Truth is an absurdity

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

There's a good quote I saw someplace I don't clearly remember, it goes a little something like this:

"I wonder how many lives were wasted pondering over the reality of the world they lived in."

Do not ask what is real, ask instead what is real enough.

Only then, will virginity be lost.

[Kubrath]

But not correct based on what? Is knowing the truth behind a phenomenon a necessary prerequisite for reacting to it or acting upon it?

If it was true, it would literally not be true. Cannot co-exist.

Similar to "This sentence is false."

[Kubrath]

There's a good quote I saw someplace I don't clearly remember, it goes a little something like this:

"I wonder how many lives were wasted pondering over the reality of the world they lived in."

Do not ask what is real, ask instead what is real enough.

Only then, will virginity be lost.

Cheers!

[Meryuma]

For one thing, there is nothing insightful or subversive about pointing out that language is arbitrary. It's one of the most basic linguistic universals. It's completely meaningless to say there's no "proof" that "apple" is the right word for an apple because it's not something with a truth value in the first place. Do you ask for "incontestable proof" about the best flavor of ice cream too?

There is also a concept of sound symbolism that could be seen as contesting but that doesn't stop language from being subjective.

[Kubrath]

For one thing, there is nothing insightful or subversive about pointing out that language is arbitrary. It's one of the most basic linguistic universals. It's completely meaningless to say there's no "proof" that "apple" is the right word for an apple because it's not something with a truth value in the first place. Do you ask for "incontestable proof" about the best flavor of ice cream too?

Damn you blasphemers, it's chocolate!

[VogoLannd]

I'll forgo the self-contradictory nature of your idea to simply ask you this. If you jump off a 12 story building, is your falling toward the ground merely a matter of "perspective"? If so, does that mean that there are equally valid "points of view" where you don't fall? Therefore, you fall or you levitate in the air, and which one happens depends upon who you ask and not upon what actually happens? Do you fall and not fall at the same time? Do you fall or not fall depending on the majority opinion of society?

Well can I prove my own existence or the essence of my experience beyond a shadow of a doubt? and once again consider your faculties for labeling this event, "man falling down building" is as close to or as far away from the truth of the situation as "schrmergfu isalu falafu" the difference between the two is belief and neither touches objective reality. And what of the majority? does consensus decide what is truth? Atheists tend to be a minority while those who believe in a God or a faith of some sort tend to be in the majority, both groups observe the world around them and come to different conclusions, are the religious correct because they have a greater quantity?

[Egrek]

I'll forgo the self-contradictory nature of your idea to simply ask you this. If you jump off a 12 story building, is your falling toward the ground merely a matter of "perspective"? If so, does that mean that there are equally valid "points of view" where you don't fall? Therefore, you fall or you levitate in the air, and which one happens depends upon who you ask and not upon what actually happens? Do you fall and not fall at the same time? Do you fall or not fall depending on the majority opinion of society?

In the reference frame of the earth I fall. In my reference frame the earth falls on me. Either way I accept the social and linguistic construct that I live with and determine that such an events as me falling on the earth or the earth falling on me will be quite unpleasent for me.

For one thing, there is nothing insightful or subversive about pointing out that language is arbitrary. It's one of the most basic linguistic universals. It's completely meaningless to say there's no "proof" that "apple" is the right word for an apple because it's not something with a truth value in the first place. Do you ask for "incontestable proof" about the best flavor of ice cream too?

Damn you blasphemers, it's chocolate!

I prefer vanilla.

And I agree that language is based upon infered meaning and social agreement, which is why we can actually discuss the existence of truth on an internet forum using language.

Edit: Yes, nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Doubt is an inherent part of knowledge and the majority of science is determining when the doubt is "small enough" for a particular use. Around the beggining of the 20th century some scientist said everything had been discovered and all new science would be making more accurate measurements...and then Einstein thought of relativity.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

I'll forgo the self-contradictory nature of your idea to simply ask you this. If you jump off a 12 story building, is your falling toward the ground merely a matter of "perspective"? If so, does that mean that there are equally valid "points of view" where you don't fall? Therefore, you fall or you levitate in the air, and which one happens depends upon who you ask and not upon what actually happens? Do you fall and not fall at the same time? Do you fall or not fall depending on the majority opinion of society?

Well can I prove my own existence or the essence of my experience beyond a shadow of a doubt? and once again consider your faculties for labeling this event, "man falling down building" is as close to or as far away from the truth of the situation as "schrmergfu isalu falafu" the difference between the two is belief and neither touches objective reality. And what of the majority? does consensus decide what is truth? Atheists tend to be a minority while those who believe in a God or a faith of some sort tend to be in the majority, both groups observe the world around them and come to different conclusions, are the religious correct because they have a greater quantity?

I cannot prove that what my senses tell me is real, therefore all is unreal.

Lack of proof is not confirmation of absence.

Hint, yes, but not proof.

[CVT Temp]

In the reference frame of the earth I fall. In my reference frame the earth falls on me. Either way I accept the social and linguistic construct that I live with and determine that such an events as me falling on the earth or the earth falling on me will be quite unpleasent for me.

No need to bring relativity into this. You know exactly the point I was trying to make.

[CVT Temp]

Well can I prove my own existence or the essence of my experience beyond a shadow of a doubt? and once again consider your faculties for labeling this event, "man falling down building" is as close to or as far away from the truth of the situation as "schrmergfu isalu falafu" the difference between the two is belief and neither touches objective reality. And what of the majority? does consensus decide what is truth? Atheists tend to be a minority while those who believe in a God or a faith of some sort tend to be in the majority, both groups observe the world around them and come to different conclusions, are the religious correct because they have a greater quantity?

You're not answering my question, and instead getting hung up on language. Do you fall to the ground or not?

[VogoLannd]

Well can I prove my own existence or the essence of my experience beyond a shadow of a doubt? and once again consider your faculties for labeling this event, "man falling down building" is as close to or as far away from the truth of the situation as "schrmergfu isalu falafu" the difference between the two is belief and neither touches objective reality. And what of the majority? does consensus decide what is truth? Atheists tend to be a minority while those who believe in a God or a faith of some sort tend to be in the majority, both groups observe the world around them and come to different conclusions, are the religious correct because they have a greater quantity?

You're not answering my question, and instead getting hung up on language. Do you fall to the ground or not?

The closest I can come to an answer is this: I believe that I am falling to the ground because my faculties believe that to be the case of what is happening to me at that moment.

[Wikkiwallana]

You're not answering my question, and instead getting hung up on language. Do you fall to the ground or not?

The closest I can come to an answer is this: I believe that I am falling to the ground because my faculties believe that to be the case of what is happening to me at that moment.

And what do you "believe" happens upon the moment your faculties tell you is impact?

[VogoLannd]

It's completely meaningless to say there's no "proof" that "apple" is the right word for an apple because it's not something with a truth value in the first place. Do you ask for "incontestable proof" about the best flavor of ice cream too?

What is something with a "truth" value? What is truthful to say? How can something with an arbitrary foundation have anything truthful posited on top of it? Does fiction carry truth on it's shoulders?

[Typhlochactas]

I suppose I would like people to do what they want, for everything we hold to be true is a fiction.

Is the underlined statement fiction?

[VogoLannd]

The closest I can come to an answer is this: I believe that I am falling to the ground because my faculties believe that to be the case of what is happening to me at that moment.

And what do you "believe" happens upon the moment your faculties tell you is impact?

What happens after that my friend, is a matter of belief

[Meryuma]

What is something with a "truth" value?

You're trying to be a philosopher and you don't know what a truth value is?

A truth value is a value associated with a statement that shows how it relates to the truth. In classical logic, logical statements can have a truth value of 0 (false) or 1 (true). In fuzzy logic, the truth value can be any number between 0 and 1, representing degrees of probability or accuracy I think (not a fuzzy logic expert). The concept of language does not have a truth value: it can be neither true nor false, since it is subjective.

[Typhlochactas]

I admit that I can't think of any strong foundation for establishing what is true or what is not true. However, to say that truth doesn't exist at all presents a major philosophical contradiction, so we must assume that truth exists.

[CVT Temp]

What is something with a "truth" value?

Something which is capable of being true or false.

What is truthful to say?

Anything which accurately describes the structure of reality.

How can something with an arbitrary foundation have anything truthful posited on top of it?

Very easily. Choice of coordinate systems is arbitrary and yet plenty of accurate statements can be made using one particular coordinate system or another.

Does fiction carry truth on it's shoulders?

Arbitrary =/= fictional.

[CVT Temp]

What happens after that my friend, is a matter of belief

No it isn't. There may be different beliefs about what happens, but that doesn't mean that different things happen. Whatever happens, happens, and beliefs don't enter into what happens at all.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Well can I prove my own existence or the essence of my experience beyond a shadow of a doubt?

This is not a standard of proof required for anything. In whatever fantasy land you're imagining we exist in does require it, you should probably exit post-haste.

and once again consider your faculties for labeling this event, "man falling down building" is as close to or as far away from the truth of the situation as "schrmergfu isalu falafu" the difference between the two is belief and neither touches objective reality.

If you fall down within the atmosphere of the earth, you will hit what is below you. That is the essence of falling down.

And what of the majority? does consensus decide what is truth?

Building consensus can help ascertain the truth. After all, having to discover Mathematics and Science all on your own would be quite difficult.

Atheists tend to be a minority while those who believe in a God or a faith of some sort tend to be in the majority, both groups observe the world around them and come to different conclusions, are the religious correct because they have a greater quantity?

This is meaningless.

[Wikkiwallana]

And what do you "believe" happens upon the moment your faculties tell you is impact?

What happens after that my friend, is a matter of belief

I didn't ask about after, I asked about at.

[Aggicificicerous]

How is it that anything is properly labeled in language? or more specifically why is an apple regarded as an apple? Some may claim that the word apple is derived from the word aplaz which is from an older proto-Germanic language but then I retort why was an apple labeled aplaz? let's regress to the zero level, before any language existed as a precedent, how is it that humanity labeled the apple? here I claim as in everything else the chasm between human subjectivity and the true essence of the thing being observed is impossible to breech. When humans utter the word apple it is a sound and nothing more and when humans write the word apple it is a scribbling which is felt to be appropriate to the utterance. Neither the sound nor the scribbling brings us any closer to the essence of the thing in question. Would it be any more or less accurate to label an apple a schmaple or a durkato? And what if we were to draw two bent lines with an exclamation point at the end? How is this any less accurate than the word apple? What transpires at the origin of an object's labeling is devoid of any truth, what actually occurs is the conjuration of a belief. The man labeling the object with his particular version of the word apple is fostering a conviction that X from now on shall be called Y but there is no basis in objective reality for this connection! No incontestable proof whatsoever!

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that language did not arise out of a need for truth, but convenience. The first person to label an apple did not do so with the intention of drawing on some great objective truth; he just wanted to make a noise that other people would recognise and associate with a tasty food.

What is this if not faith? For faith is defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Mankind observes phenomena, cannot possibly fathom it's objective essence, and yet a word is assigned to it with no actual insight gained. Now we see the abyss hidden beneath everything we've ever held to be true. There is no idea more genuine or favorable than another if truth is factored into our evaluations. Neither scientist nor priest has a more accurate grasp on reality since both are human and in possession of subjective faculties. The proud claim to truth of the scientific community is no less an article of faith than the Christian belief in the Holy Bible as the word of God.

There is no truth, there are only perspectives based solely on faith. Therefore,as far as humanity is concerned, all is faith. One should never be dissuaded from their beliefs because others claim they are "inaccurate" or "not based on fact" for this type of criticism emanates from an absurd and impossible demand to be assured of the truth behind an idea before holding it as one's own and acting upon it. If such a criteria was to be existentially forced on our species then all vestiges of language, philosophy, art, time, music, religion, science, politics, etc would be promptly removed from human history. Truth is an absurdity that man ought to throw overboard. [/quote]

Not really. Faith isn't believing in something for which there is no proof, it is believing in something for reasons other than it being supported by the evidence. For instance, in science, there is no such thing as proof. We can only gather and analyse empirical data so as to draw an increasingly more accurate picture of the universe. You can argue that this is faith; perhaps everything we note with our senses is false. Epistemological scepticism is always possible, but is it probable? I see no reason to accept it.

[VogoLannd]

What is something with a "truth" value?

Something which is capable of being true or false.

What is truthful to say?

Anything which accurately describes the structure of reality.

How can something with an arbitrary foundation have anything truthful posited on top of it?

Very easily. Choice of coordinate systems is arbitrary and yet plenty of accurate statements can be made using one particular coordinate system or another.

Does fiction carry truth on it's shoulders?

Arbitrary =/= fictional.

Something which is capable of being true or false.

Can we prove that something is true or false? Can we prove something is a reality outside of our perspectives? i.e the results of the use of our faculties? What is the prevailing factor that decides whether something is true or not?

Anything which accurately describes the structure of reality.

How can something with subjective faculties accurately describe the structure of objective reality?

Very easily. Choice of coordinate systems is arbitrary and yet plenty of accurate statements can be made using one particular coordinate system or another.

Here you are choosing to believe that truth or truthfulness is a necessary prerequisite for something having a semblance of accuracy or utility i.e if it makes sense to me and I can use it then it must ring of truth, but this is a synthetic connection with no objective basis. Something seeming accurate or something able to be utilized by us achieves only a semblance of accuracy or truthfulness and nothing more.

Arbitrary =/= fictional.

Something arbitrary is subject to individual judgment. An individual has nothing but subjective faculties therefore I believe the individual is not capable of producing any objective/true judgment, therefore all his judgments are fictions. So our two faiths disagree, I believe Arbitrary=fictional.

[CVT Temp]

When physicists use the word "arbitrary," we mean something very different than what you think we mean. Come back once you understand that and once you understand that arbitrary language is capable of describing actual reality. The fact that your dogma thinks otherwise is utterly irrelevant. Just because you can't imagine how arbitrary language can be used in an objective manner doesn't mean that it can't. Your inability to either grasp or accept this fact doesn't change anything.

[VogoLannd]

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that language did not arise out of a need for truth, but convenience. The first person to label an apple did not do so with the intention of drawing on some great objective truth; he just wanted to make a noise that other people would recognise and associate with a tasty food.

You think I would disagree with you but I wish people would start speaking like this more often! Convenience and not truth! Wonderful, you see that language can emerge without truth and yet off of language so much is made knowable to us and useful and nowhere does truth have to put its pesky nose into anyone's business! It is convenient for us to believe it so we believe it, benefit from it, and that's it! why do feel the need to gain the approval of some kind of truth outside of ourselves?

Convenience, utility, results which we believe will benefit us etc. Shouldn't categories like these forever take precedence over truth? which is impossible to arrive at in the first place.

With this I shall have to excuse myself for the day. I thank everyone for their input and I apologize if I didn't respond to someone but I have to go.

Again thank you very much.