I just said is not true. For the statement to be accurate, it would have to be "We know that truth can be shown to be true, for we know that there cannot be ‘no truth.’ "

So, the definition of Jesus being truth is true, because He makes it true. God is self-validating because He is God. The unmoved mover, the uncaused causer, whatever you might say He is, all that can be known is that He Is (intentionally capitalized), and so there is also everything He created; including truth.

Don’t know if this is what you were looking for at all, otherwise I’ll just have to say . Do you accept God? Then you can accept truth because God is truth, so there is truth.

Ahh… well… What do you think? This work for you? For if you were to ask again, I would be forced to point in the same direction.

 

[Mintaka]

You folks do know that a constant theme of Ratzinger theology has and is that Truth is a Person, not a thing?

The name of God is I AM.

So in a sense truth would be reality, but not in any sense limited to this world alone.

 

[Malperdy]

The post two above yours gave the only proper answer, the Correspondence Theory: truth is correspondence to reality.

Reality (re alitas, “Other Thing-ness”) is existence independent of the mind of the observer.

Sheesh.

Ummm.

(1) What is it that corresponds? Is it an assertion I communicate to others about something I experience? If so, then we should be able to devise criteria for determining if my assertion is truthful, or not.

But, if my assertion is based on my dream, or a hallucination, or even on some peculiarity of perception I have which affects my observation, then what is true for me may not be true for you.

(2) There are other theories of truth besides the correspondence theory.

(3) If the Great Question ‘What is Truth?’ had ever been finally answered to the satisfaction of most reasonable people, then all the Philosophy Departments would have gone out of business. They have not. (There are two other Great Questions besides this one.)

Malperdy.

 

[I_like_Mike]

Ummm.

(1) What is it that corresponds? Is it an assertion I communicate to others about something I experience? If so, then we should be able to devise criteria for determining if my assertion is truthful, or not.

But, if my assertion is based on my dream, or a hallucination, or even on some peculiarity of perception I have which affects my observation, then what is true for me may not be true for you.

(2) There are other theories of truth besides the correspondence theory.

(3) If the Great Question ‘What is Truth?’ had ever been finally answered to the satisfaction of most reasonable people, then all the Philosophy Departments would have gone out of business. They have not. (There are two other Great Questions besides this one.)

Malperdy.

Well you could always try fractal theory. We see and accept the beautiful geometry in a snowflake for instance because it is small enough for us and so is within our range. We believe what we can take in usually because of what we can see and touch. It is part of our makeup to disbelieve and that is something to stop us from poisoning ourselves by eating the wrong fruit. Perhaps it led to skepticism to new ideas or for the early people healthy skepticism to new foods.

I have a bit of a logic disorder in that I tend to believe rather than exercise proper skepticism, a sort of dyslexia of logic. Because I come across as gullible I have to find small truths within overall faith and weed out the unhelpful stuff. People like me probably made great food tasters, good fringe benefits, temporary work only and job prospects very limited .

So while others see and accept smaller truths, easily testable my task is to work out the pattern of larger ones. It took me a year to work out a 6D geometry for the shape of outer space, a Calabi-Yeo manifold. They look like a virus, the simple ones with points, planes and curves but when you use two ‘time-like’ lines it makes for some interesting metaphysics. The big one is the dominance of the mind over the physical environment briefly every few thousand years. Sure sounds nuts but because it is nothing like regular science expected (and they don’t do metaphysics) there was no help for something I could describe and which didn’t fit their mathematics.

Anyway that is drifting. The point is we are able to believe lesser but to open our ideas to greater invites ridicule. I should know. So for security we are comfortable with little truths because that is part of our makeup.

 

[Hastrman]

Ummm.

(1) What is it that corresponds? Is it an assertion I communicate to others about something I experience? If so, then we should be able to devise criteria for determining if my assertion is truthful, or not.

A thing (statement, perception, etc.) is true if it says that that which is not, is not, and that which is, is.

But, if my assertion is based on my dream, or a hallucination, or even on some peculiarity of perception I have which affects my observation, then what is true for me may not be true for you.

No, then you’re just wrong. That’s why they’re called dreams, hallucinations, and peculiarities of perception, not knowledge.

(2) There are other theories of truth besides the correspondence theory.

No good ones.

(3) If the Great Question ‘What is Truth?’ had ever been finally answered to the satisfaction of most reasonable people, then all the Philosophy Departments would have gone out of business. They have not. (There are two other Great Questions besides this one.)

It has been answered to the satisfaction of all reasonable people, with the possible exclusion of monists (although Buddhist monism involves the Provisional Truth idea, that, inasmuch as anything is “real” but Being, that which corresponds to that so-called reality is true).

 

[Hastrman]

Ummm.

(1) What is it that corresponds? Is it an assertion I communicate to others about something I experience? If so, then we should be able to devise criteria for determining if my assertion is truthful, or not.

A thing (statement, perception, etc.) is true if it says that that which is not, is not, and that which is, is.

But, if my assertion is based on my dream, or a hallucination, or even on some peculiarity of perception I have which affects my observation, then what is true for me may not be true for you.

No, then you’re just wrong. That’s why they’re called dreams, hallucinations, and peculiarities of perception, not knowledge.

(2) There are other theories of truth besides the correspondence theory.

No good ones.

(3) If the Great Question ‘What is Truth?’ had ever been finally answered to the satisfaction of most reasonable people, then all the Philosophy Departments would have gone out of business. They have not. (There are two other Great Questions besides this one.)

It has been answered to the satisfaction of all reasonable people, with the possible exclusion of monists (although Buddhist monism involves the Provisional Truth idea, that, inasmuch as anything is “real” but Being, that which corresponds to that so-called reality is true).

 

[I_like_Mike]

(snip)

(3) If the Great Question ‘What is Truth?’ had ever been finally answered to the satisfaction of most reasonable people, then all the Philosophy Departments would have gone out of business. They have not. (There are two other Great Questions besides this one.)

Perhaps I don’t pretend to be reasonable. The bit included was to show how difficult it is to present an idea. Naturally it is easier to include a background and test the reply or see if it gets answered at all.

From a theoretical background we have:-

Originally Posted by Hastrman
The post two above yours gave the only proper answer, the Correspondence Theory: truth is correspondence to reality.

The argument is then what do we really know of reality and by association then of truth?

There are two times an idea is very hard to communicate:-

1. To a fool.
2. To a wise person.

The fool lacks the capacity to learn what is being shown.
The wise are over confident in their own knowledge.

That is why I put forward fractal theory:-
The capacity of an audience to learn an idea based upon their own capacities and bias and above all the willingness to listen.

Perhaps that is why some areas remain primitive, some societies develop great wealth and why science has changed so little over the last century.

Incidentally, what are the two other great questions please?

 

[Malperdy]

Incidentally, what are the two other great questions please?

What is beauty?

What is goodness?

Malperdy.

 

[I_like_Mike]

What is beauty?

What is goodness?

Malperdy.

Thank you Malperdy,

They are great questions.

 

[I_like_Mike]

Truth is sometimes harsh. That is why it is important on each level.

In two months power will be used to generate particles not seen since creation. Two years ago it caused a fire ball a million times hotter than the sun. This time the experiment is a hundred times more powerful.

In some circles the mathematics of science tells us that everything is balanced at the centre of the earth … weightless. In other circles the mathematics tells us there is a gravity well the size of a marble from which not even light can escape.

It is like the thinking is fractured, wrong … broken. It is used as a sword and a dagger … while one stands the other stabs. The language of mathematics is like no other. It does not communicate it blocks, it manoeuvres, it is a two faced deceit to protect a lie. Not a single picture comes out now where each pixel hasn’t been altered to ensure the reality fits the mathematics.

Venus is a beautiful sight in our sky but to live on its surface would be hell. A sustained fire ball could do that and more.

Then all we would have is our souls and no temple for them.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

A few ides about truth.

Intellectual truth: to the degree that the intellect’s conception of the extramental reality is correct.

Creative truth: to the degree that the maker’s creation or production of a reality is what the creator wanted to make.

Creation was perfect truth.

Creation will one day again be perfect–this time we will be made truthful by His Love.

Love and Truth are thus related.

His Love we Remake us perfect. As the second Eucharistic pray yells: “Make us grow in Love.”

This is my attempt to add an idea or two.

I did not read any of the posts–well one or two.

I am just one of the costudents (co-student/co student) on this page.

 

[Malperdy]

Let’s assume that the following sentence represents the correspondence theory of truth, or is a criterion for correspondence-truth:

‘A statement is true if it says that that which is not, is not, and that which is, is.’

Now consider the following statements:

A: There are no unicorns.

B: A unicorn is a horse-like animal with a single horn.

Apply the criterion and statement A is ‘true’.

But, what about statement B? Is it also true? It does not seem to ‘correspond’ with anything ‘which is’. Yet, we do not say that statement B is meaningless. We do not even say “I believe that unicorns have only one horn”. But, we might be inclined to say: “By definition, unicorns have only one horn”, because that is how we use the term in our language. And, by saying so we would believe that we said the truth. But, how we use a word in any language is by convention. (I mean that we might have all agreed to use some other word.)

Does the ‘is’ of correspondence theory indicate or stand for What Exists, and the ‘is not’ for What Does Not Exist? Consider numbers. Numbers don’t exist, in the way that material things exist, yet they are very real. We use them all the time. We even decide if our calculations are true or false. But what do numbers correspond to? Mathematicians even make use of imaginary numbers, which is a set of strange but apparently useful numbers like the square root of minus 1. But, what do such imaginary numbers correspond to?

Again, consider this rather annoying example of statements which refer to one another:

Statement 1: ‘Statement 2 is completely true.’
Statement 2: ‘Statement 1 is completely false.’

There is correspondence here, because the statements refer to real things (each other). It’s a version of the ancient paradox: A man says he lies repeatedly. Is he telling the truth or not?

In such cases there is at least apparent correspondence, but you can’t help feeling that there’s something odd going on.

There are other statements which correspondence theory cannot determine, although this is not a strong criticism of the theory. If I say “I believe that such-and-such is the case” how can it be determined whether what I say is true or false? Statements of belief are not transparent like statements of fact are supposed to be. No-one but me knows whether I truthfully believe such-and-such to be the case.

Malperdy.