Is Your Worldview Correct?

[Kirran]

I see truth as subjective. Truth is what an individual to the best of their ability has determined to accept as true. If there is some objective truth, I doubt we humans will ever know it.

We can create truths, but these again are all subjective.

My world view is correct for me. It may not be correct for anyone else. My world view is based on my subjective truths. There may not exist any other truth other than what we subjectively believe and experience.

This was wonderfully put.

I voted for the first option, because I do think there is truth and that the search for it is supreme. I'm not a relativist.

But do you hold a view which is closer to it than others'? I don't know, maybe you do. I have no way of knowing.

 

[Jumi]

Well these are both just matters of opinion. Something which benefits humanity isn't in some way intrinsically better than something which harms it.

Explain how something harmful is potentially better?

 

[Jainarayan]

A question for the people of RF.

Do you consider the worldview you personally hold, or the religion you follow, or the philosophy you ascribe to, to be the truth? As in, do you think that yours is THE truth, or that it has no less of a claim to truth than any other philosophy?

It's true and correct for me. If you asked 100 living Asatruars (if you could find 100 Asatruars ), 101 of them would probably say the same thing. We have our Gods, others have their Gods, and it's all good. If you could somehow resurrect dead Norse people, they'd probably say the same thing. So yes, my worldview is correct, but it starts and stops with me.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm still reviewing data sets so cannot provide you with a meaningful answer beyond this. Ask me in a few thousand years how correct my worldview was, way back then, and we can watch a nice sunset together and talk about it.

 

[Kirran]

Explain how something harmful is potentially better?

I'm not saying that. Better = more good. Good and bad are incredibly subjective.

I'm still reviewing data sets so cannot provide you with a meaningful answer beyond this. Ask me in a few thousand years how correct my worldview was, way back then, and we can watch a nice sunset together and talk about it.

I might hold you to that.

 

[BSM1]

I believe everyone has to find their own truth. I've got mine so leave me alone. Go find your own.

 

[Jumi]

I'm not saying that. Better = more good. Good and bad are incredibly subjective.

Depends who's talking about good and bad. I think most would think having their basic needs for survival being met as good and dying of hunger bad?

 

[Kirran]

Depends who's talking about good and bad. I think most would think having their basic needs for survival being met as good and dying of hunger bad?

Yeah, I reckon so. But they're still subjective.

 

[Riverwolf]

These three seem to represent a fairly common strand, of one's own system of beliefs being more correct than some others, but not all others.

I never said mine was "more" correct than others.

 

[Kirran]

I never said mine was "more" correct than others.

Apologies. More that yours may or may not be correct to some degree, but that there are some others which are certainly, or very likely to be, incorrect?

 

[Riverwolf]

Apologies. More that yours may or may not be correct to some degree, but that there are some others which are certainly, or very likely to be, incorrect?

It's the correct one for me, at least at this time. It may or may not be correct for others, depending on their given situations.

And there are certain ones that are flat-out incorrect.

 

[Kirran]

It's the correct one for me, at least at this time. It may or may not be correct for others, depending on their given situations.

And there are certain ones that are flat-out incorrect.

Can you name a few that are incorrect?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Our senses of perception, and indeed our entire array of methods of observing the world we live in, are so inaccurate as to be barely even perceiving things.

Did you just opine that our entire array of senses are so inaccurate that we can barely even perceive the material world in which we find ourselves?

Yes?

I thought so.

Which is better: To be barely able to do something or totally unable to do something?

All we ever really experience is our own nervous system (I can't remember who said that, but somebody).

And that's quite enough. We're tool-using creatures. Our nervous systems can be augmented to an amazing degree.

So while certainly, we've built up a massive system of scientific knowledge which is, for the most part internally consistent, there's no real confirmation that this maps to 'reality' as it really is.

Yet you continue to get out of bed in the morning feet first, I presume?

Only that it can suitably explain, again for the most part, what we observe within our nervous system.

I thought all of our sensory input was by definition external? Are you arguing that all the input is internal?

So your worldview automatically negates even the possibility of approaching the truth, correct?

Man, that's an interesting question. I'd say, no. But, within my worldview, it's releasing attachment to opinions about truth, and accepting that what we think of as truth, as much as continue to approach it and study it, isn't somehow 'more true' than what somebody else thinks of as truth.

You've tried to deny it, but it certainly sounds to me like you're proactively announcing that truth is essentially unknowable (and that you're willing to do so on the flimsiest of pretexts).

You may state that 1+1=2 ... but if I'm convinced that 1+1=5, then it's essentially a wash because your perceived truth is no "more true" than my perceived truth?

Does that mean that one plus one actually equals five?

It sounds to me as if you have no solid ground whatsoever from which to operate.

Fiction is something different I think. There's fact ...

No there isn't. At least not according to your worldview as you've explained it so far. You appear to be claiming that there are only opinions about facts.

and all sorts of people posit different facts.

Such as?

So a fact isn't set in stone, but is nevertheless thought of as true, while fiction is not thought of as true.

It seems certain that new evidence can enlarge or refine our understanding of the facts. However, in such a scenario, I'd say that the fact was there the whole time and we were merely ignorant of it. The speed of light didn't suddenly carve itself in stone just because humanity eventually arrived at an understanding of the matter, did it?

It's not that it's no closer to the truth, it's just that it can only be verified with reference to a particular internally-consistent set of scientific knowledge based on our immensely inaccurate sensory system, which may or may not represent the truth to some degree. So, yeah, I believe it. But I can't validate it to somebody who doesn't hold to the same body of knowledge.

So you're saying (for example) that the atomic mass of hydrogen is dependent on a particular "internally-consistent" (but ultimately subjective) body of knowledge?

...

Again: You appear to have no solid footing from which to operate. Typically, this is called "mush."

If our body of knowledge is only "internally consistent" to this universe, do you suppose it'll suffice?

 

[Kirran]

I get quite a vehement impression from this reply. I'm not trying to attack your beliefs at all. Quite the opposite

Did you just opine that our entire array of senses are so inaccurate that we can barely even perceive the material world in which we find ourselves?

Yes?

I thought so.

Which is better: To be barely able to do something or totally unable to do something?

I don't know which is necessarily better, but in this case I think that our array of sense is inaccurate enough that all things we perceive are suspect. So all we perceive are our thoughts.

And that's quite enough. We're tool-using creatures. Our nervous systems can be augmented to an amazing degree.

Certainly, it is enough. I don't dispute that.

Yet you continue to get out of bed in the morning feet first, I presume?

I've gone through stages where I've been a torso-firster. But at the moment, yes, feet.

I thought all of our sensory input was by definition external? Are you arguing that all the input is internal?

No, but the perception is entirely internal.

You've tried to deny it, but it certainly sounds to me like you're proactively announcing that truth is essentially unknowable (and that you're willing to do so on the flimsiest of pretexts).

You may state that 1+1=2 ... but if I'm convinced that 1+1=5, then it's essentially a wash because your perceived truth is no "more true" than my perceived truth?

Does that mean that one plus one actually equals five?

It sounds to me as if you have no solid ground whatsoever from which to operate.

Yes, absolute truth is unknowable, aside from the fact that there is existence.

One plus one would not actually equal five in that scenario, but if such a thing was consistent with your personal beliefs to the extent you had faith it was true, it would be as true for you one plus one equalling two is to me.

I operate perfectly well, thankyou. I accept my own version truth to a great enough extent to operate fine, but nevertheless try not to get too attached to it as being absolutely true.

No there isn't. At least not according to your worldview as you've explained it so far. You appear to be claiming that there are only opinions about facts.

Yeah, I guess along those lines. Although I'd use a stronger word than opinion. Belief. Alternative knowledge.

Such as?

The existence or not of a personal God.

It seems certain that new evidence can enlarge or refine our understanding of the facts. However, in such a scenario, I'd say that the fact was there the whole time and we were merely ignorant of it. The speed of light didn't suddenly carve itself in stone just because humanity eventually arrived at an understanding of the matter, did it?

No, I don't suppose it did, it was there to be discovered as a part of the largely internally-consistent set of knowledge we use to interact with the Universe.

So you're saying (for example) that the atomic mass of hydrogen is dependent on a particular "internally-consistent" (but ultimately subjective) body of knowledge?

...

Again: You appear to have no solid footing from which to operate. Typically, this is called "mush."

If our body of knowledge is only "internally consistent" to this universe, do you suppose it'll suffice?

Yeah, I'm saying that. Don't think I'm throwing it (edit: our body of knowledge that you refer to) out. The assumption of its truths in day-to-day use is massively useful, and works well. I'm a scientist myself, although I guess the Life Sciences might be a bit fuzzier than the elegance of Physics. I'm not saying any of it doesn't suffice, it's very useful.

 

[Riverwolf]

Can you name a few that are incorrect?

Flat-earth model. Ptolomic/Geocentric model.

Or any that are deliberate scams that don't actually do anything.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

A question for the people of RF.

Do you consider the worldview you personally hold, or the religion you follow, or the philosophy you ascribe to, to be the truth? As in, do you think that yours is THE truth, or that it has no less of a claim to truth than any other philosophy?

To get the ball rolling, myself: I hold a collection of beliefs which are more or less in line with Advaita Vedanta, within Hinduism. However, I do not hold out that my beliefs are in some way more correct than anybody else's, as our perception of things is so lacking that it can't be said what the truth is in any case. My beliefs just make sense to me. I think of all belief systems as equally valid.

I'd be fascinated to see what kind of proportions of people think of their own worldview, or system of beliefs, as being true. As, indeed, it might be.

Yes, my worldview is true because my God, my ultimate ideal, is Truth, which is true by definition. I may not know everything , but I'm headed in the right direction.

 

[chinu]

A question for the people of RF.

Do you consider the worldview you personally hold, or the religion you follow, or the philosophy you ascribe to, to be the truth? As in, do you think that yours is THE truth, or that it has no less of a claim to truth than any other philosophy?

To get the ball rolling, myself: I hold a collection of beliefs which are more or less in line with Advaita Vedanta, within Hinduism. However, I do not hold out that my beliefs are in some way more correct than anybody else's, as our perception of things is so lacking that it can't be said what the truth is in any case. My beliefs just make sense to me. I think of all belief systems as equally valid.

I'd be fascinated to see what kind of proportions of people think of their own worldview, or system of beliefs, as being true. As, indeed, it might be.

All creatures belong to "Him"
"He" resides within everyone/everything,
Thus, to whom to say wrong ?
There's nobody instead of "Him"

 

[Kirran]

All creatures belong to "Him"
"He" resides within everyone/everything,
Thus, to whom to say wrong ?
There's nobody instead of "Him"

Is that view correct?

 

[chinu]

Is that view correct?

Its "MY" View, Man!!!