Author	Topic:   Who has the truth?
Flasher	posted 2/25/06 4:45 PM     In my opinion everybody has his own truth, his own vision on life and what happens around them. So we can't say that for example I am right and he isn't... He sees this in his own way and for him that is the truth. If a person sees an apple red but another sees it blue then it doesn't mean that any of them is right, or better to say they are both right... We can't say that the person isn't right just because the majority of people will see that apple red, maybe he is the only person that sees it right...This is just an example...What do you think about this idea?
nameless	posted 3/2/06 7:33 AM     Everyone has their concepts of 'existence'. Actually, our concepts constitute 'existence', our universes. We never 'find' nor can 'have' Truth. We can only 'become' Truth.
Benjamin Leo Taffe	posted 3/22/06 12:14 AM       I must duly concur with nameless in this instance as truth is not a possesion one must strive to obtain. But merely a state being one should hope to become.
the listener..	posted 3/22/06 11:43 PM       Seems you all say the same thing but cant agree on what you are hearing.
jojo	posted 4/2/06 5:29 AM       I agree that majority and even consensus are criteria of truth. However I believe that at least some truths are objective. for instance,I believe there are instruments that can determine the wavelength of light that the apple reflects and therefore its true color. Color is an objective reality.
Alan	posted 4/6/06 2:00 PM     In my opinion, truth can only be found through analytics. http://www.philosophy.answerz.be/blog/alan Alan's Philosophy Blog
Holy Moly	posted 4/7/06 1:56 AM     Actually, color is not an objective reality. There is no such thing as color in front of your nose. Absolutely dark photons, vibrating at a certain frequency (specifically, a 'data' quantum) must act upon your retinal aparatus, optic nerve to transmit the 'data' (programing) to your brain that conceptualises the 'data' into a hologramic' concept (mental picture) upon your monitor (mind). Uou now 'see' what you interpert as 'color' in what you interpert as 'something', somewhere that you interpert as 'out there'. Follow? In front of your nose, it is absolutely silent! Absolutely dark! Absolutely 'motionless', without 'odor', 'texture', etc... Objective? Hardly.
Holy Moly	posted 4/7/06 2:05 AM     Perhaps, jojo, your 'instrument' can detect 'frequency', but it could never 'know' that frequency as 'green'. The only 'instrument' capable of 'knowing green' is 'your' mind...
John	posted 3/28/07 9:14 PM     There are many theories written and explained by leaders of religions, philosophers, theologians, intellectuals, academics, and scholars on the subject of truth attempting to resolve a problem for possibly identifying a truthful proposition that is universally valid for all humans for all time. To date they still are unable to solve this. As to why they can't is beyond me. I can only consider their failure to solve it as being total stupidity on their part. They can use the word truth and this word alone jumps out screaming giving them the answer. Truth is the essential core encompassing morality. Morality is essential for all humans to understand the difference between right and wrong. Truth and morality combine to give humans the essential core basis of conscience. Conscience acts as a moral compass in the inner most thoughts, emotions, feelings, and emotions of humans. A moral compass of conscience is the only basis that humans have to use in order to make decisions to do what is morally right, not what is morally wrong. As far as I know truth has never been identified or discussed by anyone for being a simple one word philosophy. This simple one word philosophy is "truth is the only thing in life that can ever make life right and the living of it ever being right". This philosophy applies equally to all humans and affects every aspect of life. Hence, as such it is the only thing in life that can ever be universally valid for all humans for all time. Tuth is good and lying is evil. It's as old as dirt. One only has to look at the history of wars, atrocities, and heinous crimes committed from ancient times to contemporary times, to those being commited today. In some cases a few were destroyed by cataclysmic acts of nature but in most cases they were destroyed by acts of war committed against humanity. In some cases a few were destroyed after several hundred years and in other cases a thousand or several thousand years. Regardless of the reason for their destruction the one irrefutable fact that stands out in history of life is the fact that all did. Furthermore, based on what is going on today it shows all eventually will unless their is some real truths understood and recognized by everyone in the world. To philosophize about anything in life is ok. However, to do so without understanding the simple importance of truth is a waste of time.
ez	posted 8/26/07 1:01 AM       in a way the topic starter is right, and in a way he is wrong. if you are right than the purpose of this discussion is pointless. how can you highlight the fact that differences in beliefs are futile, and then ask for someone elses take on the matter. there is one true logic. one builds his or her reality upon his or her logic. our differences in opinion show that one of our logic's, if not both of our logics, are scewed from the correct way of thinking in this matter. one's environment is the largest influence in his reality. for example, if you grow up in a christian home, than your reality is that god exists. if our differences in reality are based on envirionmental variables that explains our missconceptions and differences in belief. my point is that there is a right and wrong in relation to logic, but there is no right or wrong in relation to reality. that is how you are both right and wrong.
Doobah	posted 4/7/08 10:41 PM     The truth is ineffable. Language and perception are innately false, they deviate from what reality actually is. Although we can refer to a rock using a predefined word, what we are actually referring to is our own perception of the rock, and that perception is a deviant impression of the rock; so in actual fact we are not naming the rock we are naming our objective idea. We cannot name the actual rock because it will never be a word, rock is a word and can never be an absolute replication of the rock, so the word 'rock' is false because the word 'rock' is not a rock, it is deceitful...

Back To My Home Page  | Post New Topic