Fiendlover
Black Belt
wow i actually understand what ur saying. im impressed with myself.........lol
:highfive:
:highfive:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sounds like a lot of self-indulgent nonsense to me.
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -Sherlock Holmes
I would not call that "truth", I would call that perception. Many people PERCIEVE things which they believe are correct, but I would not call them "truth".
It's like people "witnessing" a crime or an accident. You talk to five different people and they will all give their version and swear that it is correct. And they are all "right" based on their perception of the event. But, that does not change the "what is" of the even, that being what REALLY happened outside of human notions and perceptions.
Even in science, math, etc. We evaluate those things and call them correct, but it is still based on our understanding of how things work, and as our "tools of perception" get better we may change our understanding of the events looked at. But, that does not change the event itself.
So I don't think that we can truly "KNOW" the "TRUTH", but that does not mean we do not know it exists or that we can't see glimpses of it.
Truth is like a bell, it isn't always told. (Hold your applause...thank you, thank you:high5
... you really did say that, didn't you!...
It must have been the scotch...
I definitely don't agree with how you've said this -- though I don't think we disagree completely about the subject.
Multiple people can honestly present their own perception or account of an incident; it will almost certainly not be the "true" account of what happened. The truth will be somewhere in the middle. Let me continue to use an accident. I'm a trained crash investigator. Lots of times, I've had witnesses at the scene relate what they saw. Sometimes, it's the classic "I saw it all; I heard a crash, and then I saw that car do this..." Other times, they did see it -- but didn't perceive all of the factors. But, when I take the physical evidence, and put it together -- I can often KNOW what had to happen. That's the truth; no matter what someone tells me, if the physical evidence doesn't match up -- it couldn't have happened that way. Each person is honestly (or sometimes not...) telling me what they think happened -- but the laws of physics tell me what DID happen.
Now, moving beyond demonstrable events into the moral/theological/philosophical question of truth... That's harder. I, for myself, do believe in a Supreme Being, the experience of whom is TRUTH, in it's most extreme form. But -- I can't make you perceive that Truth, any more than an atheist could make me deny that truth.
There are a lot of semantics involved in arguments about "truth." If by truth, you mean "absolute truth," meaning a statement that would be true in any conceivable universe, then a priori mathematical truths are the only truth.
"Truths" such as the laws of physics are true in our universe as far as we know (assuming, as we do, the homogeneity of the universe). However, it is possible to conceive of a universe in which these laws would be altered. Even at the quantum level, many long accepted "truths" cannot be assured. So, they are not "absolute" truths.
What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can hear, what you can smell, taste and feel then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
My appologies for quoting from a sci-fi movie, but Morpheus is onto something there.
I think we all have our own truths/view of reality. I think it would take a special person to point us to the "real" truth.
What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can hear, what you can smell, taste and feel then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
I think we all have our own truths/view of reality. I think it would take a special person to point us to the "real" truth.
Yes but the the flower still exists as its own entity or "truth". Just because I and a bee see it differently and experience it differently doesnt change its "flowerness".
A blind man and a sighted one may fight over a knife, and their perceptions of it are different, but it will still kill either one regardless. Thats the "truth of the knife".
Relativism is the road to hell.
There are a lot of semantics involved in arguments about "truth." If by truth, you mean "absolute truth," meaning a statement that would be true in any conceivable universe, then a priori mathematical truths are the only truth.
"Truths" such as the laws of physics are true in our universe as far as we know (assuming, as we do, the homogeneity of the universe). However, it is possible to conceive of a universe in which these laws would be altered. Even at the quantum level, many long accepted "truths" cannot be assured. So, they are not "absolute" truths.