What Is The "Truth"?

[mfbukowski]

If the truth you were looking for was "I do."

Well we would call that a true Southern wedding.

My son served his mission in Mississippi and my daughter is soon finishing up a mission in South Carolina.

Except for the temperatures this time of year, and the humidity, I think my family is developing a true appreciation for the South!

My son was on a bike most of the time and he said it didn't matter if it rained or not- he knew he would be soaked to the skin every day either way!

[mfbukowski]

Every time i see the title of this thread i hear the hymnOh Say What is Truth in my head.

Oh, is that the way you spell it?

Here in LA we sing "Jose, What is Truth?" And then he answers in the next line......

[ERayR]

Thank goodness for their daughters that they don't. I can't think of much worse than being forced to marry a man that didn't want you or your baby.

No but he should at least have the ultimatum of providing for the child(ren) or ??? If this one resposibility were enforced there would be a lot less single mothers trying to raise children. Now for equal time I haven't yet decided what would be a suitable repurcussion for the girls and women who crawl into bed with these guys without a thought in their head.

[LeSellers]

Thank goodness for their daughters that they don't. I can't think of much worse than being forced to marry a man that didn't want you or your baby.

And yet, the surest path to poverty (among a host of other undesirable things) is to be a single mom.

It's actually better for all concerned to not get pregnant in the first place, and there is only one way to assure that. A father with a shotgun and the will to use it in its proper role will do more to keep his daughter chaste than a great many other things, I assure you.

A lot of shotgun weddings did not happen precisely because they could have. They were never pre-consummated.

Lehi

Edited August 11, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Thank goodness for their daughters that they don't. I can't think of much worse than being forced to marry a man that didn't want you or your baby.

It might just be that he simply doesn't want to be married. That's a lot of legal boxing in, and, especially now that there is no legal need to be married and still enjoy all the benefits (including children), many men just don't feel the need to go through the hassel. Especially since the law now priviledges women to such an extent that marriage is far more dangerous than it was in the past: high risk, low pay-off.

The law can destroy a man at his soon-to-be ex-wife's request: destroy him financially, emotionally, physically/mentally, and a host of other ways, too.

Lehi

[Mudcat]

I think I pretty much agree with this, I might have put some of it differently, but overall I think we agree.

Pragmatism looks at truth as always applying to a specific problem or project, and as a tool that fixes the problem it is applied to. For a long time, the "earth is flat" served perfectly well, until ships started disappearing over the horizon, and then the sailors came back and it was clear that they really hadn't fallen off the edge. Some other model was necessary, and a spherical model "worked" better- yet of course the earth was still the center of the universe- until that didn't "work" any more.

Now we have quantum mechanics, string theory etc all pushing the envelopes of what "works"- but we still haven't found a "theory of everything" that puts it all together. So what does this kind of truth have in common with subjective truth?

What do physical models have in common with the "truth" that Jesus is the Christ and God exists?

They actually do have something in common, and that again is that all of these propositions "work"- for subjective truths, they give our lives meaning, and "objective" truths make it possible to do things in the world

These are two completely different spheres, and mixing them leads to incredible misunderstandings about the nature of the world- statements about what "works" to give my life meaning have absolutely nothing to do with what "works" to get your car fixed, or scientific statements.

Yet people persist in mixing them, looking for God with a telescope, or looking for science to give them a reason to get up in the morning. But what what we call "truths" in each of these two spheres DO have in common is the fact that they "work" and perform the function that we have designed them for; in both cases they are tools to enable us to wrap our minds around practical problems in our lives and create a coherent world view to structure the chaos of experience.

In short, true statements allow us to make sense out of the world. For me, that is what "truth" is. It is a statement which allows me to see myself in relation to the world in a coherent way

Pragmatism sounds like it approaches truth in an ad hoc fashion. I may be misunderstanding something there though.

I agree we seem to have at least two spheres of truth, for the moment. The objective sort, actually seems to have improved over time with the advent of technologies and so forth. It would make sense that if can increase our ability to observe things via. whatever tools we can create, then objective sorts of truth will increase.

In a way, I see the Holy Spirit and Scripture as devices to increase subjective truth.

The thing is, I don't know that I fully agree that the two spheres are actually different spheres. To be a bit analogous, perhaps one is like the outside surface of a sphere and the other the inside surface. Completely connected, but also unrelated.

I like what Ahab was saying about truth being reality.

I suppose in a way, I think part of the afterlife is coming to a clear understanding that both of these sorts of truth are actually part of the same reality. It is just that in our present condition we don't seem able to connect them together.

[Ahab]

A few more morsels you may like to chew on:

Truth = reality

Intelligence = light + truth

Light = that which helps you to see

Darkness = that which you can't see because you don't have enough light

Sight = Perception

What is there to see and perceive?

How much of reality have you experienced?

How will you discover more than you see now?

Edited August 12, 2011 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

The thing is, I don't know that I fully agree that the two spheres are actually different spheres. To be a bit analogous, perhaps one is like the outside surface of a sphere and the other the inside surface. Completely connected, but also unrelated.

Oh no, I didn't mean that at all. The idea I was trying to get across was that human experience is what we call "reality"- but experience is really unified in each of us. When I read what you wrote- it is objective in the sense that everyone else (who wants to) can also read the same thing- but what is happening "in my head" is different than what is happening in every other person's head.

The point I was trying to make is that all of reality "happens" in somebody's head. We can't talk about anything that has never "happened in somebody's head".

I can't do physics, but somewhere a physicist is doing an experiment or making an observation and then he publishes a paper which puts forth a theory, and perhaps other physicists can replicate his results- but ultimately, all of that is happening "in their heads" and it is communicated via language- and all the physicists agree that when they do xyz they experience results abc- all they can KNOW is that they get those specific experiences - we call them "results"- when they do xyz.. But those observations are happening "in heads" across the globe and increase the pool of total human experience- but they are still "just" human experiences. No one can EVER get "outside" of human experience to see things the way a Martian, a dolphin, or being who can "see" radio waves, or God sees them, or the "way they really are"

That is the problem with theories that say that "truth corresponds to what really is the case", or to "reality" because no one can ever know "what really is the case" because all they can know is how we experience "what is the case"

I pray to God and feel inspiration, and it happens "in my head" just the way the physics experiment happens "in the head" of the physicist, but he can talk about it and make a recipe just like baking a cake- because he is talking about what is "objective"; he can give directions for repeating his experience to others so then can experience the same thing he did.

But I cannot really communicate what happened in receiving inspiration any more than I can communicate what red looks like or salt tastes like- because those experiences, though they also happen "in my head" are not communicable- they are what we call "subjective". If I give you a recipe for how to "talk to God" it may or may not work for you- just as if I gave you a recipe for "how to fall in love" or "how much to eat so you won't be hungry"- those kind of recipes have to be worked out by each individual subjectively.

So the bottom line is, that I agree with you that subjectivity and objectivity are just two points of view of human experience, but the real bottom line is that you can never get to what's "really out there" - all you can ever get to is human experience and its limits.

So it could be said that what we perceive as "reality" IS human experience, and subjective and objective are just two different points of view of the vast pool of experiences it offers us.

[Ahab]

That is the problem with theories that say that "truth corresponds to what really is the case", or to "reality" because no one can ever know "what really is the case" because all they can know is how we experience "what is the case"

Wait a minute! You're going a little too far, or at least it appears that way in my own head.

Truth does correspond to reality. That is a fact beyond any dispute, but you can go ahead and dispute it if you want to.

What is happening when someone sees or perceives or realizes the truth, when they actually do, is that they are seeing or perceiving or realizing a "part" of the truth on that issue, unless they're like our Father and they can also experiences the full reality of it in all of its repercussions.

To say we can't do that is to say we can't grow to see and experience things the way he does, so that's where you are in error.

Hopefully you see that now, but if not, it's still possible you will see it and experience it sometime in the future.

I pray to God and feel inspiration, and it happens "in my head" just the way the physics experiment happens "in the head" of the physicist, but he can talk about it and make a recipe just like baking a cake- because he is talking about what is "objective"; he can give directions for repeating his experience to others so then can experience the same thing he did.

But I cannot really communicate what happened in receiving inspiration any more than I can communicate what red looks like or salt tastes like- because those experiences, though they also happen "in my head" are not communicable- they are what we call "subjective".

But they ARE communicable, at least on some level, even if the person you're sharing what God has communicated to you isn't picking up on ALL that God has communicated to you unless God also communicates the same information to them.

For example, I pray to God and not only do I feel inspiration from God but God is also sharing some thought with me, just as anyone else can share one of their thoughts with me. At that point I have an idea in my head which God has given to me and I can share that idea with other people by using my own words to convey that idea to others... such as when saying Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, or the Book of Mormon was written by men who were inspired by God to write it... and then from that point those who receive the ideas I am sharing with them get the same message, or at least a part of it, that I have received from God. There are those who don't receive it, and instead reject the idea God has given to me, but it's still possible for those who have rejected the idea to receive it, instead, either from me or from God who gave it to me.

We have more power to share our ideas and experiences than you seem to realize, although we can't "force" anyone to accept what we share with them.

If I give you a recipe for how to "talk to God" it may or may not work for you- just as if I gave you a recipe for "how to fall in love" or "how much to eat so you won't be hungry"- those kind of recipes have to be worked out by each individual subjectively.

Talking to God isn't the problem. The key is in knowing when he is talking to you and then accepting what he tells you rather than rejecting what he says as if it wasn't something that God has said to you.

So the bottom line is, that I agree with you that subjectivity and objectivity are just two points of view of human experience, but the real bottom line is that you can never get to what's "really out there" - all you can ever get to is human experience and its limits.

Considering the idea that you consider God our Father to be a "human" and "human experience" therefore includes his experiences, exactly in what way do you think he is limited from experiencing reality (which is another word for truth)? Do you not agree that he knows everything that is true (or real)?

So it could be said that what we perceive as "reality" IS human experience, and subjective and objective are just two different points of view of the vast pool of experiences it offers us.

Hmm. I think I agree with you there.

[ldsfaqs]

I think mortals see through the glass darkly.... However, I also know that some mortals are most certainly better at knowing actual "truth" compared to error, opinion etc. than others.

I think there is light and dark in the world. Half the mortals lean more to the light, and the other half lean more dark, with obviously various degrees of variance depending on the subject matter and aspect.

I think Mormonism has the market on absolute "revealed truth" from God. I think others make their best effort and fall short in various degrees, as well as there existing of other types of truth that aren't salvatory but are useful.

I think in politics there is a side that is on the light, and a side that is on the dark, as well as degrees of variance within and outside the two.

I think in music there is a light and dark side with obviously degrees of variance and severity.

Ultimately, I think the light and dark with man applies to all things, spirit, intelligence, truth, right or wrong, etc.

Man must learn wisdom in discerning good from evil, right from wrong, truth from falsehood, as well as accuracy with perversion.

[mfbukowski]

Wait a minute! You're going a little too far, or at least it appears that way in my own head.

Remain calm. Do not panic.

To say we can't do that is to say we can't grow to see and experience things the way he does, so that's where you are in error. Hopefully you see that now, but if not, it's still possible you will see it and experience it sometime in the future.

1 Cor 13

11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

But they ARE communicable, at least on some level, even if the person you're sharing what God has communicated to you isn't picking up on ALL that God has communicated to you unless God also communicates the same information to them.

Yep. Again, that is like "the taste of salt". I can talk to anybody about the "taste of salt" only because I know everyone has experienced it. That is what language does with "objective" communication. It just so happens that I can also talk to YOU, the person known as Ahab, about the spirit, because you have described enough about what you feel for me to know that is also what I feel. I would contend that that makes the experience of "the spirit" partially objective, to those who know what what we have experienced. We have tasted salt, and can talk about it, but those who haven't don't have a clue what we are talking about. For them, the taste of salt is not "objective"- they would accuse us of being "subjective" and talking nonsense. But of course the way Ahab experiences salt OR "the spirit" is possibly a little different than the way that bukowski experiences salt or the spirit, so it will always remain a bit subjective, but in a way we cannot speak about. We can only meaningfully discuss what we have both experienced, making it, at least between the two of us, "objective". Were the lights on that UFO last night blue or green? We might talk about it and come up with "aquamarine", but everyone else would think we were crazy because they did not see the UFO. The color of those lights is "objective" to us, but they don't have a clue what we are talking about.

For example, I pray to God and not only do I feel inspiration from God but God is also sharing some thought with me, just as anyone else can share one of their thoughts with me. At that point I have an idea in my head which God has given to me and I can share that idea with other people by using my own words to convey that idea to others... such as when saying Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, or the Book of Mormon was written by men who were inspired by God to write it... and then from that point those who receive the ideas I am sharing with them get the same message, or at least a part of it, that I have received from God. There are those who don't receive it, and instead reject the idea God has given to me, but it's still possible for those who have rejected the idea to receive it, instead, either from me or from God who gave it to me.

Yep.

We have more power to share our ideas and experiences than you seem to realize, although we can't "force" anyone to accept what we share with them.

Oh, I think I realize it pretty well.

Considering the idea that you consider God our Father to be a "human" and "human experience" therefore includes his experiences, exactly in what way do you think he is limited from experiencing reality (which is another word for truth)? Do you not agree that he knows everything that is true (or real)?

Sure he does. And he can tell me about them if he chooses. See? I told you not to panic!

[elguanteloko]

mfbukowski:

You might be interested to know that professional philosophers subscribe more to a correspondence theory of truth than to any other one.

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Philosophy+faculty+or+PhD&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=coarse

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski:

You might be interested to know that professional philosophers subscribe more to a correspondence theory of truth than to any other one.

http://philpapers.or...=1&grain=coarse

What it says:

Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?

Accept or lean toward: correspondence 882 / 1803 (48.9%) Accept or lean toward: deflationary 415 / 1803 (23%) Other 310 / 1803 (17.1%) Accept or lean toward: epistemic 196 / 1803 (10.8%)

Oh come on! Please don't tell me you actually posted that.

First of all you mentioned that before and as I recall I deliberately avoided commenting on it to be nice. Can't remember.

But there is so much wrong with that way of looking at things it's hard to even know where to begin.

First, I could turn around and say that the "majority" do not subscribe to correspondence.

Secondly, that actually doesn't even matter because this is not a "majority rule" situation! Thirdly, it all depends on definitions- that entire poll is just a list if "isms" lacking in any kind of nuanced definitions.

Fourth, those are not Mormons. My purpose here is to show a theory of truth which fits well with Mormonism- and Pragmatism does not, where most forms (notice I say MOST FORMS- because if I wanted to define myself as believing in "correspondence" I could probably do so), that is, most forms of correspondence theory do not fit as well with Mormonism.

We are talking about what is true here, not about the results of some poll!

Edited August 14, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Franktalk]

When we speak of truth being reality we must be careful. If we are using the big picture reality then I agree. But that big picture is only seen by God. We can get parts of it sometimes but we don't get it all. Now when:

Joh 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Truth was standing in front of Pilate. No matter what Christ said it was the truth. To make it true the universe would reorder itself if needs be. So if Jesus had said the stars are blue then all stars would be blue and no one would remember a time in which they were not blue.

The best we can do is obtain a perception of truth. Like if I say "I went to the store." Now if I had, then I would be telling the truth. But if I said "I went to the store and sang along the way." Here we see that going to the store may be true but the singing could mean many things. Did I sing both ways, did I take a break along the way, did I start the moment I left for the store, did I sing in the store, etc? So there is some truth but we don't know enough to sort it out. Now when we speak of complex things or subjective then truth becomes a fog that slips through our fingers.

So truth comes from God and everything else may have some truth.

[elguanteloko]

Oh come on! Please don't tell me you actually posted that.

First of all you mentioned that before and as I recall I deliberately avoided commenting on it to be nice. Can't remember.

I can't remember either.. so...

But there is so much wrong with that way of looking at things it's hard to even know where to begin.

"That way"..? What "way"?

First, I could turn around and say that the "majority" do not subscribe to correspondence.

and you would be correct. I said professional philosophers subscribe more to correspondence than to other views about truth.

Secondly, that actually doesn't even matter because this is not a "majority rule" situation!

mf, did you really think I posted that thinking that the majority will rule? (though this contradicts what you said previously since the majority - as you recognize - doesn't subscribe to correspondence)

Thirdly, it all depends on definitions- that entire poll is just a list if "isms" lacking in any kind of nuanced definitions.

Well, yes, if you define the word "cars" to mean "a five legged mammal", then that makes a difference when you speak. The definitions of the positions written there are good enough as indicators. Get real, mf.

Fourth, those are not Mormons. My purpose here is to show a theory of truth which fits well with Mormonism- and Pragmatism does not, where most forms (notice I say MOST FORMS- because if I wanted to define myself as believing in "correspondence" I could probably do so), that is, most forms of correspondence theory do not fit as well with Mormonism.

What do you mean correspondence doesn't fit well with Mormonism? I think it's the norm, at least. I'd like to hear what you have to say about this.

We are talking about what is true here, not about the results of some poll!

No, we are talking about what truth is, NOT about "what is true". I just wanted to burst your little bubble, though. Your position just might not be as smart as you take it to be.

Edited August 15, 2011 by elguanteloko

[ozpoof]

It depends. Most people consider truth to be facts. Some people consider truth to be what they latest leader says - or the latest group of people involved in the correlation process. Some people fear truth and others deny it.

[Ahab]

I can't remember either.. so...

"That way"..? What "way"?

and you would be correct. I said professional philosophers subscribe more to correspondence than to other views about truth.

mf, did you really think I posted that thinking that the majority will rule? (though this contradicts what you said previously since the majority - as you recognize - doesn't subscribe to correspondence)

Well, yes, if you define the word "cars" to mean "a five legged mammal", then that makes a difference when you speak. The definitions of the positions written there are good enough as indicators. Get real, mf.

What do you mean correspondence doesn't fit well with Mormonism? I think it's the norm, at least. I'd like to hear what you have to say about this.

No, we are talking about what truth is, NOT about "what is true". I just wanted to burst your little bubble, though. Your position just might not be as smart as you take it to be.

I can get behind the idea that truth equates to a correspondence of what actually is, or was, or will be, if that's what you're talking about.

[mfbukowski]

I can get behind the idea that truth equates to a correspondence of what actually is, or was, or will be, if that's what you're talking about.

The only problem is, how do you know "what is or was or will be"?

How do you check "what is" when all you can experience is what you see and feel?

Heck, if you "truth IS what we experience" then we are not so far apart- but is what we experience "What is?"

I say that if you can't tell the difference, "for all practical purposes" what is IS what we experience. So why worry about the "what is" part if we can't know about it anyway?

This is the central problem with "correspondence" and why MOST philosophers (that's for elguanteloko - as if that matters one bit- ) look at truth differently than "correspondence" to something we cannot experience.

[Mansquatch]

When you say or infer that something is "true", what do you actually mean?

Seeing as how you are merely a projection on a computer projection of a question from my mind which is the only thing that actually exists...truth is solipsism. I ask for objectively observable evidence to the contrary. [/sarc]

Truth is what is true, and there is no mortal on this earth who knows all of it. A principle cannot be true for one person and not true for another person. There are no gray areas.

[Garden Girl]

Heck, if you "truth IS what we experience" then we are not so far apart- but is what we experience "What is?"

Perhaps it depends on what your definition of the word is is...

GG

[Garden Girl]

Sorry... double post.

GG

Edited August 16, 2011 by Garden Girl

[Vance]

Perhaps it depends on what your definition of the word is is...

GG

:rofl:

[mfbukowski]

A principle cannot be true for one person and not true for another person. There are no gray areas.

Gosh, you mean when I am hungry you are too? That we love the same woman and have the same age kids and belong to the same political party and ....... need I go on?

And that we agree on every single topic on this forum? Wow, that's pretty cool!

[Ahab]

The only problem is, how do you know "what is or was or will be"?

Are you asking how I "know"... whatever... or are you asking me how I know if what is really is something which actually is.

Are you going to start quoting from Bill Clinton now?

It depends on what "is" is.

How do you check "what is" when all you can experience is what you see and feel?

What I experience when I experience what is is what is, even if it's not all of what is.

For example, I open a door and then walk into a room. The door is real, and the room is real, and all that I experience from one point to the next is what is.

Heck, if you [think?] "truth IS what we experience" then we are not so far apart- but is what we experience "What is?"

It is if it is something real, rather than just something you're imagining which doesn't conform to reality.

For example, God talks to me and tells me things. God is real, and I am real, and all that I experience from one point to the next is what is real.

I say that if you can't tell the difference, "for all practical purposes" what is IS what we experience.

Do you mean what we experience, collectively, or do you mean what each of us experiences, individually.

I'm sure I've experienced some things that you haven't experienced, yet, and maybe you never will. Does that mean that what I have experienced isn't what is, or what it was when I experienced it? Nope, not at all. It's all real, regardless of whether or not you or other individuals experience everything there is to be experienced.

So why worry about the "what is" part if we can't know about it anyway?

Because maybe you can know about it or at least experience the same "kind" of experience it is, yourself.

This is the central problem with "correspondence" and why MOST philosophers (that's for elguanteloko - as if that matters one bit- ) look at truth differently than "correspondence" to something we cannot experience.

Oh. I'm glad you cleared that up, whatever the heck you are talking about.

[Ahab]

Perhaps it depends on what your definition of the word is is...

GG

I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who had a Bill Clinton-esque moment when experiencing the words of mski, dear sister.