Do you think absolute truth exists? Can people create their own truths? Can truth change?

Truth is subjective, people definitely create their own truths.

Truth *is* Perception

Do you think absolute truth exists?

Truth does not come in flavors. Truth is the correspondence of a proposition with reality. Truth is different than knowledge, for knowledge requires a true propositional belief along with some sort of justification for it-- knowledge excludes ignorance, error, and opinion. Belief, on the other hand, is subjective by definition, whether the belief corresponds to reality or not. Note that some truths are unknown, such as the number of Mersenne primes, or the exact number of pterodactyls alive 70 million years ago. We definitely cannot collapse truth into knowledge, or even a source of knowledge, such as perception.

Can people create their own truths?

No. My life would be a big party right now if I could!

Can truth change?

Nope. Beliefs change, and reality changes. The accuracy of a specific belief about a certain slice of reality does not. For example, if I believe that Barack Obama was president in 1998, that belief is false, and eternally false.

This is bound to be a big debate between NTs and NFs... >.> Or just thinkers and feelers in general, I suppose. It's like the 3 blind men and the elephant. To a T, it's an elephant because it's an elephant. That's it. The perception of each blind man feeling part of it and perceiving something different doesn't change what it is.

On the other hand, emotions tend to muddle up matters. There's a psychological study that involved watching tapes and asking leading questions that altered the participants' perception of what they were seeing. They had an old man, going about his daily life...and one group was told he was mean and nasty, and another that he was kindly and benevolent. >.> Each group came up with reasons based on his neutral actions to justify what they were told about his behavior. Not *everything* can be defined in a logical, cut and dry way.

Joe is a nice guy. He helps little old ladies across the road. He's always polite, and he always tips generously at restaurants. Joe's best friend, Larry, is a jerk. Larry kicks puppies, is very rude, and often sneaks out of restaurants without paying. Is Joe good by his own merit or is he bad for having a friend like Larry?

This is bound to be a big debate between NTs and NFs...

I would have thought so too, lys, except that snail believes there's an absolute truth with no real way of accessing it ourselves.


also: that's an absurd example . "My room is painted white, but the floor is hardwood. Is the room white or brown? IF THE ANSWER IS UNCLEAR, THEN THERE'S NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH ABOUT THE COLOR OF THE ROOM! (never mind the question--don't pay attention to that part)"

The floor is brown, while the walls are white. Both these things make up a room. Joe is partly good for helping old ladies across the road and tipping generously, but partly bad (debatable, of course, but to keep with the example) for befriending Larry.



I make a point of challenging everyone who thinks that they believe that truth is completely subjective to take enough drugs that they can't tell the difference, and then jump out of a window, or try to breathe water. The only reason that I can think of for you not to do that is if you don't honestly believe that truth is subjective. At least, you don't think it with enough confidence to actually entrust yourself to that belief.

I'm not saying that there aren't inherent truths...I'm saying that emotional truths are entirely subjective. Saying that Joe is good or bad is making a judgement on the entirety of his character based on a few examples. You're saying there's an absolute truth beyond the subjective perception of human nature...essentially that, yes, a tree falling in the middle of the forest with no one around makes a sound.

But that would mean that there is a great scale that accurately determines good and bad on an entirely objective basis, and makes a very finite distinction...to a degree that would be impossible for a person, because we can never fully know anyone else's motives, thoughts, beliefs, and intentions.

Truth is what I think it is. I don't play the Socratic game.

Some people think truth is Will. Or your ability to enforce your truth on others, which comes down to Will. Do will your truth on others and do they accept it (give in, their will being weaker)

Hence will to truth.. will to power.

Suppose nothing else were "given" as real except our world of desires and passions, and we could not get down, or up, to any other "reality" besides the reality of our drives--for thinking is merely a relation of these drives to each other: is it not permitted to make the experiment and to ask the question whether this "given" would not be sufficient for also understanding on the basis of this kind of thing the so-called mechanistic (or "material") world?...

In the end not only is it permitted to make this experiment; the conscience of method demands it. Not to assume several kinds of causality until the experiment of making do with a single one has been pushed to its utmost limit (to the point of nonsense, if I may say so)... The question is in the end whether we really recognize the will as efficient, whether we believe in the causality of the will: if we do--and at bottom our faith in this is nothing less than our faith in causality itself--then we have to make the experiment of positing causality of the will hypothetically as the only one. "Will," of course, can affect only "will"--and not "matter" (not "nerves," for example). In short, one has to risk the hypothesis whether will does not affect will wherever "effects" are recognized--and whether all mechanical occurrences are not, insofar as a force is active in them, will force, effects of will.

Suppose, finally, we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and ramification of one basic form of the will--namely, of the will to power, as my proposition has it... then one would have gained the right to determine all efficient force univocally as--will to power. The world viewed from inside... it would be "will to power" and nothing else.

from Beyond Good and Evil, s.36, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Posted By alysaria on 26 Aug 2009 01:34 PM
I'm not saying that there aren't inherent truths...I'm saying that emotional truths are entirely subjective. Saying that Joe is good or bad is making a judgement on the entirety of his character based on a few examples. You're saying there's an absolute truth beyond the subjective perception of human nature...essentially that, yes, a tree falling in the middle of the forest with no one around makes a sound.

But that would mean that there is a great scale that accurately determines good and bad on an entirely objective basis, and makes a very finite distinction...to a degree that would be impossible for a person, because we can never fully know anyone else's motives, thoughts, beliefs, and intentions.

er...... yes? pretty much . Er... pretty much, if you meant to say "fine" distinction, and not "finite"

Actually, I wasn't answering it based on "emotional truths" at all. The OP didn't limit the discussion to emotions in the slightest... but if it had, I'd keep my hands out of it. When people say they're feeling something, I pretty much just believe them, no questions asked. It's a fairly recent change in my point of view, but works wonders for your social life .

finite: 1. having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.

>.> That's what I meant. My mother used to be an English teacher...and an ESTJ who knows their subject makes damn sure their children don't misuse it in their hearing

I mean that there would be an absolute, definitive line between good and bad...like the difference between a drop of blood meaning life or death.

>.> As a side note, when you question an ENFP, we will look it up to double check. It's just because I have to know the correct answer...whether it vindicates me or proves me wrong.

Moral realism is a distinct issue from truth. Truth describes our beliefs that correspond to the world. Beliefs don't correspond to the world in virtue of merely being believed; they correspond in virtue of what's actually in the external world. Whether we're ever *justified* by the evidence in taking a proposition to be true is a separate issue from the actual truth of a proposition. If I say "Mary was at the bar last night," that proposition is true or false, regardless of what philosophers call my "propositional attitude" towards it.

When discussing whether moral judgment can be true or false, usually people mean that there are no moral facts, no moral realities. I'm not convinced that cruelty, friendliness, courage, malice, vanity, envy, patience, kindness, humility et cetera are merely subjective ideas that we impose on the world. Just because we cannot translate one vocabulary into the vocabulary of our best physics does not necessitate that we speak in a non-referential way.

>< My brain. You broke it.

Actually, I get what you're saying....why apply logic to something that is in essence illogical?

Does being wrong make the individual's perception of truth less true? Does not seeking the real truth make one a liar? If curiosity is deadly to the body, is a lack of it deadly to the mind?

Logic has to do with inference, that is, how we deductively or inductively amplify our existing knowledge. I did something something different above -- I offered the standard analysis of knowledge -- JTB, justified true belief -- to clarify our ideas about truth.

The moral of the story is that truth is not reality, truth is not belief, and it isn't knowledge either. Truth is the correspondence of a proposition with reality.

Belief is an attitude an agent has toward a proposition. I can believe a proposition is true, or I can believe it is false. It's actual truth-value depends on reality.

Justification has five sources -- perception, memory, reason, consciousness, and testimony.

So to get to knowledge, we need to have a belief that is both true and justified. A justified belief without truth is error. A true belief without justification is a lucky guess. And belief is mandatory for knowledge, since having the proof for a true proposition amounts to ignorance if one never has a belief in it.

Absolute truth...

If such a thing exists, then our perception of it does not alter it.

Otherwise, how could it be absolute?

Hiya Jonman X, welcome to the forums feel free to introduce yourself here - we'd love to get to know you

I agree that if absolute truth exists, it must exist outside of our frame of perception or judgement, but what about subjective truth? Do you think that what we believe or percieve can be thought of as truth? I remember part of a book, where the narrator describes an experience with an old lady of some sort (can't remember the exact details I'm afraid). The girl is sharing a cup of delicious sweet tea with the old lady, and is enjoying it immensely until they've drunk half of it and she sees a cockroach at the bottom of the cup (yes I know - eww ). While the girl is shuddering in horror, the old lady takes the tea, and drinks to the bottom of the cup. She then shows the cup to the girl, who sees that the cockroach was merely a decoration in the bottom of the cup.

The whole point of the story was that the cup and the tea was always the same - it was merely the girl's perception of (and subsequent reactions to) the tea that changed. But does that mean that people are either always right or wrong, or does it simply mean we don't always have the whole picture? I find myself wondering whether different viewpoints and angles are like pieces of a puzzle - different ways of seeing something which give you a different (incomplete) picture, but might all have some element of truth to them? Given that people aren't by any means perfect, is it the best we can do to try to be open to other ways of seeing things to try to get the most complete picture possible?

Posted By alysaria on 26 Aug 2009 11:31 AM
Truth *is* Perception

That is an awesome pic Alysaria

My personal opinion:
Truth is absolute, pure and unchanging. Perception is an excuse that we humans use because we are incapable of comprehending situations in their entirety, so we take in as much as we can, and form an opinion based on that and our past experiences. Bleak outlook on human existance, sure, but what can I say?

I agree with your concept of truth as an unchangeable absolute, regardless of the perception of the viewer, but I'm not sure whether I agree with your definition of perception itself. To clarify my ideas, I consider perception as the angle at which you're looking at truth at. Obviously, perception of something changes - usually because a different situation has caused you to look at something from a different angle, in which case your perception will have widened as you are adding information. However, because perception changes does not mean there are invalid perceptions - after all, perception is the simply angle you look at truth at from. Perception then cannot be considered wrong, since it is merely what something looks like from a certain point of view. What can be wrong are the inferences made when extrapolating from one's perception. Because perception only shows part of something, you cannot be certain when forming an opinion from only that perception that you have arrived at the correct conclusion. To illustrate:

Let us assume that in New Zealand, drug abuse is a large problem in working-class families, but not a very big problem in middle-class families. I, as a member of a middle-class family, living in a middle-class neighbourhood and attending a high decile school (observing mainly others from my social class), would see the small amount of drug abuse around me, and assume that drug abuse isn't a large problem throughout. John Doe, as a member of a lower-class family, living in a poor neighbourhood and attending a low decile school (surrounded by others in his social class) would see the large amounts of drug abuse around him, and come to the conclusion that drug abuse is a problem everywhere. Both John and I perceived drug abuse in New Zealand from different situations, and because we made assumptions from our own perception alone without considering other viewpoints, we missed important information and were both wrong. Our individual perceptions weren't wrong, but rather the extrapolated assumptions we made based on our perceptions, which were not complete. What someone more intelligent than I or John would have said is: "I do not perceive drug abuse as a problem, therefore I can assume drug abuse is not a problem to others in my situations." To legitimately say more than that, he would have to get more information - or gain a wider perception. To accurately describe the entire truth, he would have to do nothing less than consider the problem from every single point of view.

I think we agree, but your reaction was more to my harsh wording than the idea behind. (the more tired I get the more cut and dry my definitions get. no more typing late at night for me)

Clarification/sugar coating:
-Truth being absolute, pure and unchaging stays same
-Description of perception: perception is by nature incomplete and/or changable because it is closely related to opinion. It's impossible to fully and completely understand the entrety of every situation and all of its components, so in order to avoid becoming stagnant, we must take in as much information as we can and form an opinion based on that, and it is based on that opinon that we act. This is why I believe that in the conversational use of the terms, there really is no "right" or "wrong" way to act, only what is socially acceptable in your culture/social group. Because each of us are not omniscient, we must make the best possible choice based on what we do know.

Thats my way of giving people the benefit of the doubt, it's my saying "what's right for me may not be right for anyone else, and what works for him may not for me. I'm in no place to judge him, just as he is in no place to judge me" I still disagree with people's actions from time to time, but I don't think less of people because they say/do things that I disagree with as long as it doesn't affect me in a negative way, and I also try to make sure my actions don't affect others in negative ways either.

Posted By coralaisly on 10 Nov 2009 05:39 PM

I think we agree, but your reaction was more to my harsh wording than the idea behind. (the more tired I get the more cut and dry my definitions get. no more typing late at night for me)

Clarification/sugar coating:
-Truth being absolute, pure and unchaging stays same
-Description of perception: perception is by nature incomplete and/or changable because it is closely related to opinion. It's impossible to fully and completely understand the entrety of every situation and all of its components, so in order to avoid becoming stagnant, we must take in as much information as we can and form an opinion based on that, and it is based on that opinon that we act. This is why I believe that in the conversational use of the terms, there really is no "right" or "wrong" way to act, only what is socially acceptable in your culture/social group. Because each of us are not omniscient, we must make the best possible choice based on what we do know.

I agree with most of that, excepting "there really is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to act," but that's another whole discussion

Thats my way of giving people the benefit of the doubt, it's my saying "what's right for me may not be right for anyone else, and what works for him may not for me. I'm in no place to judge him, just as he is in no place to judge me" I still disagree with people's actions from time to time, but I don't think less of people because they say/do things that I disagree with as long as it doesn't affect me in a negative way, and I also try to make sure my actions don't affect others in negative ways either.

I tend to stay away from the "everybody's partly right" sort of thing - political correctness makes me feel nauseous

I make a strong distinction between "perception" and "opinion." In my crazy imaginary dictionary, opinion (which can be wrong) is what is arrived at through reasoning (which can be faulty) based on perception (which can be incomplete). I can see why people think a certain way because I can see what the perception is that led to their opinion (usually anyhow, and if I can't then I assume that from their point of view, their chain of reasoning and opinion make sense). That said, I don't necessarily agree with them or think they're right. In that case however, the problem isn't that what they perceive is incomplete, but that they assumed it was complete when they formed their opinions. The way to set them straight (assuming that we're right of course ) is to change their way of seeing things - to change their perception - and thus force them to reform their opinions based on their new perspective. That's why empathy, and rhetorical devices like analogy (which helps people see things in a different way)  are such a powerful tools of persuasion.

 

Truth, by definition, is not subjective. It just is.
We don't know enough about it to say whether it changes or not. If I were to guess, I would say it changes internally, but always balances out to eternally remain the same.
This form of truth is both potentially useful, and full of meaning. It is meaning, the source of all meaning, that is.

Truth, as we know it, is subjective. It is as we see it.
Which, of course, means it changes all the time.
This form of "truth" really means nothing, at its core. It is useful, like a crude tool, but has nothing beyond practical application.

Though impossible to achieve, we must strive toward that first truth. With science, religion, philosophy, thought.