What is Truth?

[WmJackP]

Kant’s problem here, I believe, is in swallowing Humean scepticism when it comes to substance and perception.

I wouldn’t be so hard on Kant, if I were you. He was unusally insightful for the era in which he lived. Particularly, now, as in the 21st century we come to “know” the quantum, it is a perfectly valid question to wonder what is reality.

Some might, therefore, say that E.K. was way ahead of the game.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I wouldn’t be so hard on Kant, if I were you. He was unusally insightful for the era in which he lived. Particularly, now, as in the 21st century we come to “know” the quantum, it is a perfectly valid question to wonder what is reality.

Some might, therefore, say that E.K. was way ahead of the game.

Hey Jack,

I’m not bad-mouthing Kant. I think he was a phenomenally good and generally consistent philosopher. I just think he wasn’t critical enough of Hume. His denial of the possibility of knowing the thing-in-itself was based more on Humean epistemology than his own construction of the subjective categories of thought, and this is where I find fault with him: that it doesn’t logically follow that because your mind necessarily imposes upon sense experience a framework for interpretation (particularly with regards to space and time) that therefore you cannot know if reality actually has these qualities. Moreover, the conclusion that even the self is ultimately unknowable is - while I wouldn’t deny, partly true - using the wrong approach to knowing the self. The idealists understood things better here, especially Fichte, I think, but their development of Kant’s ideas led philosophy down a false path that we still haven’t recovered from.

Anyway, that’s my opinion.

 

[fhansen]

I tried again at a response to this question. Any comments, questions, concerns?

Anything that’s not false. Falsehood, amazingly, can exist in our universe, due to human rejection of truth.

 

[tonyrey]

Hey Jack,

I’m not bad-mouthing Kant. I think he was a phenomenally good and generally consistent philosopher. I just think he wasn’t critical enough of Hume. His denial of the possibility of knowing the thing-in-itself was based more on Humean epistemology than his own construction of the subjective categories of thought, and this is where I find fault with him: that it doesn’t logically follow that because your mind necessarily imposes upon sense experience a framework for interpretation (particularly with regards to space and time) that therefore you cannot know if reality actually has these qualities. Moreover, the conclusion that even the self is ultimately unknowable is - while I wouldn’t deny, partly true - using the wrong approach to knowing the self. The idealists understood things better here, especially Fichte, I think, but their development of Kant’s ideas led philosophy down a false path that we still haven’t recovered from.

Anyway, that’s my opinion.

I agree with you. No one has the monopoly of the truth except… you know Who!

 

[tonyrey]

Anything that’s not false. Falsehood, amazingly, can exist in our universe, due to human rejection of truth.

… and lack of knowledge.

 

[fhansen]

… and lack of knowledge.

But wouldn’t it be correct to say that ignorance at least began with a willing preference to believe what Adam wanted to believe (a lie) for the purpose of gaining what he thought would be of some greater benefit to him? Or, in a truly innocent world, would knowledge be necessary? Would falsity necessarily exist, with or without full knowledge/understanding?

 

[Pugsly]

Faith is a way of SEEING into the previously hidden layers of ORDER that is actually there.

Science is an ongoing attempt to arrange and understand the ORDER that we SEE.

Truth is ORDER.

Ps…a people that SEE enough ORDER to order themselves…can be a free people. A people that reject the “confines of SELF-ORDER”…will have to be ruled like animals.

America is now a land that is too stupid to be free.

 

[Pugsly]

Truth in the mind is the conformity of the mind to that which is outside the mind (the real).

I like this:thumbsup:

 

[Linux]

Philosophically, I like Aristotle’s definition from Metaphysics:

Truth “…is to say of what is, that it is, or to say of what is not, that it is not…”

…In relation to that which is.

 

[tonyrey]

But wouldn’t it be correct to say that ignorance at least began with a willing preference to believe what Adam wanted to believe (a lie) for the purpose of gaining what he thought would be of some greater benefit to him?

It is correct from a moral point of view but from a philosophical point of view ignorance is an inevitable consequence of our limited knowledge.

Or, in a truly innocent world, would knowledge be necessary?
Would falsity necessarily exist, with or without full knowledge/understanding?

Falsity wouldn’t exist necessarily if it is associated with culpability.

 

[Reprobus]

In the context of “I am the Truth and the Way”…

Truth was and is a popular idol, based on a 3rd century BC polytheistic theology (platonism) which was very popular in Christ’s time.

 

[WmJackP]

Truth is an intangible “reflection” of reality…

No it’s not. Truth is not a phenomena as your definition would suggest. The term “truth”, If you mean it in the “corresponding” sense, such as “the cat is on the table”, then “truth” is a description of reality. In other words, the statement “corresponds” to observation.

If you mean “truth” in a “revealing” sense, then “truth” is a condition which arises when an object or event creates an appeal to one’s sense of aesthetics or symmetry. A beautiful picture, for example “reveals” something about beauty or certain poems might “reveal” something to us (or awaken within ourselves) something of the human condition. Keats’ famous “truth is beauty ,etc” captures this, I think.

It bothers me greatly to hear and see language tossed around like fodder to make points that cannot be rationally made. The use of the word “truth” is certainly one such example.
In my opinion (which certainly may not be of significant weight) is that many of us could take lessons from Wittgenstein’s commentaries on language—essentially his views that what many of us say and utter is meaningless.