Defining Truth

[Loki]

It seems to me that all humans naturally operate on an assumption of what the truth is. Just watch and listen to people carrying on with their worries and aspirations. Everyone, on some level, knows that the truth is that which happened, is happening or will happen. In other words, truth is invariably tied to the existence of things, and when something is false, it's falsity is caused by it's non existence. A wife may want to know the truth about her husbands activities while he is away from home. A child may want to know the truth about Santa Clause. Is he really living up in the North Pole right now? An economist may be anticipating a dip or rise in the economy. Truth is about what once existed, what now exists, and what will exist. Falseness refers to that which claims existence, but in fact, does not.

So how did I come to this conception of truth? I just observed my own mind and the behavior of others. This means that there is an empirical component to my definition of truth.

Which has got me wondering, are there any definitions that lack an empirical component? I don't think there are any. Empiricism demands definitions, and definitions demand empiricism.

[Nick]

How are you defining empiricism here?

[Loki]

Empiricism is knowledge derived, in part, from sense experience. The dictionary says that it is knowledge derived from sense experience, which to me is not a satisfactory definition, because all knowledge is to some degree an invention, a definition, and yet, to some degree derived through the senses.

[Nick]

The dictionary says that it [empiricism] is knowledge derived from sense experience, which to me is not a satisfactory definition, because all knowledge is to some degree an invention, a definition, and yet, to some degree derived through the senses.

Yes it is entirely arbitrary.

So how did I come to this conception of truth? I just observed my own mind and the behavior of others. This means that there is an empirical component to my definition of truth.

I think what you're really talking about here is consciousness itself. We can be conscious of many things, empirical or not, and all of it shapes how we define things. Also if nothing can be defined without some kind of arbitrary empirical observation, it would be impossible to define empiricism in the first place because we would never know what the hell we are even talking about.

Check out this article on the difference a priori and a posteriori reasoning.

[Loki]

So how did I come to this conception of truth? I just observed my own mind and the behavior of others. This means that there is an empirical component to my definition of truth.

I think what you're really talking about here is consciousness itself. We can be conscious of many things, empirical or not, and all of it shapes how we define things. Also if nothing can be defined without some kind of arbitrary empirical observation, it would be impossible to define empiricism in the first place because we would never know what the hell we are even talking about.

Check out this article on the difference a priori and a posteriori reasoning.

How do you mean we could never know what we were talking about?

Empiricism is defined because I have the experiences necessary to define it.

I am familiar with a piori and a posteriori reasoning. My contention is that a prior reasoning, or the premises that comprise such reasoning's, are based on world experience. Take "all bachelors are married". Each word is defined by drawing from experiences, so there is an empirical component to all a priori truths.

I guess what I'm getting at is, I realized the emptiness of things. I get that, intellectually. But it's so hard to explain it to people that I start to wonder if I've gone insane. What if Plato was right? What if things have some kind of mathematical essence, or true form? Not that such a truth would make me feel anymore sane or understandable to people, but this emptiness stuff is just hard to have faith in. It's hard to demonstrate to people.

[Nick]

My contention is that a prior reasoning, or the premises that comprise such reasoning's, are based on world experience. Take "all bachelors are married". Each word is defined by drawing from experiences, so there is an empirical component to all a priori truths.

The logical framework behind the statement that "all bachelors are unmarried" is absolute and doesn't require an arbitrary empirical experience to remain so. Concepts like bachelors and marriage are simply plugged in to the framework in order to demonstrate a point.

I guess what I'm getting at is, I realized the emptiness of things. I get that, intellectually. But it's so hard to explain it to people that I start to wonder if I've gone insane. What if Plato was right? What if things have some kind of mathematical essence, or true form? Not that such a truth would make me feel anymore sane or understandable to people, but this emptiness stuff is just hard to have faith in. It's hard to demonstrate to people.

How on earth do you suppose we could ever demonstrate that which is undemonstrative?

[Loki]

Isn't logic a form of demonstration?

ugh, I need some sleep, talk about this more tomorrow hopefully.

[cousinbasil]

I guess what I'm getting at is, I realized the emptiness of things. I get that, intellectually. But it's so hard to explain it to people that I start to wonder if I've gone insane. What if Plato was right? What if things have some kind of mathematical essence, or true form? Not that such a truth would make me feel anymore sane or understandable to people, but this emptiness stuff is just hard to have faith in. It's hard to demonstrate to people.

Why would anyone want to "believe in" the emptiness of things? It's just a viewpoint, one of an infinite number of viewpoints. If you are trying to explain it to people, you obviously consider this particular viewpoint superior or more advanced in some way. Will it benefit them to adopt this viewpoint? It sounds like if they did adopt it, then they too would end up wondering if they have gone insane.

[Loki]

My contention is that a prior reasoning, or the premises that comprise such reasoning's, are based on world experience. Take "all bachelors are unmarried". Each word is defined by drawing from experiences, so there is an empirical component to all a priori truths.

The logical framework behind the statement that "all bachelors are unmarried" is absolute and doesn't require an arbitrary empirical experience to remain so. Concepts like bachelors and marriage are simply plugged in to the framework in order to demonstrate a point.

"All bachelors are unmarried" is really nothing but a different way of stating a previously defined definition. It's no different than saying "all trees are non-animals" or "all women are not men". In other words, these a-priori truths are the result of defining the existence of something, which we do as result of observation with our senses. We observe the difference between married men and unmarried men and we give them the label bachelor, which is defined to conform to what exists through the senses. We observe the difference between trees and animals and we do the same thing. We are able to say, "all animals are not trees", which is just a variation on existing definitions.

I don't understand how absolutes really do anything useful, they all seem trivial and many of them overly simple, to the point of inanity.

The totality doesn't negate cosmic consciousness or mysticism, emptiness doesn't negate an eternal soul, causality isn't even really true, ending the ego isn't something you can really do with any certainty...

I just feel I've reached the end of philosophy. I see the limitations of analytic truths, they don't strike me as providing any knowledge that isn't vulnerable to unknown factors.

What is positive about the forums values is that you really do question what it is you know, and you see the limitations of both empirical and analytic thinking. Both have their shortcomings, and in the end, we all do what it is we find emotionally appealing. Life is nothing but art, it is living for the sake of aesthetics, our personal ideal of beauty.

[Nick]

I don't understand how absolutes really do anything useful, they all seem trivial and many of them overly simple, to the point of inanity.

Understanding how absolutes work is essential if you want to free your mind. But once you have accomplished this there's no reason to cherish or hold on to them.

The totality doesn't negate cosmic consciousness or mysticism, emptiness doesn't negate an eternal soul, causality isn't even really true, ending the ego isn't something you can really do with any certainty...

Neither do they negate the fact that our joints stiffen, senses dull, and breathing becomes harder as we turn into a weak and shriveled abomination of our former youth. So what?

I just feel I've reached the end of philosophy. I see the limitations of analytic truths, they don't strike me as providing any knowledge that isn't vulnerable to unknown factors.

I don't think vulnerable really means anything in this context. But yes, philosophy can eventually be laid to rest after one has become truly free.

What is positive about the forums values is that you really do question what it is you know, and you see the limitations of both empirical and analytic thinking. Both have their shortcomings, and in the end, we all do what it is we find emotionally appealing. Life is nothing but art, it is living for the sake of aesthetics, our personal ideal of beauty.

Art and beauty, as with all forms, captures and erodes the mind, causing men to rape, steal, kill, and live in fear. To each his own I suppose...

[Loki]

I don't understand how absolutes really do anything useful, they all seem trivial and many of them overly simple, to the point of inanity.

Understanding how absolutes work is essential if you want to free your mind. But once you have accomplished this there's no reason to cherish or hold on to them.

The totality doesn't negate cosmic consciousness or mysticism, emptiness doesn't negate an eternal soul, causality isn't even really true, ending the ego isn't something you can really do with any certainty...

Neither do they negate the fact that our joints stiffen, senses dull, and breathing becomes harder as we turn into a weak and shriveled abomination of our former youth. So what?

What you're talking about there is science, though. And neither science, nor analytic thinking can tell us what truly is in store for us, or where we've come from.

I just feel I've reached the end of philosophy. I see the limitations of analytic truths, they don't strike me as providing any knowledge that isn't vulnerable to unknown factors.

I don't think vulnerable really means anything in this context. But yes, philosophy can eventually be laid to rest after one has become truly free.

What do you mean by free? Fearlessness cannot be attained with any certainty. You don't know if you've deluded yourself or have gotten comfortable in your circumstances. You could be building walls up against others, or facts, or against god knows what. You don't know.

What is positive about the forums values is that you really do question what it is you know, and you see the limitations of both empirical and analytic thinking. Both have their shortcomings, and in the end, we all do what it is we find emotionally appealing. Life is nothing but art, it is living for the sake of aesthetics, our personal ideal of beauty.

Art and beauty, as with all forms, captures and erodes the mind, causing men to rape, steal, kill, and live in fear. To each his own I suppose...

See, this is a huge mistake you are making. Hugh Hefner does not go around stealing, raping and killing. Neither does Chris Rock, Gene Simmons, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or any number of happily married scientists or philosophers. Fuck, the majority of married people or bachelors looking to score with chicks are not criminals. What causes us to harm others is likely an unhealthy ego, bad genes, bad brain, bad upbringing. Don't pin the blame on something arbitrary like art, or even beautiful women.

[Nick]

Neither do they negate the fact that our joints stiffen, senses dull, and breathing becomes harder as we turn into a weak and shriveled abomination of our former youth. So what?

What you're talking about there is science, though. And neither science, nor analytic thinking can tell us what truly is in store for us, or where we've come from.

What makes those questions so much more important than others?

What do you mean by free?

By free I mean never being captured or taken in by forms.

Fearlessness cannot be attained with any certainty. You don't know if you've deluded yourself or have gotten comfortable in your circumstances. You could be building walls up against others, or facts, or against god knows what. You don't know.

The potentially infinite number of deceiving delusions and menacing walls cease to be a problem when you understand the fundamental nature of how walls and delusions are created.

Art and beauty, as with all forms, captures and erodes the mind, causing men to rape, steal, kill, and live in fear. To each his own I suppose...

See, this is a huge mistake you are making. Hugh Hefner does not go around stealing, raping and killing. Neither does Chris Rock, Gene Simmons, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or any number of happily married scientists or philosophers. Fuck, the majority of married people or bachelors looking to score with chicks are not criminals. What causes us to harm others is likely an unhealthy ego, bad genes, bad brain, bad upbringing. Don't pin the blame on something arbitrary like art, or even beautiful women.

I never blamed art and beauty, I blame the men who covet them. You can blame every war ever fought on man's love of beautiful forms.

[Blair]

Oh, like Loki's going to get that...

Are we defining, or defying truth Yoki?

[Loki]

Neither do they negate the fact that our joints stiffen, senses dull, and breathing becomes harder as we turn into a weak and shriveled abomination of our former youth. So what?

What you're talking about there is science, though. And neither science, nor analytic thinking can tell us what truly is in store for us, or where we've come from.

What makes those questions so much more important than others?

They aren't any more important. I'm just demonstrating that these analytic truths do very little in terms of useful information.

What do you mean by free?

By free I mean never being captured or taken in by forms.

Which would imply fearlessness, which is something you can never know if you've attained. Like enlightenment, you may think you're in Nirvana, but you don't really know what your brain is doing behind the scenes.

Art and beauty, as with all forms, captures and erodes the mind, causing men to rape, steal, kill, and live in fear. To each his own I suppose...

See, this is a huge mistake you are making. Hugh Hefner does not go around stealing, raping and killing. Neither does Chris Rock, Gene Simmons, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or any number of happily married scientists or philosophers. Fuck, the majority of married people or bachelors looking to score with chicks are not criminals. What causes us to harm others is likely an unhealthy ego, bad genes, bad brain, bad upbringing. Don't pin the blame on something arbitrary like art, or even beautiful women.

I never blamed art and beauty, I blame the men who covet them. You can blame every war ever fought on man's love of beautiful forms.

Plenty of men are enamored by beautiful forms but are against war. Most of hollywood is very leftist and anti war, and you couldn't have a more hedonistic bunch of people. The people who engage in war unintelligently are simply stupid, frightened men. There urges have little to do with art or any kind of beauty, their brains are just bad. They belong to an earlier, more barbaric time in evolution. These are men who are atavistic. You pinning the blame on men who covet art is avoiding the root of the problem.

[Nick]

They aren't any more important. I'm just demonstrating that these analytic truths do very little in terms of useful information.

You're god damn right they're useless!

Like enlightenment, you may think you're in Nirvana, but you don't really know what your brain is doing behind the scenes.

It doesn't really matter what's going on behind the scenes, because you will never know what's going on back there by definition. What does matter is how we manage what's going on in the fore front.

Plenty of men are enamored by beautiful forms but are against war. Most of hollywood is very leftist and anti war, and you couldn't have a more hedonistic bunch of people.

You pinning the blame on men who covet art is avoiding the root of the problem.

These types you speak of are guilty as well. Their love of form makes them passive, and their stance against war half-hearted.

[jupiviv]

If I understand your definition of 'empirical' correctly here, then all definitions are necessarily outside the 'empirical' realm. If you try to base a definition of a thing on what it appears to be at any particular time(sense experience etc.) then you will never have any definitions, because a thing is only itself for the time it appears, so the 'definition' of that thing would cease to be when the thing itself ceases to be.

It is precisely the ability to stand apart from the 'empirical' world that enables definitions, and forms. In fact definitions are nothing but this ability itself, i.e, consciousness.

[mensa-maniac]

Defining Truth

Truth is what is right in logical reasoning, what's more is truth is what is proven through reasoning and cannot be disputed because truth makes sense, thus making it genuine.

Truth is the word of God, and we as humanity have the choice to believe that or not.

Truth is not always pretty, it might be to much to bear, yet it is truth.

Truth proves itself through itself. Truth uses itself to prove itself. Truth is a powerful entity sort-of-speak, it can show itself when it is hidden. It's like it has a mind of it's own. Truth can be spoken by will, or hidden by will.

Donna Thompson


To Be Continued...

[Loki]

They aren't any more important. I'm just demonstrating that these analytic truths do very little in terms of useful information.

You're god damn right they're useless!

What is the virtue in uselesness? We are constantly challenged by our changing environment and we have desires that perhaps should be fulfilled. Things ought to be useful, to help us adapt, change, survive and be happy.

Like enlightenment, you may think you're in Nirvana, but you don't really know what your brain is doing behind the scenes.

It doesn't really matter what's going on behind the scenes, because you will never know what's going on back there by definition. What does matter is how we manage what's going on in the fore front.

It matters if we have convinced our selves that we have attained, or we think we can attain fearlessness, when the fact is we can't know. Every movement of the mind could be rooted in the desire for security, happiness, and since our higher brain rests on the foundation of our lower brain, I see no reason to think that any kind of fearlessness is possible.

Plenty of men are enamored by beautiful forms but are against war. Most of hollywood is very leftist and
anti war, and you couldn't have a more hedonistic bunch of people.

--

You pinning the blame on men who covet art is avoiding the root of the problem.

These types you speak of are guilty as well. Their love of form makes them passive, and their stance against war half-hearted.

What would a full hearted stance against war look like and why is a stance against war wise? War is part of life, and civilization owes a lot to it's evolution and presence.

[cousinbasil]

What would a full hearted stance against war look like and why is a stance against war wise? War is part of life, and civilization owes a lot to it's evolution and presence.

Hopefully its evolution will help to mitigate its presence. The technological aspect of warfare has evolved to the point where civilized people cannot really envision waging war. For most people, war is not a part of life, but knowing the history of war always should remain a part of civilized life.