What is Truth?

[Chandler Frank]

What is truth?
How do you define truth?
How do you define reality?
Am I really here, or is this just a product of my own imagination? Or the product of the imagination of another?
Is truth relative or absolute?
How do you define relative or absolute without relation to another absolute?
Thus how do you define truth without relation to an absolute?

As you, of course, know your questions have vexed humanity throughout history. I would suggest that although it may be impossible to provide an absolute, universal definition of "truth," operational definitions can be made to satisfy certain specific applications. For example, findings of "truth" are common in legal matters. Certain "truths" can be a product of mathematics. These are all stipulated definitions, which is perhaps--given the ambiguity inherent in the notion of "truth"--the best that can expected.

Regards
S.

[arielmessenger]

Truth is the answer that satisfies all doubts.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Chandler Frank What is truth?

Ultimate unknowables that honest knowledge attempts to guess at and model itself after.

Quote by: Chandler Frank How do you define truth?

I, personally, define truth as one and only one of the many center points of numerous cascading spherical systems of knowns and their larger class known as realities.

In this world, there exists knowers.. things or people that attempt to know truth.

Every knower exists on the surface of their particular system of knowns. They can only view the contents of their sphere and cannot view outside of their sphere.

The center point of the knower's system is known as the system's relative truth. The relative truth is not absolute but fulfills the needs of every logical and empirical query of the knower's system. Every honest knower's goal is to view the center point or relative truth.

Within each system of knowns, there may be and most likely are smaller system of knowns. Smaller is in regard to perspective and NOT population. The knowers of a system can be sure that the knowers of a system within theirs is untrue if the smaller system is away from the parent system's center. What this means is, a larger system can validate the truth of a smaller system's.. but a system cannot validate the truth of its own center point nor the center points of any system not within their own.

To make this easier to understand.. imagine our world, even our universe, as a system of knowns. We DO have a relative truth to our system, or central point. This relative truth may satisfy all of the logic, science, and other parameters of determining knowns in OUR system. However, we may be part of an experiment carried out by another being or thing. In reality, we could in fact be hooked up to machines that feed our collective dreams. The knowers in the system of these machines, a system that is parent to our own, is capable of validating our relative truth. Obviously, their validation would not check-out because the machine world's relative truth or center point, that we are hooked up to machines, is far away from our own relative truth, that our existence is not being generated by machines.

If you haven't already noticed, absolute truth is thus virtually unknowable.. as a knower cannot validate its system's central point. The center point to a knower will always be the relative truth to that knower.. even if the point is in fact the absolute truth (of that particular reality).

For each reality, the system of knowers and validation exists and the same problems occur. An absolute truth exists for each reality as well.

How can multiple absolute truths exist? Because differing realities do not exist to each other, and thus, their absolute truths do not exist to each other.

By my definition, there are no knowers outside of a reality. A reality is the furthest most class and if any knower were to exist outside that reality.. either the reality is actually a system or the knower is part of its own reality.

Note: absolute truth is practically plural depending on what you're talking about. It's just easier to understand the concept if you say absolute truth.

Mathematics, perception, logic.. these are tools that are true to our world but we CANNOT validate them ourselves. Only systems parent to ours, like the machine world example, can validate these relative truths/tools of mathematics or logic, etc.

[shawmutt]

The answer is 42.

[Jack]

I believe truth to be relative and often subjective. What I accept is true are those things which are consistent with and not contradicted by anything else I accept as true. Truth is relative to falsity.

This is a deep subject, and I'm unlikely to explain all my thoughts on the subject in a single post or three. But the above is my opening position.

Above all else, 42 really is the answer. I'm just not always sure what the question was.

[Boetie]

What is truth?

Death

All else it much to do about nothing

[Gods_Mercenary]

I tend to be somewhat of an existentialist, there is no truth, only random, meaningless happenings.

When man lets go of his illusions he is horrified at the absurdidty of his existance.

If God exists, it doesn't matter, we can never know what he wants.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Ultimate unknowables that honest knowledge attempts to guess at and model itself after. I, personally, define truth as one and only one of the many center points of numerous cascading spherical systems of knowns and their larger class known as realities. In this world, there exists knowers.. things or people that attempt to know truth. Every knower exists on the surface of their particular system of knowns. They can only view the contents of their sphere and cannot view outside of their sphere. The center point of the knower's system is known as the system's relative truth. The relative truth is not absolute but fulfills the needs of every logical and empirical query of the knower's system. Every honest knower's goal is to view the center point or relative truth. Within each system of knowns, there may be and most likely are smaller system of knowns. Smaller is in regard to perspective and NOT population. The knowers of a system can be sure that the knowers of a system within theirs is untrue if the smaller system is away from the parent system's center. What this means is, a larger system can validate the truth of a smaller system's.. but a system cannot validate the truth of its own center point nor the center points of any system not within their own. To make this easier to understand.. imagine our world, even our universe, as a system of knowns. We DO have a relative truth to our system, or central point. This relative truth may satisfy all of the logic, science, and other parameters of determining knowns in OUR system. However, we may be part of an experiment carried out by another being or thing. In reality, we could in fact be hooked up to machines that feed our collective dreams. The knowers in the system of these machines, a system that is parent to our own, is capable of validating our relative truth. Obviously, their validation would not check-out because the machine world's relative truth or center point, that we are hooked up to machines, is far away from our own relative truth, that our existence is not being generated by machines. If you haven't already noticed, absolute truth is thus virtually unknowable.. as a knower cannot validate its system's central point. The center point to a knower will always be the relative truth to that knower.. even if the point is in fact the absolute truth (of that particular reality). For each reality, the system of knowers and validation exists and the same problems occur. An absolute truth exists for each reality as well. How can multiple absolute truths exist? Because differing realities do not exist to each other, and thus, their absolute truths do not exist to each other. By my definition, there are no knowers outside of a reality. A reality is the furthest most class and if any knower were to exist outside that reality.. either the reality is actually a system or the knower is part of its own reality. Note: absolute truth is practically plural depending on what you're talking about. It's just easier to understand the concept if you say absolute truth. Mathematics, perception, logic.. these are tools that are true to our world but we CANNOT validate them ourselves. Only systems parent to ours, like the machine world example, can validate these relative truths/tools of mathematics or logic, etc.

The above is one of the best explainations for the number of questions related in the OP that I have come across so far.

You might also review what is called the "fish bowl" idea. Which is also related in the above comments.

In my unauthorized opinon I would put it this way. There is a source within us (perhaps as an abiltiy of the brain - or something beyond the brain) that can provide you with a truth that is relative to the moment at hand. However that truth might not apply to another situation that could happen at another moment of time. And so each person has a "center" that they can resource for wisdom and for a honest perspective - again relative to the moment or the particular "need to know" situation. Likewise the brain can collect data or information which is stored in our memory, and the brain can compute a answer for us based on that collected data stored in the memory. Much like you can use a computer to compute an answer, only the brain can do it better if we allow it to operate without thinking too much which would interfer with the revelation or insight.

In philosophy it would be a contradiction to say there is no such thing as an absolute truth. Because if that is absolutly true then that statement would be an absolute truth. Which in turn would make it's own belief false.

Now if there is a God which would represent an absolute "truth giver" and if we can download those truths, then that would be the relationship between absolute and relative truths, as the truths provided would still be relative to the moment at hand, or the limited frame of the knowing, or the situation that could change later on. Math would be a way for our brain to compute certain knowns to get a protected theory about something not known.

Sometimes gathered knowledge and beliefs can "color" what we download from the "center source" and that can cause us to end up with a contaminated or distorted "relative truth". So one would need to find a way to side step that filtering system to get the "clear perspective" that is truth-related.

Truth is a perspective or idea that is not based on deception and contains no falsehoods. The difficult part is determining the difference. In most cases that becomes individualized and sometimes it becomes a collective concept due to educational processes.

A absolute truth "It is raining outside". Yes, somewhere it is raining on our globe. But if you look out your window you might see sunshine, because you can only see so far with your naked eyes, and so it then becomes a relative truth to only those locations where it is raining.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Chandler Frank What is truth?

The state of actually being the case.

How do you define truth?

Truth is defined as what actually is.

How do you define reality?

Reality is that which exists.

Am I really here, or is this just a product of my own imagination?

If you actually believe that you don't exist you're far too lost to post-modernism for anyone to be able to help you.

Or the product of the imagination of another?

See above.

Is truth relative or absolute?

Absolute.

How do you define relative or absolute without relation to another absolute?

Absolute truth is what is actually the case. "Relative truth" is a misnomer used by post-modernists that actually refers to perception.

[ZNFYRH]

Zhavric,

I'm wondering how you can say truth is absolute. Can you prove, without using any additional subjective terminology, that truth is not relative? I've seen you use the "post-modernist" label in other threads to other people and then gone on to indirectly insult the person by insulting "post-modernism".

Specifically, I'm curious how you can state that truth is absolute when some of the greatest minds in human history disagree with you.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Zhavric, I'm wondering how you can say truth is absolute.

I think about it. I open my mouth. The words come out. "Truth is absolute"

Perception is relative. What I perceive as red you may perceive as blue. To Isherwood, the same color may be brown... or even a color my brain would find unrecognizable.

The red / brown / blue object, however, reflects light at a specific wavelength. This is constant for the three of us, though our perception is different. Likewise, this wavelength will ALWAYS appear red to me, ALWAYS appear blue to you and ALWAYS appear brown to Isherwood.

Whatever example relativists trundle out is always dispelled by this understanding.

Furthermore, our inability to percieve what truth is does not invalidate the concept of absolute truth. There either is or is not life on other planets. Which ever the answer is, that's the absolute truth. Our perception tells us there is life on one planet.

Can you prove, without using any additional subjective terminology, that truth is not relative?

Of course.

"Nothing is absolute" is a statement which must apply to itself and is therefor self-negating. Only questions of opinion & personal taste are relative / not absolute and even there it's important to understand absolute statements.

I've seen you use the "post-modernist" label in other threads to other people and then gone on to indirectly insult the person by insulting "post-modernism".

Post-modernism is the intellectual school of thought that allows for relative truth. When it comes to truth, post-modernism is untenable.

Specifically, I'm curious how you can state that truth is absolute when some of the greatest minds in human history disagree with you.

Appeal to authority / tradition.

[Praxius]

What is Truth?

Is it this guy:

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Praxius What is Truth? Is it this guy:

You, sir, lose at the interweb.

[Praxius]

You lost me.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Chandler Frank What is truth? How do you define truth? How do you define reality? Am I really here, or is this just a product of my own imagination? Or the product of the imagination of another? Is truth relative or absolute? How do you define relative or absolute without relation to another absolute? Thus how do you define truth without relation to an absolute?

The thing is, even if you were products of your imagination, or someone's imagination, in order for you and your world to be imagined in the first place you and your environment must be physically possible on some level. And anything that is possible must exist, since the universe is infinite. Furthermore, even if what you experience isn't real, you do exist, somewhere. Infinite times. In infinitely varying degrees.

So, even if you are imagined, what you sense is, in a sense, true. Even if it was all generated by some mind, that mind would be subject to the same rules it would be operating under, constituting that the universe outside is subject to the same rules as the one you happen to be experiencing. Therefore, truth here must also be truth there. Thus, truth you sense really is truth.

Furthermore, truth is absolute and unwavering, and perhaps unknowable. It doesn't change; your perception of it does. This perception is called reality, and reality is made up of truths, experienced different ways.

I hope all this helps.

[Alive]

I basically agree wtih Zhaveric. But of course, when you're defining a word, you can't really say that one definition is "right" and another "wrong", just like I'm not going to say that everything a Chinese person says is meaningless because I can't understand it. It is interesting, though, that so many people seem to think that "truth" is relative, and yet use the word in ways that strongly suggest that it is not relative.

If you ask someone "Is it true that Paris is the capitol of Japan" and they say yes, and you later find out that Paris is actually the capitol of France, and you come back, is it ok to say "You were wrong, it is untrue that Paris is the capitol of Japan"? Assuming they weren't intentionally lying to you but just mistaken. I think most people find it acceptable to declare: "You were wrong in claiming Paris to be the capitol of Japan, that statement was untrue." Even those who say in other contexts that truth is relative.

So I think for simplicity's sake, it is generally not a good idea to state that truth is relative and use another word like "perception" to talk about that which is relative, unless you actually, genuinely believe that it is not untrue to state that "Paris is the capitol of Japan."

To people who do believe such I have one more question: Do you have any word at all to distinguish between the statements "Paris is the capitol of Japan" and "Paris is the capitol of France?" If you won't say one is true and one is untrue, do you say instead that one is the more generally accepted truth and the other is the less accepted truth? Or something else? Truly interested here.

[ZNFYRH]

Alive,

I think you might be mixing two different concepts; fact and truth. Statements about Paris being the capitol of Japan are untrue because they are factually inaccurate. One must always consider context.

In reading through other threads, I came across the following question regarding relative truth. It was written by someone else in a thread of a very similar vein to this one, so I'll repeat the question here.

"Is my wife lovable?"

In matters of opinion without factual support, every opinion is true, relatively speaking.

[Alive]

I'm not mixing any concepts, I'm trying to come up with a definition of truth that is 1) the most agreed upon by common English speakers and 2) is as uncomplex as possible. Your usage of truth seems to suggest that truth is sometimes objective and sometimes relative depending on context; interesting, but I think it violates both principles. We would like the word "truth" to refer always to that which is objective or always to that which is relative to avoid confusion, all else being equal.

As to your question: "Is my wife lovable?" I don't see how every opinion answering that question is true based on your own definition of truth. If you love your wife and I say that your wife is not lovable, is that equally true as if I say your wife is lovable? It is a "fact" that you love your wife, no? Just because I do not know this fact for certain does not stop it from being a fact. Unless you think the truthness of a fact depends on knowing the fact, in which case stating that Paris is the capitol of Japan is not unfactual unless you know that Paris is not the capitol of Japan.

[ZNFYRH]

The point is that just as Zhavric stated that "Nothing is absolute" is contradictory, so is the statement "Truth is absolute".

In ever discussion about truth you will have people, like Zhavric, who claim that there is only one truth for anything and that believing truth is relative is post-modernism.

You will also have people, like me, who claim that in matters of fact you don't need to worry about calling something "true" or not because the facts settle it. Any time you cannot present some sort of objective material support you are no longer dealing with fact, but opinion.

With opinions, even contradictory opinions are true.