What is the Ground of Truth?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Before we can access the purifying fire, we must risk life. Only the one who comes into being and believes can willingly risk his life.

Yeah, I am not your we not matter how must you claim to be a we.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

There are several definitions of truth, I use the definition "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

So if it can be measured or observed i reckon it's true

Would you rather be in accordance with the reality of the present (and soon to be past) or the reality of the future? Can the reality of the future be measured or observed?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Would you rather be in accordance with the reality of the present (and soon to be past) or the reality of the future? Can the reality of the future be measured or observed?

Well, no even the present can be measures as the same for all cases of the Truth. I just check if I can do the False in a given case and then do that, not matter how much you claim we and the Truth. I am skeptic and thus I do false as lot and apparently it works even for the idea of the One True God.

 

[Alien826]

I start with the assumption that there really is something "out there" (something that causes the images that appear in my brain). I then take all the information that is available to me and subject it to something akin to the scientific method, that is I attempt to eliminate as much subjectivity as I can. I constantly reexamine my "truth" in the light of new information. I recognize that attaining absolute truth is probably impossible, but add that my method has worked quite well in my personal life. My conclusion that touching a hot surface will damage me has stood up to all my experience and saved me from many burns.

Obviously the above is an ideal. I can't investigate everything and sometimes I rely on the research that others have done. I also filter my investigations based on their importance to me. A claim that someone has seen a polka dotted kangaroo in Australia gets less attention than a letter from the IRS (the tax authority).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I start with the assumption that there really is something "out there" (something that causes the images that appear in my brain). I then take all the information that is available to me and subject it to something akin to the scientific method, that is I attempt to eliminate as much subjectivity as I can. I constantly reexamine my "truth" in the light of new information. I recognize that attaining absolute truth is probably impossible, but add that my method has worked quite well in my personal life. My conclusion that touching a hot surface will damage me has stood up to all my experience and saved me from many burns.

Obviously the above is an ideal. I can't investigate everything and sometimes I rely on the research that others have done. I also filter my investigations based on their importance to me. A claim that someone has seen a polka dotted kangaroo in Australia gets less attention than a letter from the IRS (the tax authority).

Yeah, I do it like this:
Objective as independent of brains.
Objective as formal reasoning in brains.
Social as shared subjectivity.
Individual subjectivity.
Trying to add all of those up.

 

[exchemist]

What do you use as the ground of truth?
The foundation from which all other truths are developed.
As an example, do you use the Bible as your ground of truth?
Do you go back to what is written in the Bible (or some other Holy work) to support what you claim as true?

When you say this is true or that is true, what is the foundation that you support your argument on?

I've always thought it a great mistake to speak of truth where religious ideas are involved. All such ideas are nebulous and incapable of testing or validation, so it seems to me truth is the wrong word, even though truth is often claimed in religious contexts.

To me, truth is the extreme end of a scale of certainty and uncertainty. What we experience in life is somewhere on that scale but usually not at the extreme ends. Outside the realm of logic and pure mathematics, it is far easier to show something to be false than to show it to be true. I think Pontius Pilate had a point.

 

[AppieB]

What do you use as the ground of truth?
The foundation from which all other truths are developed.
As an example, do you use the Bible as your ground of truth?
Do you go back to what is written in the Bible (or some other Holy work) to support what you claim as true?

When you say this is true or that is true, what is the foundation that you support your argument on?

Truth (capital T) is a loaded word (in philosophy). I normally don't use the word in this context. I don't think we can discover the Truth. What we try to do is gain reliable knowledge about reality.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What do you use as the ground of truth?

Experience

Do you go back to what is written in the Bible (or some other Holy work) to support what you claim as true?

I've gone to scripture to validate my experiences.

When you say this is true or that is true, what is the foundation that you support your argument on?

This is essentially the same question as the first. So the answer remains the same. Experience.

That said, I don't make it a habit of arguing my truths. I find doing so to be and exercise in futility. If you are interested in what I perceive to be truth, I'm happy to share. But I have no interest in arguing about them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Truth (capital T) is a loaded word (in philosophy). I normally don't use the word in this context. I don't think we can discover the Truth. What we try to do is gain reliable knowledge about reality.

As long as you don't confuse objective as independent of brains, formal in brains, social, individual and what happens if you try to add them up.
And understand that knowledge is as much a cognitive construct as truth.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

What do you use as the ground of truth?
The foundation from which all other truths are developed.
As an example, do you use the Bible as your ground of truth?
Do you go back to what is written in the Bible (or some other Holy work) to support what you claim as true?

When you say this is true or that is true, what is the foundation that you support your argument on?

Trial and error. I put things to the test.

If you patiently practise your theories and remain attentive to their effects and realise that they work (have the expected effects), then you know there’s truth in them.

If you patiently practise your theories and remain attentive to their effects and realise that they really don’t work, then you’ve either missed something, misunderstood stuff or quite simply been wrong/ believed in wrong stuff.

Some will say that they’ve not the time to put things to the test but to me, doing just that is the meaning of life.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Trial and error. I put things to the test.

If you patiently practise your theories and remain attentive to their effects and realise that they work (have the expected effects), then you know there’s truth in them.

If you patiently practise your theories and remain attentive to their effects and realise that they really don’t work, then you’ve either missed something, misunderstood stuff or quite simply been wrong/ believed in wrong stuff.

Some will say that they’ve not the time to put things to the test but to me, doing just that is the meaning of life.

Humbly,
Hermit

The truth of everything might be that it is false. At least that is the result I get.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

The truth of everything might be that it is false. At least that is the result I get.

That’s interesting.

How do you mean? Or rather; how did you arrive at that conclusion?

If you live as though all is false:
a) what should happen?
b) does the answer to (a) happen?

If the answer to (b) is yes, there must be some truth to what you are saying.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That’s interesting.

How do you mean? Or rather; how did you arrive at that conclusion?

If you live as though all is false:
a) what should happen?
b) does the answer to (a) happen?

If the answer to (b) is yes, there must be some truth to what you are saying.


Humbly,
Hermit

No, I meant that the idea of everything as everything as only true is false. Truth still works, it is just local and never universal for everything.

 

[ChristineM]

Would you rather be in accordance with the reality of the present (and soon to be past) or the reality of the future? Can the reality of the future be measured or observed?

If you can observe the future then you could getv great well paying job in government planning. As for me, no magic involved, hence my original post

 

[RestlessSoul]

I've always thought it a great mistake to speak of truth where religious ideas are involved. All such ideas are nebulous and incapable of testing or validation, so it seems to me truth is the wrong word, even though truth is often claimed in religious contexts.

To me, truth is the extreme end of a scale of certainty and uncertainty. What we experience in life is somewhere on that scale but usually not at the extreme ends. Outside the realm of logic and pure mathematics, it is far easier to show something to be false than to show it to be true. I think Pontius Pilate had a point.

In context though, Pilate was responding to Jesus’ statement that he had come to bear witness to the truth; and that everyone who was of the truth would hear his voice. So, did Pilate fail to recognise the truth Jesus was referring to, or did he dismiss it with a philosophical aside? Was he too clever for his own good?

 

[PureX]

What do you use as the ground of truth?
The foundation from which all other truths are developed.
As an example, do you use the Bible as your ground of truth?
Do you go back to what is written in the Bible (or some other Holy work) to support what you claim as true?

When you say this is true or that is true, what is the foundation that you support your argument on?

In most instances I would base my presumption of an idea's truthfulness on whether or not it works as true when it's acted on in life. And I suspect this it true of all of us. Although there is clearly variation in how we determine that the idea 'works'.

 

[AppieB]

As long as you don't confuse objective as independent of brains, formal in brains, social, individual and what happens if you try to add them up.
And understand that knowledge is as much a cognitive construct as truth.

As long as you don't make it more confusing by using words that are not relevant to my original post.

 

[Audie]

What do you use as the ground of truth?
The foundation from which all other truths are developed.
As an example, do you use the Bible as your ground of truth?
Do you go back to what is written in the Bible (or some other Holy work) to support what you claim as true?

When you say this is true or that is true, what is the foundation that you support your argument on?

Depends

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As long as you don't make it more confusing by using words that are not relevant to my original post.

Yeah, your post is not a part of the universe and thus connected to the rest of the universe.

 

[Augustus]

When you say this is true or that is true, what is the foundation that you support your argument on?

In terms of ideological or belief systems, they are fictions/myths that create meaning rather than truths.

Inn terms of narrow facts, a combination of evidence and reason, although I have to accept my evaluation of evidence and application of reason is dependent on many things, such as my worldview.

The best standard, imo, is experience: has this knowledge proved useful over prolonged periods of time? This is more about utility than truth though, and utility is generally a more useful and realistic standard.