The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

I wasn’t referring to you, rather to Prism.

I agree.

“Truth” means that it is an accurate reflection of reality.

It isn’t up to me. It is not MY language. I am only explaining what is already defined in the language concerning what the word “true” means and has always meant.

Yes. Although many will foolishly argue that because a “mile” was not defined back then, there were no “feet” in a mile. It would be a silly argument, but we get a lot of that around here.

So definitions have some kind of reality that transcends time?
At the time (500000 years ago) there was nobody to think about these definitions. And even if somebody was alive, he had no knowledge of the definitions.

In the future, one would expect that the definitions will be lost and there will no longer be any knowledge of them.

The definitions have no relevance except to us, now.

Yes, definitions in a language have nothing to do with time. The statement, “the universe existed a billion years ago” is a true statement even though there might have been no one to think so a billion years ago. The statement is made in the present … ABOUT the past (or future). The definitions are a matter of when the statement is made, because the statement is the claim. It would be a different issue if one said that someone a billion years ago claimed that the universe existed. A “mile” is defined in the current language, so it doesn’t matter what time frame is being discussed. A mile is still a mile.

The statements are only true(or false) now.

Did you read his question?

That’s asking if the definitions in some way existed back then. Note that he is not asking if the concepts of feet and miles as we have defined them are applicable when we speak of events in the past.

If you answer “yes”, then the truth must be embedded in the objects.

Restating the actual question, “Is this statement true, ‘500,000 years ago there were 5,280 feet in a mile?’” That is the same question as “500,000 years ago, was it true that there were 5,280 feet in a mile”. The word “it” in that statement refers to the thought about a mile being 5,280 feet long 500,000 years ago. The thought or statement is true, because the length of a mile relative to a foot doesn’t change with time. The definitions of the words are the ones of today because the question is being asked using today’s definitions.

Else he would have to have asked, "Was a mile defined to be 5,280 feet 500,000 years ago?"

That would be a different question concerning the definition of a “mile”. The actual question concerned relative lengths, not definitions. How else could anyone ever speak of anything concerning prehistoric times? You are saying that because there was no language in those days nothing can be said about those days.

It is a matter of proper semantics.

It certainly is not. I thought that you were better than that. It didn’t ask anything at all about the definitions of the words, merely the relative lengths that the words referenced. It is asking of relative lengths.

I’m not sure what you meant by that, but the question was about relative lengths, not words.

And my issue was that it isn’t “truth” that is embedded, but the reality that is embedded. Truth is about the words. And words are not embedded in objects (usually). Reality (and Affectance) is embedded in all existent things.

Well, you can ask him but I’m pretty sure that’s what he was asking since that’s consistent with his OP.

You might be right as far as what he intended. But if so, he didn’t word it properly.

And the idea of truth being within the scene itself is a common phrasing, just more poetic than accurate.

“everyone else” ?? - you are lying!
Note I have countered all the points your raised and they are off the mark.

Note if you have any strong point which still have some sense I will surely continue to keep responding to it until you give up or I accept the point.
Your regular one-liners imply you have ran out of arguments.

It is basically logic and rationality.

I believe I have understood your OP and countered that your OP should be actually 'the Truth of the “Spiritual Mechanics”." Your OP’s focus is not about ‘truth’ per se.

‘Truth’ is a fundamental of Philosophy. I have done extensive and very deep research into this critical element [truth] of Philosophy.
Note this;
plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#ReaAntRea
You check yourself with the above SEP article whether you are up to date with the various issues re ‘truth’ [philosophy].

I suggest you refer to the SEP I linked re ‘Truth’ and from other philosophical sources on the term ‘truth’.
As I had stated your OP is not focussing on Truth per-se. What you have presented is a false theory about truth [philosophy]. I had explained earlier but you don’t seem to get, thus I did not bother thereafter.

I had stated in my first post, your mentioned of ‘Avicenna’ is an obvious clue you are going in the direct of ‘truth’ in relation to ‘God’. Btw, God is not about truth-in-general but rather faith.

[/quote]
If you can produce any sound arguments against my ‘God is an Impossibility’ I will give you a million thanks because you would have contributed to raise my knowledge one big quantum-leap notch.
I have not come across any poster here who has cracked my argument ‘God is an Impossibility.’
If your counter is very convincing it would be very striking to catch my attention and I will be obliged to keep it in mind to prove it wrong or accept it.

‘underlying motives’
I have been very transparent with why I argued and raised the OP ‘God is an Impossibility’ i.e.
the reason is theism-as-a-whole is loaded with very evil laden elements that inspire some evil prone theists [from especially THAT religion of peace] to commit terrible evils and violence around the world with the potential to exterminate the human species. (nb: Trump and Kim could do that but that is a different topic i.e. politics)
Because the above is so glaring and evident, humanity must critique theism.

James, your points are very philosophically-childish.

I have highlighted Wittgenstein’s ‘Language Games’ and the weakness of language which must be overridden by philosophical deliberations and critical thinking

Note a ‘mile’ is based on ‘feet.’
The original measurement of a ‘foot’ was actually grounded the ‘foot’ of someone or an average reading of a few feet.

The current popular measurements based on the metric system was once based on a standard bar of metal kept in a safe.

So as you can see all measurements of distance are fundamentally dependent on human consensus.

Note the general rule, there is no thing-in-itself [Kant], i.e. no absolute things.

So there is no such thing as a ‘mile-in-itself’ but rather there is only a mile-by-humanselves.

What kind of nonsense is that?

Where is the ‘reality’ that is embedded in a stone [object]?

The point is this;
-truth = facts = real = reality.

What is real must be verifiable and justifiable [rationally].
Truth per se is a statement of facts which must be verified and justified rationally/philosophically.

‘That apple on the table is green’ is true when such a statement of fact is verified and justified rationally with empirical evidences and proofs.
Why we need philosophical rational justifications is because on further philosophical deliberation ‘perhaps there is no apple at all’ note Russell,

Even with a sound basis of “truth = fact = real = reality” one should be humbled enough [because truth is human-made] there is no absolute certainty of what we declare as the highest ‘truth’ which from another perspective could be at best ‘polished conjecture’ [Popper].

Wherever the stone is, is where the reality of the stone is (assuming that it is a “real stone”). It is a tautological issue. If the stone is real, then OBVIOUSLY the reality is in the presence of the stone. #-o

Wrong again.

real => leads to => Reality => leads to => facts => leads to => Truth

Truth is a mental construct derived by observation and deduction of what appears to be real, appears to be Reality.

No. What is real is merely what is real. It needs no justification at all. It is what YOU BELIEVE TO BE REAL that “must be verified and/or justified”. It is the belief that must be justified by comparing it with what is found to be real.

There you go.

Truth is the thoughts or statements, not the reality itself. The thoughts must be verified to ensure that they “align with reality”, are “true to Reality”, properly form a “map of Reality”.

You are using tautology.

You are using IF, i.e. if the stone is real.
But what is meant by ‘real’ stone?

Note Russell again?

According to Russell, perhaps there is no real stone at all.

I wonder whether you understand the principle underlying the question, perhaps there is no real table or stone.

Don’t jump yet!
The stone is real, if you throw a stone at me I will avoid it.
But the stone is not absolutely real in the sense you are claiming it to be real.

What is a real stone is always interdependent with the subject[s] who realize and actualize the stone.

Wrong again.
How can you start with the ‘real’ when you have not known what it is?

How can you align with ‘reality’ before you know ‘what is reality’.
This is Meno’s paradox.

There various phases to understand what is reality?
'What you called ‘align’ with ‘reality’ is actually the testing and reproduction process for example in Science.

First Science established what is reality in accordance its Scientific Framework and System based on an intersubjective consensus basis. This is the Scientific Reality as actualized and realized.
Say the Scientific Reality that is established is, when one burns hydrogen, the result is water.
The alignment with Scientific Reality is thus testing and reproducing this theory to verify and justify such a Scientific truth and reality.

I anticipate most people will think, but there were ‘hydrogen’ burned by ‘oxygen’ before humans existed.
But the point is ‘hydrogen’ oxygen are Scientific based terms which are based on intersubjective consensus are human-based concepts and before is time based, i.e. human intuition [Kantian].
Therefore what is realized as reality, i.e. Scientific, common-sense, etc. are interdependent with human subjects. There is no reality-in-itself [Kantian] that appears to be real. ???

#-o

This is the idea that “reality” is whatever you put a name on. If you don’t put a name on, then it’s not “reality”.

A Realist would say that “reality” is outside of the mind and it doen’t matter if you have named it or not. It doesn’t matter if you have identified it rightly or wrongly or identified it at all. If a stone falls on your head and kills you, then you are still dead whether you saw it or not. If people find your body years later and can’t identify the cause of your death … you’re still dead. If your body is never found … you’re still dead. The “real stone”, “the absolutely real stone” acts in spite of what you think.

Now along come the “anti-philosophers” and they think that thinking is the ‘be all and end all’ of “reality”. :laughing:

Gyahd. Have you no comprehension of the language at all? [-(

It is not the name that counts in the consideration of Reality. What counts in its verifiability and justifications.

If both of us are standing on railway track and see a train coming in our way, I will jump off the track and I presume you will do the same. Both of us are realist.

The difference between you and me is how we philosophize ‘what is reality’ and the type of ‘realist’ view you hold.

Btw, I stated elsewhere there are two types of ‘realists.’ i.e.

  1. Empirical realist
  2. Transcendental realist

I am a realist, i.e. an Empirical Realist that engages, entangles and interacts with empirical reality via an emergent reality.

OTOH, in your case, you are a transcendental realist, i.e. your Reality is an independent external reality beyond your self and reach which you can never really get in touch to actualize it.

It is this transcendental view that compel and seduce you into believing a God that exists externally and independent of yourself. While such a belief is useful psychologically it bring forth terrible evils and violence by SOME evil prone theists.

Note Russell again “Perhaps there is no table at all.” So perhaps there is no “stone” at all and I am ‘certain’ there is no absolutely real stone, except a ‘stone’ that is conditioned to a respective Framework and System.

I believe you are not able to get a philosophical handle on this point at all. I suggest you suspend your current belief for a while and reflect deeply on Russell’s point ‘There may not be a table at all.’

A stone in a more realistic perspective is a denser bundle of molecules amidst other looser molecules of earth, etc.
Within common sense a real stone is what is defined and cognized as a stone.
A blind-bat will not see a stone like human or other non-sonar animals see it.
If one view the stone using an electron microscope, then it is just a bundle/cluster of atoms.
There are so many perspectives that one described that stone as real.
So what is the real absolute stone?

I am ‘certain’ there is no absolutely real stone, except a ‘stone’ that is conditioned to a respective Framework and System.

I don’t doubt that. And it makes me think that your philosophy is just a lot of mental gymnastics and talk. When it comes to actually living, things get real. Not surprising … how could it be otherwise?

That kind of process of sticking ideas, people and things into labelled boxes doesn’t really interest me. I’m only interested in practical philosophy … philosophy which is useful, helps me, improves my life.

I believe that there is a real God because it explains some features of the universe which would otherwise be unexplainable. It’s possible that I am wrong but I think that the probability is in my favor. I really don’t lose anything by having this belief.

Perhaps there is no Russell or framework or system or “conditioning”.

Different levels of abstractions … you call them different realities.

What is IT that you are abstracting? You refuse to call IT reality.

That seems to sum it up.

I agree there is a lot of mental gymnastics and very complex ones but these are necessary for humanity’s sake.

The drive to believe in a God is psychological, critically necessary and primarily has significant psychological benefits to the individual [s] as a balm to soothe the inherent unavoidable existential crisis -the angst.
Basically theism as a psychological balm is a very SELFISH thing but there are no effective alternatives for the majority in their present psychological state.

However looking at the big picture in relation to humanity, whilst theism serves primarily* a selfish needs it has its double-edged with its inevitable unavoidable manifestation of terrible evils and violence by SOME [potential pool of billion+] evil prone theists.

The problem with the individual theists is they are driven naturally by SELFISH drives and that blinded them to see themselves as a whole group of theists with its malignant evils that is a threat to humanity -possible extermination of the species by SOME theists.

The theory is thus, no theism = no theistic related evils and violence, but this is not practical until there are effective fool proofs alternative replacements to deal with that inherent existential angst.

So at least at present I am discussing the theory only with the optimism it will be practical in the future.

Framework and System is imperative. But is possible for no framework Russell or even ‘you’ but only within the relevant Framework and System [Y].

‘Abstraction’ is a very limited description.
Take the Scientific Framework and its reality, there is abstraction in Science but the whole process to enabling scientific theories and knowledge very complex.

I understand one can think of ONE REALITY, but that is only in thought and such a ‘reality’ is an impossibility within an empirical-rational basis. There is a psychological basis to think of such an absolute reality just as one can only think of God which is an impossibility.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Prismatic, than are dreamt of in your simple-minded philosophy.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzforrealzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzohah?