Why truth?

Perhaps the most we can stand of truth is that very distinction! : D

Nor I, and it too would be 'called' truth. So what then is the truth?! : D Our very own in more than indecision, - in deciding to know?!

 

truth is not hiding behind a tree. WE hide it by pretending it is something we can know and talk about.

we can see it, feel it, experience it.
but no word can ever do other then obscure it.

 

Surely it's a little more complicated than that. Compare the state of any body of knowledge before and after its development. Take the heliocentric model of the solar system, which replaced an erroneous model - regardless of whether or not one calls it 'truth' it is certainly knowable and you can talk about it.

 

It wasn't an erroneous model. It was a model that functioned at the time, and the point is that it is a theoretical model, an abstraction. This will always appear the case because the mind itself is naturally abstract.

What you refer to as an erroneous model was near enough in consistency to provide a platform for our creative pursuits. As our body of recognition grows, new abstract models appear to accommodate our increased awareness. You did not have reality in the first model and you do not have reality in the second, you have functional access to reality, and each model is every bit as functional in it's own time.

Reality is non local, nor is it remote. It is one thing. Aspects of reality are corridors of refraction wherein we provide descriptions of the view simply for the sake of conversation. To communicate.

 

Good point. With our brains we make sense of perceptions acquired by our five limited input sensory organs.

Human senses are perhaps sufficient for drawing accurate conclusions about earthly reality. Are human senses sufficient for comprehensive understanding of universal reality?

Are you saying the human mind is not in any way bound by the limits of its input organs?

I guess you could say that human knowledge does seem to be accelerating. However, if we think of all human knowledge with respect to infinite space and time (and possibly other dimensions), it seems likely to me an overestimation to conclude humans possess 1% of all that is true of reality.

 

Our apprehension is augmented by the senses, not driven by them. We could say we make devices to compensate for apparently physical limits, but that just means that the physical limits are not limits to apprehension.

How many realities do you want to discuss, there is one, non local, nor remote.

We certainly embrace them but there are people who do not possess a functioning physical apparatus, the blind, and the deaf. But yes that is what I am saying.

Infinite space and time are human concepts. Possibly other dimensions, are human conceptions. So based on your human conceptions, we are statistically less than 1% there. Am I understanding you?

 

Sorry to poach the questions, didn't see the quote change.

 

Those are sufficient to discuss.

 

outthere2:

No, I'm saying we're not bound to perception necessarily, that we can die. Our limits are themselves unlimited in what we want to perceive. Sufficiency ( to put it succinctly. )

Where I am 'out there' is where I have the very same mean we don't have to die, being always in as we are.
: D

Has anyone ever concluded as much? I don't think it's in our interests to possess everything, only eachother. Dangerous 'words'! : D

How to get over the idea that we are the dispossessed in regard to all truth?

 

I'm not sure your definition of reality accords with the way the word is generally understood. Actually, you seem to be talking about it as if it was - to use the words of thenmax - "hiding behind a tree".

 

I am not sure the word is generally understood. Most times people think reality is what they have been taught to believe.

 

But to build on your analogy walsh, it is more we cannot see the forest if we prefer to see a tree.

 

OP
"The idea that truth, as a concept, needs to be justified is not given a moment's thought by those who use it as the basis of all their thinking."

Walsh, responding to Thedope
"…you are simply stating something without describing how you arrived at that conclusion or how that conclusion is justified."
_________________________________________________________________
Truth claims make sense. False claims are nonsense. That’s why you required Thedope to justify his/her conclusion.

You correctly attempted to get to "the truth" in order to make sense of Thedope's claim.

 

Not sure what you're getting at. The concept of truth needs to be justified in its use, just like thedope's ideas need to be too.

 

OP
The idea that truth, as a concept, needs to be justified is not given a moment's thought by those who use it as the basis of all their thinking.
Walsh
Not sure what you're getting at. The concept of truth needs to be justified in its use, just like thedope's ideas need to be too.
_______________________________________________________
You seem to be “using truth as a basis for your thinking.” Why else would you require thedope to justify his/her ideas?
Justify- to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable.

 

Justifications do not need to refer to truth. A logical or mathematical analysis, for example, could be made without reference to anything extrinsic or dependent upon the concept of truth.

 

walsh
"Justifications do not need to refer to truth. "

"The concept of truth needs to be justified in its use..."
_____________________

2+2=4

Is the statement two plus two equals four true or false?

Is the statement two plus two equals four justified?

 

I think this is where we need a definition of truth - there are clearly several concepts which differ in their application. There is truth in the acceptance of a proposition, and then there is the accordance of a statement with reality, which to my mind is something different. The first seems more to do with language and logic and can be justified as such, while the second one is on shakier ground bringing in this 'reality'.

 

It's use has taught me it is true and has kept me safe in an uncertain world.
For example the recognition of gravity and its effects keep me from walking over a cliff.
If you mean by justification how do I arrive at it, I would say trial and error with the aspect of honesty in regards to the effects of my own thinking. That is if my premises do not ring true in the effects on my life I discard them instead of clinging to make them fit.

I don't think disoriented and confused is our baseline state.