Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
We all understood your point, as it was simple and basic, it was just meaningless.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is no Truth, and if there was you don't have it.
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
We all understood your point, as it was simple and basic, it was just meaningless.
Of the senses, yes. 'Facts' that are not observed (verified) and observable (true and actual) are called fiction, of whichever type (including prediction, inference, and imagining).
Each particular, each specific thing, can be poised objectively or subjectively--neither is inherent. I could point at anything and say a way in which it actually is and a way in which it can be applied meaningfully.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
But you can't say how it actually is, as the brain takes the input from the world around and re-frames everything.
Now, just to clear things up, I am not suggesting that things disappear when no one is looking at them or that they don't exist if nothing perceives them, but that the state of being objective is a shared category between the object and the observer. The senses work because they interact with the world around us, we classify things as objective based on that interaction, without it there is no objectivity. An object cannot be said to have certain empirical qualities if there is nothing around to interact with this qualities.
Take this old philosophical question: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
The answer is no. We know enough about sound now to know that it is vibrations in air that are heard. If there is no one around to hear it, then it is just vibrations in the air, as there is no interaction with an ear. For it to be sound it would need that interaction.
Objectivity is a label, and in this label we say this phenomenon has certain observed characteristics.
Last edited:
That's the reason that you CAN say how it actually is--because brains have always been this way, never ever not been this way, so this IS the framework for the concepts involved, and in fact the context in which the whole language evolved.
It's not like there is an alternative reality beyond our senses. "Reality" refers to nothing more than what is evident to the senses and the tools we use to extend our senses. Anything more is, by definition, imaginary.
The senses work because they ARE "the world around us." Our body is a part of the world that is being sensed, not distinct from it. The senses cannot help but provide input that is the true and actual world, because what is "true and actual" depends on that for its meaning.
What you describe above makes for the world to be exterior, rather than objective. They are not the same thing. Objectivity refers to truth, not what is exteriorized. But if that's where this conversation is leading, I may drop it.
I'm not sure what connection you are drawing between the example of the tree in the forest and objectivity. "We are informed about the sounds trees make when they fall." -->Objectivity is the meta-picture, it is that picture, or any picture that we draw in words or thought, being true. By contrast, subjectivity is that same picture but painted with additional meaning, be it personal (ostensibly about others but, in fact, about how we ourselves are feeling or thinking), non-literal or figurative. The former (facts) are true regardless of what we think of them.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Conclusion: There is truth in the Absolute if one allows for the Absolute. Otherwise there is no truth.
Clearly jeremiahcp and willamena do not and probably cannot comprehend the Absolute.
The thread title is therefore incorrect.
Clearly jeremiahcp and willamena do not and probably cannot comprehend the Absolute.
The thread title is therefore incorrect.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I like how you pretend you are following the thread, it's cute.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Your definition is flawed, therefore your conclusion is flawed.
I give up. You guys have fun.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
"The truth of the truth is that it doesn't exist, sorry but that is the honest truth."
I'd believe you... but I get the distinct impression that you aren't telling me the truth.
I'd believe you... but I get the distinct impression that you aren't telling me the truth.
Spideymon77
A Smiling Empty Soul
Thank you! I'm tired of people going "Oh no, I KNOW the truth, I can feel it." Like that has some sort of merit.
But, who really knows? Maybe we'll find the truth someday. But, from what I gather, nobody has the truest truth.
Repox
Truth Seeker
Hey, I found truth! I just ate it. It was a steak sandwich. It disappeared from the plate when I ate it. That is the truth!
"I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch." - James Watson
InChrist
Free4ever
But of course, your view expressed here is the TRUTH, right?
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Everything I say is a lie.
InChrist
Free4ever
So, if everything you say is admittedly a lie what is your point in saying anything at all about truth?
He's paraphrasing an ancient Greek chestnut. The statement presents a logical paradox: If everything he says is a lie, then he is lying then, meaning that at least some things that he says are true.