Is truth relative?

[John Scott]

Doesn't purport to know what?

Doesn't purport to know anything. It just says that if "x" has attribute "m", then that is truth whether it is known or not.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Doesn't purport to know anything. It just says that if "x" has attribute "m", then that is truth whether it is known or not.

I see.

This is an interesting thread. I've spent half the day in Wikipedia and the dictionary though. lol

[John Scott]

I think you'd love philosophy, Atom, and you seem inclined. You should pick up a book or two to get your philosophical juices flowing.

Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" would get the ideas popping

[robert s.]

I would say two things here. One, you fail to appreciation the obvious. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun is not open to doubt. It has been proven indisputably, countless times.



but would you not haved used 1000 years ago the exact same words to defend the opposite? i mean people were killed, because the church and scientists knew it to be true that the earth is at the center....

[John Scott]

You have left the discussion of truth and moved on to the discussion of knowledge. That's cool, it's also an interesting discussion.

scientists knew it to be true that the earth is at the center

Where do you get that? What scientists knew this? They knew of the geocentric theories, but they hadn't observed it. Most theories of knowledge insist on not only observation, but also collaborative observation.

[G10]

Oh yes 2+2=4 alright.

Ok, that may be a simple sum but the ones that don't believe or can't see that my want to try out that philosophy on the IRS and see where their perceived truth gets them - lol!

[robert s.]

sorry - i did not want leave any discussion or change the way..... looks like my english really is too limited to actually contribute anything useful. i will stay with reading.....

would love to discuss this in german - but unfortunately there is no forum in german which is just half as interesting as this.....

[G10]

Your english is better than most English folk around here dude so don't let that stop you

Forums are a worldwide thing and that is to be expected and the fact that you are trying, speaks volumes in itself so don't worry about it.

[robert s.]

Originally Posted by G10

Your english is better than most English folk around here dude so don't let that stop you

Forums are a worldwide thing and that is to be expected and the fact that you are trying, speaks volumes in itself so don't worry about it.

thanks G10, but somehow it seems i cant get across to John, what i mean.....

[asdfing]

Thats kinda strange question :p But I think its relative

[Atom]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I think you'd love philosophy, Atom, and you seem inclined. You should pick up a book or two to get your philosophical juices flowing.

Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" would get the ideas popping

Sounds like one that I would get if I didn't hate reading so much. I really have to force myself to read what little I do read.

[Jul]

Originally Posted by robert s.

somehow it seems i cant get across to John, what i mean.....

It's not because of your language abilities though.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Jul

It's not because of your language abilities though.

That's quite obvious. I do understand his position, but his position redefines truth.

According to his statements, "truth" is not an attribute that attaches to statements that are accurately representative of reality, but to statements that the person believes to be accurately representative of reality. Big difference there.

[Jul]

Yes, I hope that I understand Robert's position too, and I agree with him 100%.

Not every discussion must end by persuading the opponent. You offered two options, people voted. Then some of them explained their position, while the others left the conversation, it's Ok to stay with your beliefs.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by John Scott

That's quite obvious. I do understand his position, but his position redefines truth.

According to his statements, "truth" is not an attribute that attaches to statements that are accurately representative of reality, but to statements that the person believes to be accurately representative of reality. Big difference there.

This post defines the err of my post #'s 74 and 76 quite perfectly. In them, I've discovered that I was attempting to throw "belief" into the mix. I now see that doing so was inaccurate to the discussion thus far.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Atom

This post defines the err of my post #'s 74 and 76 quite perfectly. In them, I've discovered that I was attempting to throw "belief" into the mix. I now see that doing so was inaccurate to the discussion thus far.

Atom, it's really a matter of definition. If you define truth the way Jul or robert does (belief) then that's fine and logical. But if you define truth that way, then we are left in need of a new word to represent truth according to the definition I've offered.

Many disputes in philosophy, in my opinion, are just based on semantic differences.

It's like the "free will" debate. Some people define free will one way, and deny it exists. Other people define free will another way and say it does exist. A dispute? Not really, because the two sides essentially agree on the state of things, and the difference is only semantic.

[Atom]

John, I've come to the conclusion that a proper discussion of "truth" should not involve the notion of "belief" what-so-ever.

What say you?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Atom

John, I've come to the conclusion that a proper discussion of "truth" should not involve the notion of "belief" what-so-ever.

What say you?

That would be my position as well, but I don't think the rest of humanity would like us imposing our beliefs on them, eh?