On Truth: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » On Truth » On Truth

On Truth
A convenient manifestation?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

On Truth

False_Prophet
~True Prophet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 14, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 57

Posted 08/18/08 - 03:22 AM: Subject: On Truth	#1
I was just puting a few bad ideas together and I wanted to see what you guys thought. I apologize if this has been discussed before. I used to believe (and occasionally still do)that the jist of philosophy is finding the "truth," or finding the best damn theory possible. But then again, ever since my 1st philosophy class, I learned that the path to truth was going to be a bitch and then some. Then I got to thinking, could it be that our concept of truth is simply a convenient manifestation of our imaginations? Convenient, in the sense that it is an easy way of understanding our environment and ourselves. I mean all we have to do is label a concept true or false, we may be wrong but we may simply change it when we are more convinced of the contrary. Its kinda late, and the only reason I posted this now was so I wouldn't forget (which I kinda did forget some parts already ) but my main point is that I don't think that truth is the only way of understanding an environment. The confirm/falsify process is literally all taking place in your head. The only reason something like "there is no truth" leads to a contradiction is because the statement is the product of its own system, no= negation, or false. Of course it would contradict. Now the notion that "I'm thinking, therefore I exist" leads to a contradiction as well if rejected. But what exactly entails existence for a mind other than thinking? It's like saying "I'm thinking, therefore I'm thinking." Not to mention that rejecting this statement is again a negation, and again, a product of that system of thought. I do not want to give the impression that I think truth "doesn't exist" of course it does. But above all it is internal, (as I stated above, a convenient manifestation) and I think it would be wise to consider alternative systems. (if these would resemble systems at all) You may ask me "Well how do you know that's true or false?" Its really neither, but you would have to stop thinking in terms of true and false, if that is even feasible for us humans, to see my point. Edited by False_Prophet on 08/18/08 - 03:29 AM
No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.-Nietzchizzle Embodied Awesomeness

Pete
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 04, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 472

Posted 08/19/08 - 11:47 AM:	#2
I'm sure we'd survive without the concept of truth. We couldn't get by without forming beliefs of course, but we don't need the concept of truth to pull this off (any more than we need the concept of belief to form beliefs). Animals lack these concepts, and they do all right. But what's the harm in possessing and deploying the concept of truth? It's a nice concept to have when you're thinking about whether you should believe, say, the Big Foot story. You'll want to ask, is it likely to be true?

The Escapist
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 504

Posted 08/19/08 - 02:06 PM:	#3
Pete wrote: Animals lack these concepts, and they do all right. But what's the harm in possessing and deploying the concept of truth? It's a nice concept to have when you're thinking about whether you should believe, say, the Big Foot story. You'll want to ask, is it likely to be true? Is the concept useful for any more practical purposes? You've got me wondering if I could do without it.

Pete
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 04, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 472

Posted 08/19/08 - 03:15 PM:	#4
It's a heavy concept, so it's also useful as a paperweight. I wouldn't give it up. Granted, it's a concept that plays a role primarily in reflection on beliefs. Beliefs aim at truth--anyone who understands what beliefs are understands this. So even though we don't need to think about truth to form a belief, when we think about beliefs, we think about truth. Our capacity to reflect on our beliefs is pretty important. If we weren't capable of reflecting on our beliefs, evaluating the evidence bearing on them (i.e. evaluating how likely or unlikely they are to be true), and adjusting our beliefs according to our evaluations, we'd be in a bad way. Think of the Gambler's Fallacy. If the ball in the roulette wheel has landed on black seven times in a row, we find it extremely natural to believe that there is a better than fifty/fifty chance that on the next spin it will land on red. Only creatures who are capable of formulating and answering questions like "Is my belief likely to be true?" could resist this natural tendency. So the concept is useful in Vegas.

False_Prophet
~True Prophet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 14, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 57

Posted 08/19/08 - 07:45 PM:	#5
Pete wrote: So the concept is useful in Vegas. I think that's true, its also useful enough to make you realize casinos are bullshit. But in all seriousness, Escapist, we couldn't give up the concept of truth even if we wanted to. (As it would certainly lead to our deaths ) It's how we understand our environment, which is what allows us to survive. We as humans realize that if we eat something, it will alleviate our sensitization of hunger. So we might say that we believe that it is "true" that eating satisfies hunger. If you had no concept of truth, you couldn't even believe that eating will do anything about your hunger.
No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.-Nietzchizzle Embodied Awesomeness

Pete
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 04, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 472

Posted 08/19/08 - 08:09 PM:	#6
False_Prophet wrote: If you had no concept of truth, you couldn't even believe that eating will do anything about your hunger. That's going too far, I think. Dogs believe "that is food," and they don't have the concept of truth--they don't think of their beliefs as true. They don't think of their beliefs at all--they just believe. We can do this too. But we're also, unlike dogs, capable of reflection on our beliefs, and that's where the concept of truth comes in.

False_Prophet
~True Prophet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 14, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 57

Posted 08/19/08 - 10:05 PM:	#7
Pete wrote: That's going too far, I think. Dogs believe "that is food," and they don't have the concept of truth--they don't think of their beliefs as true. They don't think of their beliefs at all--they just believe. We can do this too. But we're also, unlike dogs, capable of reflection on our beliefs, and that's where the concept of truth comes in. Disregarding for a moment the nature of a dog's "belief system," I think you and I have different ideas about truth. You seem to believe that the truth of a belief is derived after the belief has been formed. (As you mentioned, "through reflection") I don't understand this at all. My reasoning is that beliefs are formed around was is percived to be true by the observer, (from the senses) before the formation of the belief. If you derive the truth after, the process doesn't make any sense. Let me outline it like this: Your idea: Observation --> Formation of belief --> True/False judgement My idea: Observation --> True/False judgement --> Formation of belief For example: Eating Your idea: I ate a sandwich --> So more sandwichs will fill me up in the future --> It seems true that a sandwich will fill me up My idea: I ate a sandwich --> It seems true that a sandwich will fill me up --> So more sandwichs will fill me up in the future So you see, you must first go through the truth judgement process first, before forming any beliefs. Truth does not manifest post-reflection on a belief as you suggest.
No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.-Nietzchizzle Embodied Awesomeness

Pete
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 04, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 472

Posted 08/19/08 - 11:20 PM:	#8
Keep in mind we're talking about the concept of truth, not truth. So I don't know what you mean when you say I think that "the truth of a belief is derived after the belief has been formed." When I talk about "reflection" I'm not talking about the temporal ordering of belief formation. When I say that we can critically reflect on our beliefs, I mean that we have the ability to think about our beliefs--we can ask ourselves, is my belief that p or is a belief that p likely to be true? To do this--to have a thought with the content "is my belief likely to be true"--we of course need the concept of truth. But just because we can ask this question doesn't mean that we always or even ever need to ask it. Only pretty sophisticated creatures have the concept of truth. I don't mean that you have to have a full-blown theory of truth to count as being in possession of the concept. By that standard, just a few philosophers would count as having the concept. But you must at least be capable of recognizing the possibility that the world may not be the way you believe it to be. Dogs and probably infants lack this capacity. And so they lack the concept of truth. Yet they form beliefs. (Although they cannot form beliefs about beliefs, like we can.) You talk about "seeming true." I don't have a problem with this way of describing the way perception delivers its contents--i.e. presented as true--so long as we understand that the contents of a perceptual experience can be "presented as true" to a subject without that subject's possessing or deploying the concept of truth. In the sense of "presented as true" I'm willing to accept, then, the contents of a dog's perceptual experience can be presented as true.

DarkBulzeeb
Logician

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 31, 2005
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 387

Posted 08/19/08 - 11:22 PM:	#9
Well, the thing is, in order for truth to not be the only way of understanding our environment, there would have to be another method that exists. But what else beyond experience can we use? The sad thing is, it is in a way like a form of humility. Surrendering your power over to experience. Denying it, would be non-sensical because you're using your experience to doubt your experience, which is the only tool you can use.
.....

False_Prophet
~True Prophet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 14, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 57

Posted 08/19/08 - 11:45 PM:	#10
Pete wrote: You talk about "seeming true." I don't have a problem with this way of describing the way perception delivers its contents--i.e. presented as true--so long as we understand that the contents of a perceptual experience can be "presented as true" to a subject without that subject's possessing or deploying the concept of truth. In the sense of "presented as true" I'm willing to accept, then, the contents of a dog's perceptual experience can be presented as true. I think I need some clarification here to better understand your position. What do you believe is the difference between the "concept of truth" and truth?
No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.-Nietzchizzle Embodied Awesomeness

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.