Does truth exist? Heres what I think.

Truth can and will be a varied topic to different philosophers and cultures. I plan to talk about the correspondence theory of truth and the deflationist stances of truth. Afterwards I plan to express my opinion of truth followed by the possible outcome of the variations on truth and how they can and could affect people as a whole in hypothetical situations.
The correspondence theory of truth is the most common view of truth itself. This is a view that the truth does exist in reality because it agrees with reality. Thomas Aquinas, who presented a metaphysical version of the correspondence theory, states, “A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality”. Most people probably believe this because it’s productive and sensible. I believe this theory causes less confusion, also leading to its popularity. There are however certain correspondence theories that are not as clear-cut, such as tarski’s theory of correspondence without facts.
Deflationsism is the idea that truth does not exist. A deflationist believes that truth has no nature beyond what are in ordinary claims. This means to me that there is no definable truth and that you can never describe it. Some believe that truth is merely a redundancy and that there is no direct meaning of truth and that it can be eliminated from a sentence or conversation. I presume an example would be “the truth is, snow is white” or “I put snow on my car, therefore it is white”. In either sentence if truth really existed then it would be assumed white at all times. I agree with this idea on a shallow basis.

My personal view on truth is that it does indeed exist, if only to make things more productive and understandable. I am of the opinion that there would be total productivity lost and mass confusion if there were no truth. Chaos might ensue and leave people frantic. I like how Augustine put it, “It is self-defeating to deny the existence of truth. If someone claims that “Truth does not exist”, then we can counter by asking if the claim is True or False. If the claim is False, then Truth Exists, and if the claim is True, then Truth Exists”. To me there is no denying that truth exists with this statement. I am sure there is a way to construe it and give an argument, just as there is with anything in life with some philosophers. I believe we should aim for using truth more so now than I had thought about the topic before. Without it there is nothing to learn.
If there was a single point of view on truth, I think that would hurt society. Just as I recommend analyzing what is true in our forum I recommend to people in general. Just because I believe that there is truth doesn’t mean that its absolute. If everyone trusted in truth all the time there would be no questioning or learning. If no one believed that anything was true then there would be no productivity. A balance leaning more towards truth is what is essential in my opinion.
I assume most people feel the way that I do about truth. This is why we have the society we do. Diversity is important and that is what makes the world such a great place. If people feel one way there is no reason we should get offensive or make them conform. One day we might need their insight and opinion. Until then, there is a truth.

 

nice post. not what i was expecting to read as i took my morning toke. honestly, i don't think i've ever given it that much thought. "truth" is such a vague term to me. sure, i've thought about if X is true, or if Y is false, but i guess i thought it was a silly thing to talk/agrue about? i'm not sure.

i believe truth exists. but truth about what? simple things are easy - i am typing on my laptop. i'm sitting in an orange chair. those are truths. truths about the origin of our universe, the existence of god, and deeper shit like that is a little tougher.

because there is ultimate truth in the small stuff, it only makes sense to me that there is ultimate truth in the large stuff too. it's just harder to know, and we aren't at that level (yet)

even if you can understand a small part of the picture, or even THINK you understand it, only to be wrong in the end...i think it's worth it. with science for example - we are constantly proved wrong, but the only way to be proved wrong is to come up with testable hypotheses. you say "this might be true. now can i show it to be false?"

it reminds me of some lyrics from a great band called cursive. it's a good song, but i don't agree with this line:
"i don't believe in wasting time, searching for truth you'll never find"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4eTNiFPxw8"]YouTube- Cursive - The Great Decay

 

personally, i think truth is a matter of perception, and should not be equated with 'reality'
if we were in separate corners of a room and witnessed an event, lets say a crazy person gives a weird speech and then bursts into flames. each of us sees something different, witnesses a different truth. maybe his left side is limp, and his right eye is missing. maybe you watched the crazy man while i looked around at the reactions of others in the room. the reality is what happened, but its not totally knowable, because there are too many details in reality, it is EVERYTHING that happened, whether it was observed or not.
everyone can tell the truth and be correct, even if the stories dont match up. in fact, stories that match too closely are usually a sign of a conspiracy.

our perception of events is also shaped by past personal events and memories. maybe the crazy man looks like an uncle of yours, only with longer hair. well youve got a decent description to give to the officer, i don't have a similar looking uncle, so my descriptive truth would be more limited.
so i think the whole truth thing has facets, and multiple meanings.

 

Is this phrase yours?? Because if i still used facebook that would be a quote there for sure!

Its pretty early too think that philosophically but its all interesting.
But for me truth is an explanation that is most likely to be true

Does Santa exist? Maybe not,but there is so much going on that Santa might be a small 3year old boy living in Vietnam named Santa. So yeah Santa does exist.

Nothing we see, hear, feel is true except only when we are on LSD ,then nothing can hide.

 

Saint Augustine's is an effective linguistic formula. I would further state that what is false is, by definition is not true and therefore does not exist.
If the truth is that which conforms to reality then the question becomes what is real. Here is where the fun begins and ends.
I am able to make only these claims regarding reality:

Reality is non local, nor is it remote. There are no degrees of reality. There is nowhere that is any more real than any where else.
Reality has no opposite, what is not real does not exist.

 

You have to read between the lies.

 

Yep, that is mine. I quote with the appropriate punctuation mr.

Nice posts everyone.

I believe that there is universal truth for our time. Although perception is only part of a larger thing as mother said, thats only part of it. Your right that there is truth in their perception, but there is a truth when all the perceptions where put together and scientifically analyzed. Then we can find the truth, he blew up from a bomb, even if one persons perception is different, it is still the truth that the bomb killed him.

I kinda expected porks response, which is kinda like mine. Most of you on this board remind me of postmodernists and moral relativists. Everything is "relative" to the persons experience. If you were to follow this ethical theory you would create a world of chaos because then no one would agree. Its all about what you think is right. No productive reasoning there. Kinda like how you interpret what a book means. "well, I think it means this." is counter productive in my opinion because then we cannot agree on what it means, therefor we can not go forward with conclusions.

What do you think would happen if you lived like this in all aspects of your life? (like a moral relativist believes.)

 

There is a danger in over-thinking these things I think.

 

I am not so enamored with it. The truth need not be believed for it to be true. You may absolutely trust the truth. The word learn comes from an Indo European root meaning to "track". There is always something new to track or learn, because life is perpetually emergent, new in every moment. Relative facts are constantly changing, they must be constantly tracked. This moments "fact" does not necessarily apply in the next moment. It can be 50 degrees outside at one moment and an hour later be 57 degrees.
I agree with the sentiment that we should be prepared in any moment to modify our position. If not then we may find ourselves over run.

 

Correct... there's much value to having an open mind about things. Trying to identify an absolute truth to plot a life by is pointless IMO because I believe the truth only comes out when we're too busy going about our business to think too much about it. A life richly lived is built on a foundation of mistakes and not on a carefully thought out construct by which all future decisions are restricted by among other things- the authority to make them.

Fear of making mistakes is a prison... a particularly insidious form of mental incarceration.

 

I agree here. However we can build on those things that we do agree on, then we only add to our repetoire instead of spending our time trying to convince or defend.

 

i believe in an absolute truth/reality as described in hindu philosophy (see Brahman)
i also recognize there is a relative reality in the world

 

People often feel compelled to defend something that doesn't make sense by itself.

 

When you say by itself, do you mean it has no objective constituents in reality?

 

I personally believe that neither extreme should take place, i.e. totally trusting truth where you are closed or not believing truth. This is my epiphany that I live by. Everything in life should be done in moderation and near the middle ground. Not many people like extreme law abiders. Not many like someone without laws. I find that I can put myself in or near the middle of a situation like this to better understand the whole spectrum. This is the one truth for me.

How can my stance be wrong?

 

I don't think you are wrong. I think your terms are confusing. What you describe as "trusting truth" to the extent that you are closed I would simply call believing. Belief by it's nature is never truly informed being a symbol chosen to represent an unknown variable. As things become known then belief is not needed. Trust or faith on the other hand allows things to be discovered as they are. The truth that you can have absolute faith in, is reality. We are safe in reality, nothing real can be threatened.

 

I mean it doesn't ordinarily make sense or apply to a reality that isn't already being defined by philosophical constraints or other components of prejudice that are indoctrinated into a people- usually for the purpose of inducing a predictable conduct but sold as an avenue to spiritual purity.

Vociferous, argumentative defense is often a backhanded acknowledgment that one's chosen path does not make sense. I think that deep down most religious zealots know their thinking is utter bullshit... and by trying to sway others they are in fact denying their own doubts. My belief is that the truth evolves but most fundamentalist mind sets are not equipped to accept this.

 

I totally agree.
As Lou Rhodes put it, "There's so many things that we miss in our everyday lives. We're so busy hustling, bustling, chasing far away dreams. We forget the little things... We forget to live."
The same should be said about truth, stop seeking it.. it's likely this "ultimate truth" you're trying to conceptualise is axiomatic.

 

It might be worthy to note that a belief never contends with the truth, only with other beliefs.

Many prejudicial beliefs have nothing to do with spiritual purity per se, but they all suggest that the belief supplies some kind of reward.

 

but the truth you have surmised is still not the full reality. its close enough for human purposes, but its based on observation. i believe you can not have/ observe all the data for a given event. a complete reality would account for measurable data like temperature, a map of the room, the humidity, as well as each individual atom present, its direction of travel throughout the event, etc. a complete reality has an information level that far outstrips what humanity needs. we just need to figure out how the guy really died. it can be an agreed upon truth, which is why cause of death can be challenged and rechecked if it doesnt make sense. if the data supports that the bomb killed him, we infer that that is the reality.