Is Truth Individual?

[Secret Chief]

No, it was considered to be the truth. Just because called it a fact doesn't make it so. Truth doesn't necessarily require proof; facts do.

What I'm alluding to is we either consider "ourselves" to have achieved a position where we know what we think we know to be factually water-tight or else in the future, as ever in the past so far, we will look back and see the errors in our beliefs in some "facts."

 

[PureX]

The difference in capitalization is helpful in differentiating what you mean, thank you.

We've had a few different discussions along these lines, so maybe let me ask this: how did you arrive at the conclusion that Truth is, "an all-inclusive absolute"? Particularly given your view that, "we humans are not capable of ascertaining/comprehending this Truth, as it far excedes our scope of perception and understanding"?

One of the very few self-evident truths that we humans can be sure of, is that we don't know all there is to be known. Thus, we do not know the Truth (what is). And we will never know it so long as we remain non-omniscient humans.

 

[BSM1]

What I'm alluding to is we either consider "ourselves" to have achieved a position where we know what we think we know to be factually water-tight or else in the future, as ever in the past so far, we will look back and see the errors in our beliefs in some "facts."

We hardly ever do this. Usually we blindly accept the 'truth' without any further explanation necessary. Also, believing something is 'factual' does not make it so.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Often, including on RF, I hear people use phrases like, "your truth," "my truth," "true for me," "true for you," and so on.

Is truth individual? Or is it independent of us as individuals?

Nope, truth is not individual and goes on being true, indifferent as to whether this or that individual "believes" it to be true or not. Neither is truth independent of us as individuals because it is truth itself which created said individuals.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Often, including on RF, I hear people use phrases like, "your truth," "my truth," "true for me," "true for you," and so on.

Is truth individual? Or is it independent of us as individuals?

10 people see one crime. There will be several accounts that very widely. But there is only one truth, not several.

 

[BSM1]

10 people see one crime. There will be several accounts that very widely. But there is only one truth, not several.

No, there is only one that's factual. The observer's truth may depend on that person's perspective. One may see the crime up close, where another could have witnessed the crime from a block away. Both may have a version of the truth, but it may not be factual.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, there is only one that's factual. The observer's truth may depend on that person's perspective. One may see the crime up close, where another could have witnessed the crime from a block away. Both may have a version of the truth, but it may not be factual.

If what they recall isn't fact (and we know memory recall is highly prone to error) it isn't truth as it isn't what happened.

 

[Secret Chief]

We hardly ever do this. Usually we blindly accept the 'truth' without any further explanation necessary.

That is correct, but that doesn't affect the issue I alluded to.

believing something is 'factual' does not make it so.

Of course.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Often, including on RF, I hear people use phrases like, "your truth," "my truth," "true for me," "true for you," and so on.

Is truth individual? Or is it independent of us as individuals?

That would depend upon the truth you're talking about. There are universal truths... such as the Earth orbits the sun. It's not true that it orbits the sun for some, but not for others. Other 'truths' are purely subjective... like what is the best flavor of ice cream. That's a truth based purely on individual opinion.

 

[Cooky]

To me, truth is interchangeable with facts; you can't have your own facts that others haven't.

For me, 'truth' has never been some bizarre spiritual concept; something is true or not.

I agree... Because if you say a word and I say you didn't, only one of the two options can be true.

...Both can't be true.

 

[Onoma]

Truth is just another 4 letter word

 

[McBell]

Often, including on RF, I hear people use phrases like, "your truth," "my truth," "true for me," "true for you," and so on.

Is truth individual? Or is it independent of us as individuals?

The word truth is like the words evidence and theory.
People use the words with a specific meaning in mind and forget or refuse to acknowledge other definitions exist.

 

[Erebus]

Often, including on RF, I hear people use phrases like, "your truth," "my truth," "true for me," "true for you," and so on.

Is truth individual? Or is it independent of us as individuals?

I would say that some truth has to exist independently of individual perception.

I can know at the very least that I am a thinking thing. I also do not believe that the world around me is simply a product of my imagination. I could well be wrong about that latter point though. If I am wrong, then my wrongness implies a truth that is independent of my own perspective: that I'm the only non-imaginary thing in existence. If I'm right, my rightness implies a truth that is independent from my own perspective and the perspectives of everybody else: that I'm not the only non-imaginary thing in existence.

Where I can see "true for me/true for you" as having some validity is when it comes to value judgments or issues with multiple valid perspectives.

If I say black is the best colour, you might argue that this is true for me but not true for somebody else. You might also question whether or not black is a colour at all. "Black is a colour" may be true for an artist but untrue to a physicist. The physicist might say that the artist's paints are actually very dark grey, to which the artist might respond, "We call that black."

Of course, the precise nature of truth has been a subject of debate for a couple of thousand years at least. You might reasonably argue that a value judgement can be thought of as neither true nor false.

 

[ChristineM]

Is truth individual?

I see truth as

"that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

So in that case truth is not individual but can be measured.

However there is another commonly accepted definition

"a fact or belief that is accepted as true"

Which gives so much leeway that i prefer not to use the word truth , it can mean anything you want to believe.

 

[MNoBody]

Often, including on RF, I hear people use phrases like, "your truth," "my truth," "true for me," "true for you," and so on.

Is truth individual? Or is it independent of us as individuals?

logically, how many truths about something could there be?
people are looking for the one truth the absolute truth,
the ancients, like the Egyptians knew there were 2 truths to everything, since this place operates as a duality, so there must be 2 sides to every story
but it gets more complicated when to consider every coin has actually 3 "sides" heads, tails, edge-[they are all planes]
so if there is more than one right answer to a question [which there certainly can be] where does it end?
kind of like pandora's box, this matter has come to be.
reality, being multi-dimensional, has more than one truth, since every plane has its own truth.
as a mason, when setting tiles, each plane has it's truth lines which must be established, before one can proceed to lay the finish tiles, or else screw up the work most likely.
level and plumb, both important truths.
line upon line, precept upon precept, by this is the house established.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Truth is a being, and a chemical reaction.

 

[IAMinyou]

Often, including on RF, I hear people use phrases like, "your truth," "my truth," "true for me," "true for you," and so on.

Is truth individual? Or is it independent of us as individuals?

The Truth is everything that created MEN ( male and female ) will experience for eternity. During this temporary generation, all MEN are experiencing lies from Satan and the Beast that produce all the images and thoughts in the created MINDS of MEN.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Often, including on RF, I hear people use phrases like, "your truth," "my truth," "true for me," "true for you," and so on.

Is truth individual? Or is it independent of us as individuals?

This depends on what sort of truth you're talking about.

People have personal truths based on their own experiences and/or beliefs.

Then there are objective truths that are more universal.

Then there is Absolute Truth, which I cannot explain, so don't even ask.

 

[Left Coast]

If you lived in ancient times and started talking with them about black holes and galaxies, you would be in error according to them. That perception of the heavens has no functional use to them.

That's true, because they had no ability to assess the claim. Once you have the ability to assess the claim, being right suddenly becomes useful.

Yet it did have utility to the group, otherwise the practice would not have continued.

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

While it may not have an effect on the actual weather, it certainly did have an affect on group cohesion. Shared truths and rituals create the experience of reality for its participants.

So yes, being wrong can benefit people in ways not having to do with the content of their wrong belief. But you can get all that same wonderful group cohesion by being right, and your belief will actually be useful on the topic of the belief itself.

From the perception of someone inside a magic system, the modernist flying weather balloons and using the tools of modern science is not recognizing the gods, and therefore, angering them puts them at risk. Their approach to reality has benefit to them, and they see no benefit by tossing out the gods, for instance.

But they're incorrect about that. All one needs to do is show how correct beliefs are useful, by testing them. Let's test how often not sacrificing animals to the gods causes it to rain. That's extremely useful information.

You could make an argument that science as a tool can be more useful for doing that one thing, such as predicting weather patterns, but only if it can be made to fit within that system of the gods. Otherwise, it threatens the system to them, and therefore should not be trusted or believed in.

Why shouldn't we present information that challenges their belief system?

This by the way, is why Creationists and other pseudosciences try to make modern science compatible with magic. They need to try to find a way to get along with that different "atheistic" system by making it agree with the "magic" of their gods-systems. Of course, what they are left with afterwards, is not what a modernist recognizes as real science. But to those in the magic system, it's only real science if it supports the gods.

Therein is the magic keys to understanding fundamentalism.

I think you're onto something there.

 

[Sunstone]

Are you saying math will save us from cultural relativism and the way it shapes how people see and interpret truth? Standardize and replace relative perceptions with mathematics? Remove subjectivity from human experience?

Of course that's not what I'm saying, bro. But your comment is so far from what I am indeed saying, that I would not know where to begin in correcting it. Sorry about that.