Question about truth

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Question about truth

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:16 pm

Faust wrote:The problem with teaching philosophy to children that young is that most children are born with, and to a great extent still possess at that age, an innate understanding of the difference between real life and make-believe. They are in no position to accept metphysics as anything but nonsense while that is the case.




9 th graders are no longer considered children Faust, however there are some deprived and late developing children who might fit that category.

Nonsense, the various modes of it, may be even at early age reflect Wittgenstein's musings upon philosophy that makes sense. In terms of cognitive. and perceptive conflation. Child psychologists say actual depth preception occurs at the mirror stage. and this sense is somehow a-priori.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5590
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Question about truth

Postby Faust » Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:21 pm

Ninth grade is high school. And they are still children. But there is another reason. To understand metaphysics (or any philosophy) you have to have a firm grasp of language. You have to know that "literally" means "literally" and that "like" means "like". Or at least that it means something. There are highschoolers who could get to first base studying philsophy. Betteer that the time is spent learming about checking accounts and credit cards.

Just one man's opinion.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16890
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:28 pm

Yes but his question was philosophical, and my point is, that the above reasoning points to the question, of why a priori synthetic jugememts possible, is acquired early on.

Our validation through later philosophical study, through self or inatotutional learning, has this unrecognized and debates element , a posteriori.

This leads to some people's opinion that philosophers are born, not made.

I don't really 'know'
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5590
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Question about truth

Postby Faust » Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:38 pm

This is the path from epistemology to morality. So you suggest that epistemology is understandable to ninth graders? It was barely understood by Kant. Who was reputedly very smart. And had to be woekn from slumber by the anti-epistemologist. His religion forged by the fire of an atheist.

Simple for me. I'm just not sure about teenagers.

Back to topic, the confusion that the OP has is just this - that therer is an epistemology of truth. That comes from reading the Greats. Who were wrong.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16890
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:02 pm

Anomaly654 wrote:I enjoy using my mind and reading philosophy and metaphysics in my old age, but have only a formal 9th grade education (self educated). Trying to fill one of the many large gaps in my understanding here. Been trying to figure out what kind or category of thing truth is considered to be in? Some say it's a quality, others a relation and yet others a property. If it is a property, would it be primary or secondary? I take there to be smart folks here who might be gracious enough to explain this. Thanks.

Rather, we speak of true qualities, true relations and true properties -
"Truth" as a concept is not subservient to categorialism, but the root of it.

In other words:
The conception "truth", which has the natural antipode "falsity", is the first and foremost categorical distinction used to enable abstract thinking.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Question about truth

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:08 pm

To align with what Faust said,
"Truth" is not a thing in a category, rather it is the category containing all statements which are true. This category is not part of itself, as the category has no syntactic structure, forms no statement.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Question about truth

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:15 pm

"This category is not part of itself, as the category has no syntactic structure, forms no statement."

This was always the great nuisance for Idealist philosophers who sought to demonstrate how the mother-category of descriptive statements, "truth", amounts, by some internal machinations, to a comprehensive prescriptive statement. Aristotle and Kant sought to discern such machinations and failed, Nietzsche rather sought to devise a true statement that validates all true and all false statements. He succeeded.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Question about truth

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:25 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:"This category is not part of itself, as the category has no syntactic structure, forms no statement."

This was always the great nuisance for Idealist philosophers who sought to demonstrate how the mother-category of descriptive statements, "truth", amounts, by some internal machinations, to a comprehensive prescriptive statement. Aristotle and Kant sought to discern such machinations and failed, Nietzsche rather sought to devise a true statement that validates all true and all false statements. He succeeded.



Yes, somehow a pre-scriptive statement (a priori) no difference there.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5590
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Question about truth

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:27 pm

By "true quality" we mean a quality which is correctly attributed somewhere. So "true" refers to the statement which says that "x" has quality "q".
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Question about truth

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:28 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:By "true quality" we mean a quality which is correctly attributed somewhere. So "true" refers to the statement which says that "x" has quality "q".



Yes, that is pure Wittgenstein

different in kind, but similar in some respects, or identical in most respects except one.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5590
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Question about truth

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:42 pm

What Pedro indicates, the sitting on a rock, I don't use "truth" here but "reality".


Truth is a value, most philosophers have estimated it as the highest value, Nietzsche did the incredible thing of questioning this rank, yet in doing so he merely liberated truth from being only the highest value.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Question about truth

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:50 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:By "true quality" we mean a quality which is correctly attributed somewhere. So "true" refers to the statement which says that "x" has quality "q".



Yes, that is pure Wittgenstein

different in kind, but similar in some respects, or identical in most respects except one.

It is data allocation. W first thought that the world could be reverse-engineered within its proper syntax, i.e. his categorization.

Pretty bold.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Question about truth

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:58 pm

"Category" means "shared value".

The decision to separate memories of experiences in different categories sets a standard-value which is beyond the categories and their permutations.

Iconoclasm, fever, dreamstates are all meant to blow up the containers and go back to a precategorical identification.

If something is "true" something else must be "false", and this is a strain on the nervous system, as it is only this system which keeps these things separated.

Hence the question after the value of truth. Let only useful truths rise! But this is precisely what science is.

However, useful for what?
It was long thought that scientific truth is usefulness-in-itself. And maybe it is.
But then: useful to whom?
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Question about truth

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:09 pm

In physiological terms, Truth is prescriptive. Any suggestion of the distinction true vs false sets in motion a teleological process aimed at clarification of some particular issue. It isolates consciousness from its fullness and sets part of it on a course to make some changes in itself.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Question about truth

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:12 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:"Category" means "shared value".

The decision to separate memories of experiences in different categories sets a standard-value which is beyond the categories and their permutations.

Iconoclasm, fever, dreamstates are all meant to blow up the containers and go back to a precategorical identification.

If something is "true" something else must be "false", and this is a strain on the nervous system, as it is only this system which keeps these things separated.

Hence the question after the value of truth. Let only useful truths rise! But this is precisely what science is.

However, useful for what?
It was long thought that scientific truth is usefulness-in-itself. And maybe it is.
But then: useful to whom?



Maybe to 9th graders who want to study philosophy, so they can inquire whether their original bets measure up with what they have learned.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5590
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Question about truth

Postby Faust » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:42 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:What Pedro indicates, the sitting on a rock, I don't use "truth" here but "reality".


Truth is a value, most philosophers have estimated it as the highest value, Nietzsche did the incredible thing of questioning this rank, yet in doing so he merely liberated truth from being only the highest value.


Yeah, so once you start by confounding truth and reality, you're on this slippery slope that Hegel's brains slid off. If this is not a cautionary tale, I don't know what is.....
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16890
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:57 pm

Logic helps, something, a statement, can't be "true and false" at the same time and place. You are either sitting on the rock, or you're not. You can try to claim there's a "middle-ground", like half-sitting on the rock, but that doesn't matter very much. All it does is make true and false unknown. So, according to logic and rationality, using easy, definitive, literal cases of reality, there are clearly true statements versus false statements. This is simple enough. But when you start compounding hundreds, then thousands, then millions of statements together, to define a clearest picture of reality, all the falsities start adding up, and there is no 'perfect' truth. Because no matter how skilled your logic and rationality is, it will always miss something, and always be susceptible to unknown (synthetic) judgments.

Accurate-truth is a reasonable goal. Perfect-truth is something else.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:26 pm

Yes , in something in stead of nothing, some and no thing are not contradictory. They appear as such, however a no-thing is in itself an oxymoron because there cam never be a thing that is perceived as such.
A nothing is really a no-thing or is it?
That is the problem with existential propositions- pro-positions, we position empty space into some frame reference that determines it, but in spite, it remains undetermined , (as am object).
The frame can not describe it's objective content.
The most it can be said os a tautology, nothing is nothing.
It merely describes it's former position, or pre-position , analogous to the difference between perception and preception , as of there was a spatial/ temporal difference , between them.
Are such positions transcendentally equitable, in other words, does an object near sharing near identity differs because some minute change in it's frame of reference, or does some thing generate a duplicate identity by an indeterminate change?
Within what functional derivation does it become non-sense.
That is where the question of synthesis become appearent.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5590
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Question about truth

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:02 pm

Faust wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:What Pedro indicates, the sitting on a rock, I don't use "truth" here but "reality".


Truth is a value, most philosophers have estimated it as the highest value, Nietzsche did the incredible thing of questioning this rank, yet in doing so he merely liberated truth from being only the highest value.


Yeah, so once you start by confounding truth and reality, you're on this slippery slope that Hegel's brains slid off. If this is not a cautionary tale, I don't know what is.....

And so humans became members of categories of mutually exclusive qualities and culture became a slaughterhouse.
Hegel is truly not sane.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Question about truth

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:49 pm

Anomaly654 wrote:Been trying to figure out what kind or category of thing truth is considered to be in? Some say it's a quality, others a relation and yet others a property. If it is a property, would it be primary or secondary?


All one has to do is understand the meaning of the word "truth". And this is simple enough. The word "truth" simply means "an accurate representation of some portion of reality". A representation can be literally anything. It can be a physical object, a relation, a property, a quality, etc.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3790
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:39 am

"What Pedro indicates, the sitting on a rock, I don't use "truth" here but "reality"." So wait a minute, help me out here. It's not true?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3483
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:43 am

Nietzsche barely touched on truth except in passing because he was dealing with it. A chef doesn't spend his time talking about knives, except in passing and always with a grave reverence shrouded in playfulness. He is light-hearded about the tool he uses so much and is closer to than family. The chef spends his time talking about pepper or whatever the fuck.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3483
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:58 am

Well I could look at the word in that way, that's pretty good. In as far as truth is a proper noun it refers to something which separates itself from untruth.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Question about truth

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:01 am

"What about Bushido...?"?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3483
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:22 am

But the question remains unanswered: is truth from the philosophical perspective a quality, property, relation or something else? Or is truth a thing in its own category? Thanks.


Truth from the philosophical perspective is a relation, condition and perspective.

    Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard.
    -wiki

Thus what we have is this model;

    Reality + Framework = truth

The point with reality is, it is considered within;

    1. Ultimate reality
    2. Empirical reality
    3. Philosophical reality

The point is humans cannot know the truth of ultimate reality, i.e. reality-by-itself.
Humans can only know the truths based on what they can filter out from a framework of truth they rely upon.

Frameworks of Truths
A framework of truth is established to filter out truths of reality with hopes such truths will facilitate the optimizing of the well-being of humanity.
A known framework is established by humans, thus it is conditioned by human effort done to the best of their abilities.
A framework of truth is also conditioned by the consensus of a particular human group.

Thus it is critical, truth cannot be absolute but at most related [relation] to the conditions of the defined and specific framework.

The following are a list of Framework of truths;

    1. Common sense framework of truths
    2. Social Frameworks
    2. Scientific Framework of scientific truths conditioned by the Scientific Method.
    3. Legal Frameworks, legal truths conditioned by specific legislature systems.
    4. Economic Frameworks truths
    5. Political Frameworks
    6. Philosophical Frameworks
    7. Theistic religious Framework
    8. Non-theistic religious Framework
    9. Spiritual Framework
    10. Etc. etc. Frameworks

What is held to be true is based on whether they are opinions, belief or objective knowledge [justified true beliefs].

The common sense frameworks of truths are most based on opinions and personal beliefs.

However it is indisputable the most objective knowledge are scientific knowledge which can be justified by anyone who want to test and justify those knowledge.
Therefore we can generally put the confidence level of objectivity and justified true beliefs of scientific knowledge with as high as 90% and others are to be lower.

However when Scientific knowledge which is Universal is complemented with the appropriate also universal philosophical framework-proper, the confidence level can be raised to 95%.

The other frameworks of truth are not universal thus deserve only low than 90% confidence levels.
Example legal frameworks truth are relative to National, State, counties laws which will vary accordingly.
Thus the truth that X is a convicted murder [1st, 2nd degree] must be strongly qualified to the specific legal Framework upon which the conviction is done. X may not be convicted as a murderer in another court.

The political, economics Framework of truth are similar to the legal Framework of truth, i.e. whatever the truth, they must be qualified to the Framework it is based.
The confidence levels which can attributed to the truths of these framework of truths can range from 75% down to 10% or zero [in the case of dictatorships].

Theistic Framework of truths, i.e. doctrinal truths claimed by theists are conditioned to their respective Framework of truths where the beliefs are not open to sound justifications empirically and philosophically. Rather the doctrinal truths are grounded on faith, i.e. beliefs without proofs nor justified reasons. As such, I would place theistic truths with a ZERO% confidence level while theists would have a CL of 100% on their respective doctrine.

Thus whatever the truth, it is always grounded to its Framework of Truth.
Truth is thus fundamentally a relation, condition or perspective to a reality of without absoluteness as reality-by-itself.

Whatever it is a truth or falsehood, what is critical is whether such truths/falsehoods has utility to the survival of humankind?

As such if a truth and falsehood has a net-positive utility to the survival of humankind, such truths or falsehood should be maintain.
For example, the falsehood of a real Santa has utility of net-positivity for children's happiness.
The falsehood of God exists, albeit an illusion, is a critical necessity for the majority of humans which at present is net-positive for human kind. But this falsehood, "God exists as real" is trending toward a net-negative contribution to the well-being of humanity, thus must be neutralized with fool proof alternatives.

Nuclear energy and nuclear bombs are scientific truths with 90+% confidence level, but such truths must be dealt with carefully and reservations as they has the potential to exterminate the human species.

My point;
Truth - abstracted from a human made Framework of Truth, is thus fundamentally a relation, condition or perspective to a reality which is without absoluteness as reality-by-itself.
The critical factor here is not whether a proposition is absolutely true or false but whether whatever is true or false has utility as a net-positive to the well-being of humanity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users