truth cannot be defined because it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, in my opinion. it is only in the future evolution of the human brain as it connects to a global biological neural network that will finally reveal the truth behind profiles on the artificial www. Maybe future MRI scanners and lie detectors will be good enough one day to knowwho is lying and who is telling the truth.....see my article for more [link]
to me truth is expressing to the best of ones ability, and as accurately as possible whatever it is their talking about. to barrow from ken white lion, if i see the sky as purple i am telling the truth. if you see it as blue then you are telling the truth. different answers but both factual. so i guess theirs variables in truth according to my lame interpretation. i try to keep it simple, black and white gives all the contrast you need.
how do you find a truth, in science you observe and look for repetition to prove your truth. to have a truth you first need a subject to prove, you first need something relative to have a truth. i know im probably completely wrong so in all fairness pleas explain your point im kinda confused.
i think you can only have a truth so long you have a perceivable reality. i think reality is interpretive because of the inconsistency of biology and the five senses. therefore i think their is no truth, because interpretation is hypothesis.
what is truth anyways, is truth the absolute end of something? the all its gonna be?
truth is a limiter, with no truth comes endless possibility. i think therefor i am.
i know i know nothing, i know no one els can tell me the truth.
knowing this i dont want to dictate, or corrupt others minds with dogma. so i try to suggest my idea as one possibility, while learning from what the other has to offer. piecing together my reality.
To be honest, I think the truth is right in front of us. The real question is what is the most accurate way to express it conceptually without implying assumptions? The problem with expressing concepts linguistically is that words have implicit connotations which can lead to assumptions.
I recently read a scientific article which suggested that the reason diatonic music sounds good is because the notes imitate the frequencies of the vowels in our speech/voice. To me this implies that aesthetics can be both innate and nurtured; "neurons that fire together wire together." If the "truth" is the representation of the state of our environment and being neurologically, then I think truth could be arbitrary to and therefore universally nonexistent...
Ah you mean that way. Well there is no truth to speak of really. Language or the speech function itself is probably unable to describe it if it exists. There are rules. Like the physics rules. The things that happen inside the context of these rules happen on the physical dimension. But it doesnt mean they are proven. The only realisy is our senses. We have more senses than the 5 ones too. But the concept of proof itself is only about percetion. A blind, deaf, paralysed, tasteless, smelless person wouldnt need proof about anything in his internal world.
I read somewhere that negation is a tool used to reach absolute truth (in Buddhism). Negation is supposed to be superior tool than affirmation (though I'm too rusty with my philosophy to remember why). The book also mentioned conventional truth.
I think I read about Advaita Vedanta Hinduism in a thesis by T.R.V. Murti. Have you read "The Central Philosophy of Buddhism; A Study of the Madhyamika System"? I should get back into reading that stuff. I miss it.
I suppose you can say that mathematical principles are truth, and by understanding them we possess bits of truth. Truth doesn't need to be concrete. The mathematical patterns/principles will continue to exist in the universe and govern natural law, even after human thought dies out.
'What makes this logical argument true?' Definitions. When you say 'truth' you mean something that is true, something that can be described as 'fitting the reality', like '2+2 is 4', or 'I'm breathing right now'. As a matter of fact you can even say that fact=truth, but that would be a simplification and a bit of a grammar mistake (some people tend to mix facts and something that they call 'truths', but it all depends on the meaning of the word 'truth'.)
And why do you see it that way? Because you know what words 'truth' and 'reality' mean.
But this is what we are looking for: the meaning of Truth. The word is just a symbolic reference to what it means anyway. And this is our exact problem. What is the proper use of this word? What is the 'true' or 'real' meaning of truth (and reality, as the two seem to overlap)?
Also, what is knowledge without the quality of truth? A mere belief, an unfounded, blind assumption, so it seems.
The meaning of 'truth'-> truth is nothing more but a 'pack' of facts. It is actually the word used to describe the parts of reality. Example-> in reality, there is a force called gravity. Truth- gravity exists. Fact- gravity exists. Difference- facts can be counted (one fact, 2 facts), whereas there is just one truth, because it covers the whole reality.
It sounds like you're talking about absolute certainty, facts that are indisputably true and above opinion. That reminds me of a joke, "a philosopher is a person who knows less and less about more and more, until he knows nothing about everything." And that pretty well says what I think about absolute certainty: it doesn't exist.