Facts and Truth

Is there a difference between stating a fact and presenting a truth? Or do you believe they are the same.

 

Generally speaking, the dictionary merely contains popular definitions, listed in the order in which people use them. However, lawyers are the ones who decide what is called a dictionary, genocide, or whatever. This statement is something some would call a fact, and others would insist is blasphemy. The truth is whatever reality TV says it is for all practical purposes in the US.

After over a century of concerted efforts, nobody has been able to document the existence of common sense anywhere in the world, while Noam Chomsky's theories have bitten the dust, and the English language has two grammars. One to encourage people to argue everything must make sense, and another one to encourage them to nod and find an excuse to leave. In other words, half the world has always called the other half insane or liars, only for modern science to prove they are all full of crap.

 

All facts are truth but truth can have a wider semantic scope where not all truths are necessarily facts.

 

Believe it or not, neurology and linguistics are not new sciences. You no longer have to take wild guesses. Grammar is related to the proximity of syntax within the brain, and thought emerges from the syntax of our emotions.

 

The distinction between factuality and truth becomes particularly important in religion. Fundamentalists equate the two, thus putting scripture in conflict with science. In the third century A.D., Origen, Christian theologian, proposed that the creation account in Genesis was not factual but allegory to convey a deeper truth: "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." Origen hadn't met the counterparts of today's Six Day Creationists.

 

Aristotle invented formal logic, which was immediately adopted by the Roman bureaucracy and, eventually, all the major western religions. Essentially, dualistic logics allowed Europe to perfect bureaucracy and replace the kings and queens and all the old stale crap the Egyptians and Mesopotamians invented with modern international conglomerates. The Italians in particular were instrumental in developing ways to prevent cities from becoming banana republics overnight, by deliberately designing bureaucracies to make it impossible for any one individual to corrupt. Religion has served worldwide to provide an alternative to any government that transforms into a Mafia they don't like anymore, and vice versa, to transform their governments into Mafias they prefer.

The more extensive the social safety net that any government provides, the less religious and atheist a population becomes, with most people espousing spirituality or agnosticism. Atheist tend to support the establishment and entrenched wealth, just like the religious, while a study of morality concluded most of them apply their morality to others, but not themselves. You can run, but you cannot hide from your complete lack of truth and total dependence on reality TV.

 

Truth is a story . Perhaps the story is a matter of one fact . Might this fact then be used to
support a related un-true story ?

 

Calling the truth a story is the same as calling it bullshit or a metaphor, which is a contradiction in terms. Playing with semantics is simply no substitute for using a dictionary and comprehending linguistic analysis.

 

A story may be true . Oddly , the Truth of it may be supported by a bad fact .

 

To the best of my knowledge, no dictionaries have ever been abused or hurt in the process of compiling them.

 

A story may be based on facts but i don't think a story can present a truth. At most it can point or hint towards a truth. A story is just that, a story. I feel truth is a lot deeper. Its something i've been contemplating but can't really put it in words. I was kinda hoping someone could put it into words that make sense. I can present facts about myself but when it comes to understanding the truth of my existence i come up blank. Words become tricky as i don't think there is such a thing as "my" existence. Perhaps there is nothing to understand.

 

Are you telling stories about the truth or the truth about stories? Seriously, logistics is roughly two thousand years old, but telling stories is perhaps a million years old.

 

I like that.

I don't know.

 

Then why are you talking about them?

 

There is no reason.

 

Then you are telling stories about the truth.

 

I am a story.

 

For only $39.95 you too can be the proud owner of your own personal reality! Be the first on your block to copyright and own your own private dictionary and Idaho.

 

So you think there is a personal reality? You're a good story teller too.

 

The self-evident truth speaks for itself, and I have quantifiable empirical evidence, including over a century of results in modern physics. I suppose you could say all of modern physics are just a story, but that's just begging the question as to who the fuck is actually telling the story.