Thread: Does Truth Exist?

I think that the short answer is yes, because if a question is specific enough then there can only be one answer if all of the knowedge in the universe could be used to find the conclusion.

However, the practical answer is no.

Firstly, no question could ever be specific enough with language as we know it. It is also impossible to really make language much more percise then it is today anyway. One person's definition of good or what is best for a society may be completely different then someone else's perception, and those are normally what political discussions are about.

Another blow to absolute truth would be that different people have different morals, ethics and religions. So many things in life are subjective, (including language) that the goal that one person may be looking for may be different then what someone else has in mind.

However, this is not to say that we can't get closer to some form of truth, because if we discuss our morals, ethics and definitions of words then we will can still progress.

Debates are still interesting though because to get something out of a discussion you can never, or even have to prove that what you are saying is an absolute truth.
As long as you show your reasons to other people, everone can still create what they see truth to be, but they will have more information then they did before.

I see where you're coming from but remember in the end actions speak louder than words and thoughts. So even if something happened in the past and we interpret that action as whatever happened, then that should be the truth, even if that person had intended something else in their mind. For example someone thinks about making everyone less poor and that is their agenda, but in the end what they have done is made those people poorer and some others that weren't poor, poor. So then later if someone says what did that person do for those people, we would say made everyone poorer because that's in fact what happened, even though it's not what that person intended to happen.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

I think that the short answer is yes, because if a question is specific enough then there can only be one answer if all of the knowedge in the universe could be used to find the conclusion.

However, the practical answer is no.

Firstly, no question could ever be specific enough with language as we know it. It is also impossible to really make language much more percise then it is today anyway. One person's definition of good or what is best for a society may be completely different then someone else's perception, and those are normally what political discussions are about.

Another blow to absolute truth would be that different people have different morals, ethics and religions. So many things in life are subjective, (including language) that the goal that one person may be looking for may be different then what someone else has in mind.

However, this is not to say that we can't get closer to some form of truth, because if we discuss our morals, ethics and definitions of words then we will can still progress.

Debates are still interesting though because to get something out of a discussion you can never, or even have to prove that what you are saying is an absolute truth.
As long as you show your reasons to other people, everone can still create what they see truth to be, but they will have more information then they did before.

No that is not true. Sorry I had to say that. I agree with your comments.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

I think that the short answer is yes, because if a question is specific enough then there can only be one answer if all of the knowedge in the universe could be used to find the conclusion.

However, the practical answer is no.

Firstly, no question could ever be specific enough with language as we know it. It is also impossible to really make language much more percise then it is today anyway. One person's definition of good or what is best for a society may be completely different then someone else's perception, and those are normally what political discussions are about.

Another blow to absolute truth would be that different people have different morals, ethics and religions. So many things in life are subjective, (including language) that the goal that one person may be looking for may be different then what someone else has in mind.

However, this is not to say that we can't get closer to some form of truth, because if we discuss our morals, ethics and definitions of words then we will can still progress.

Debates are still interesting though because to get something out of a discussion you can never, or even have to prove that what you are saying is an absolute truth.
As long as you show your reasons to other people, everone can still create what they see truth to be, but they will have more information then they did before.

I think that truth does exist, and that we are just not yet capable of coming to a complete realization of all truth. That is the reason I believe we are here, to learn how to find truth.

Much of what I have seen says that truth is subjective, which I agree with because we are subjective beings. However, I think a lot of this is because of our lack of communication (language is not a perfect tool for coming to complete truth as you said), our unwillingness to accept other ideas, our stubbornness and pride to see ourselves as right in our views.

One problem with this too is we can think we know something, yet if we only were open to obtaining more knowledge we would change what we “know”. For instance, if you overheard a young person you did not know say “I have a date tonight”, an automatic assumption would be that this person is unmarried. However, if the same person added a little more by saying “I have a date with my wife tonight”, it completely changes what one would tend to take as the truth. Not a great example, but hopefully I am getting the point across.

The philosopher I agree with the most on this subject is Søren Kierkegaard. From Wiki, his theory on the subject is this (link)

…the objective approach to matters of personal truth cannot shed any light upon that which is most essential to a person's life. Objective truths are concerned with the facts of a person's being, while subjective truths are concerned with a person's way of being. Kierkegaard agrees that objective truths for the study of subjects like mathematics, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argues that objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life.

I think the most important truths are subjective (they come through our feelings, emotions). Also, since I think the basic thing each of us is searching for is happiness, that also only comes through emotions. Love is a much better universal language that can be used to convey real truth.

My aunt sent me a link to a study by John Izzo where many older people described by others as happy, were interviewed to find out what brought them the most happiness; he conveyed the results of this in what he calls the five secrets. To me, these represent some great truths that would apply to all of us.
http://www.bkconnection.com/thefivesecrets/index.html

I have not independently confirmed that this research is legit, but the results seem similar to what I have heard before from the happy old people I know.

I think you are right on with your sentence I bolded.

Of course questions can be answered with absolute truth and certainty. They just have to be the right Q&A set.

A favorite example is this. I calmly take your hand and beat it bloody with a ball-peen hammer. Then I ask (in a loud voice, because I expect there is some extraneous noise present now, ) "did that hurt?"

I expect that you would answer in the affirmative with 100% certainty that you were expressing Profound Truth.

Maybe I should teach philosophy. I could call my course "Philosophical Revelations and Home Depot."

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Of course questions can be answered with absolute truth and certainty. They just have to be the right Q&A set.

A favorite example is this. I calmly take your hand and beat it bloody with a ball-peen hammer. Then I ask (in a loud voice, because I expect there is some extraneous noise present now, ) "did that hurt?"

I expect that you would answer in the affirmative with 100% certainty that you were expressing Profound Truth.

Maybe I should teach philosophy. I could call my course "Philosophical Revelations and Home Depot."

Unless that hand had severely damaged nerves, or the bones inside were already broken, or the hand was frostbitten, or the hand was amputated, or the person was on a huge amount of sedatives, or the person was already on his/her deathbed, or that person lies because they have neurological damage or simply refuses to admit their idea of pain, at which case that response could be subjective.

But how is truth being determined? By the physical damage of one's hand, or by the response from the recipient of that damage? For it may have hurt, but ever hit your head after drinking way too much, and not really feeling it? Maybe it did hurt, and it certainly inflicted damage, but hurt can have so many damaging variations, for did one lose more brain cells hitting the head, or by drinking far too much alcohol? MMm, alcohol...

Plus, hypothetical questions-though presumably filled with anticipatory responses- and truth don't mix, unlike Sprite and vodka.

Originally Posted by foxtuba

Unless that hand had severely damaged nerves, or the bones inside were already broken, or the hand was frostbitten, or the hand was amputated, or the person was on a huge amount of sedatives, or the person was already on his/her deathbed, or that person lies because they have neurological damage or simply refuses to admit their idea of pain, at which case that response could be subjective.

But how is truth being determined? By the physical damage of one's hand, or by the response from the recipient of that damage? For it may have hurt, but ever hit your head after drinking way too much, and not really feeling it? Maybe it did hurt, and it certainly inflicted damage, but hurt can have so many damaging variations, for did one lose more brain cells hitting the head, or by drinking far too much alcohol? MMm, alcohol...

Plus, hypothetical questions-though presumably filled with anticipatory responses- and truth don't mix, unlike Sprite and vodka.

Questions on the effect of alcohol on the perception of Truth I leave to lesser mortals.

As for my example, it will impart an extraordinarily clear version of Truth to the recipient, but may not be communicated with equal veracity to an outside observer, barring intense emotional connection. For example, a person who deeply loved and emphasized with the person whose hand I treated would also be expected to suffer an sort of intense pain upon witnessing the exercise.

No. The casual observer will rarely experience the revelation of the subject, but must become a subject himself.

I envision a long line of supplicants queued up to receive enlightenment from the Hammer. Thus I propose a new institution of higher Philosophic instruction: the Moe Howard Institute.

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Questions on the effect of alcohol on the perception of Truth I leave to lesser mortals.

As for my example, it will impart an extraordinarily clear version of Truth to the recipient, but may not be communicated with equal veracity to an outside observer, barring intense emotional connection. For example, a person who deeply loved and emphasized with the person whose hand I treated would also be expected to suffer an sort of intense pain upon witnessing the exercise.

No. The casual observer will rarely experience the revelation of the subject, but must become a subject himself.

I envision a long line of supplicants queued up to receive enlightenment from the Hammer. Thus I propose a new institution of higher Philosophic instruction: the Moe Howard Institute.

less mortal, especially after your inept use of truth?

There's another use of subjectivity, and the flawed combination of attempted intelligence mixed with ego.

Besides that, what difference does it make based on the relationship between you and the inflicted being? You're dealing more with hypothetical implications, thus diverting further away from overt examples of truth.

Originally Posted by foxtuba

less mortal, especially after your inept use of truth?

There's another use of subjectivity, and the flawed combination of attempted intelligence mixed with ego.

Besides that, what difference does it make based on the relationship between you and the inflicted being? You're dealing more with hypothetical implications, thus diverting further away from overt examples of truth.

Sir, you do me an injustice. My Ego is immiscible, unadulterated and pure.

By the way, you are likely to find that all reality accessible to Humanity is subjective-- not "un-real," merely subjective.

Now to try and unravel your assertion.

If by my relationship to the "inflicted being" you mean myself as test administrator, then it is irrelevant. A random stone falling upon the subject's instep should produce similar desirable results, i.e the revelation of an absolute truth. In this case "that really hurts."

If you refer to the relationship between the subject and the posited third party who possesses love and empathy for the subject, then I merely point out that the subject's perception of reality will be communicated to this individual in the form of synthetic suffering. That is emotional suffering which might be verbalized as "I hurt for him."

Emotive suffering is also perceived and experienced as an undeniable reality.

Finally, I believe I referred to "lesser mortals," rather than to "less mortal."

It is a sad reality that I shall only be here in Earth to instruct the benighted for a limited time.

Sadly while I am of course, superior in many ways, I am not "less mortal."

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Sir, you do me an injustice. My Ego is immiscible, unadulterated and pure.

By the way, you are likely to find that all reality accessible to Humanity is subjective-- not "un-real," merely subjective.

Now to try and unravel your assertion.

If by my relationship to the "inflicted being" you mean myself as test administrator, then it is irrelevant. A random stone falling upon the subject's instep should produce similar desirable results, i.e the revelation of an absolute truth. In this case "that really hurts."

If you refer to the relationship between the subject and the posited third party who possesses love and empathy for the subject, then I merely point out that the subjects perception of reality will be communicated to this individual in the form of synthetic suffering. That is emotional suffering which might be verbalized as "I hurt for him."

Emotive suffering is also perceived and experienced as an undeniable reality.

Finally, I believe I referred to "lesser mortals," rather than to "less mortal." it is a sad reality that I shall only be here in Earth to instruct the benighted for a limited time, sadly I am of course, superior in many ways, but am not "less mortal."

Wow, if your purpose was to be a comedian, then consider yourself well on your way. A bit verbose, and considerably haughty, but your intentions are unequivocally humorous, and beyond my interest.

If your sanity permits a separation of class and an attempt to relevance, then may your influence not spread beyond this political forum. We all exist within the same social spectrum: we are human beings, we all live, we all suffer, our lives cease, and then we dematerialize and leave futuristic chemical and biological occurrences take control.

Do not stray from the matter, however: you are correct that truth equates to subjectivity, but truth also does not exist in the realm of imaginative storytelling (e.g. "if I were to pummel your hand with a hammer").