Life-Spanning Pro-Choice

[scameter]

Due to the fact that I have come to recognize the complete uncertainty, and thus complete lack of genuine truth in existence, I now think that human living is based entirely on belief. By belief, I mean trust in something as true, whether a perceived experience, a method, a book, or whatever. But, belief in something does not make it objectively true; you simply believe it is. And, as I said, I now think that that is the basis of all human living. Based on this, I think that all religions, all viewpoints, all methods and all kinds of people are based on the individual and/or the majority belief, not on some definite, objective ultimate truth, regardless how obvious or self-evident it might seem, on the human end. This does not mean that an individual believing their religion to be ultimately true, or believing that they are certain in it, is against what I'm saying. It simply means that that too is their belief, and on their end is not a certainty in itself.

[...]

Due to the fact that I have come to recognize the complete uncertainty, and thus complete lack of genuine truth in existence, I now think that human living is based entirely on belief. By belief, I mean trust in something as true, whether a perceived experience, a method, a book, or whatever. But, belief in something does not make it objectively true; you simply believe it is. And, as I said, I now think that that is the basis of all human living. Based on this, I think that all religions, all viewpoints, all methods and all kinds of people are based on the individual and/or the majority belief, not on some definite, objective ultimate truth, regardless how obvious or self-evident it might seem, on the human end. This does not mean that an individual believing their religion to be ultimately true, or believing that they are certain in it, is against what I'm saying. It simply means that that too is their belief, and on their end is not a certainty in itself.

..welcome to the scourging glare of doubt, scam. There is however one objective truth that, once you realise what that is, ends the search and kills your philosophical doubts. It's not belief, it hides in plain view and seems to be so stupidly simple that you'd disgard it before even contemplating it. Good luck!

[Flux]

I still think that your conflating truth with certainty. It's perfectly consistant for there to be no certainty, but an abundance of truth. If someone tells me than I am a unicorn, I am quite tempted, despite all philosophical doubts, to say that they are wrong, and that the claim is not true. It is not inconcievable that I might actually be a unicorn, but it does not follow that there is no fact of the matter.

Do you really mean to say that there are no truths even in the sense of matters of every day fact, or are you using truths in the sense of some sort of elusive transcendent truth?

[scameter]

Truth and fact are different, despite what some modern people think. Fact is something that many people trust to be evidential, i.e. verifiable by experience, close observation, and/or forensic logic. But, truth is beyond fact. Facts are trusted; just because many people trust them, or it might seem obvious to us, doesn't mean that it cannot be doubted and cannot possibly be false. Anything can be false, and thus everything is uncertain. Truth cannot be doubted. It answers all questions immeditately, intuitively and with completely certain accuracy to how things truly are. Truth is also not subject to change; it is true, regardless. Change is an attribute of physical existence, not truth. And while truth is indeed quite personal, because everyone lives it's changing relfection, existence, everyday, it is not obvious because we ourselves are limited, clouded and changing in our physical bodies. We must rely on belief for our truths, and hope that they are certain; because as you said, they could turn out to be.

[Flux]

[Quote] Truth cannot be doubted. It answers all questions immeditately, intuitively and with completely certain accuracy to how things truly are.[\Quote]

If you are to say that Truth cannot be doubted, it seems to me that you are simply using a definition of truth that is different than the definition used by the vast majority of mankind.

[Quote]We must rely on belief for our truths, and hope that they are certain.[\Quote]

You seem to be using the word "certain" in an unusual way as well. I see "certainty" usually used in two senses:

1. The first is psychological certainty, where a person has comparitively little doubt that a claim is true. A person could be psychologically certain of a claim even if their claim is completely false. Take, for example, a madman who is "certain" that he is a glass of orange juice. Psychological certainty comes in degrees--one is generally more or less certain of something, regardless of whether or not they are justified in beliefing it.

2. The second is epistemological certainty, which is just psychological certainty that meets the additional criterion of being justified. This sort of certainty is also used as a measure, rather than a state. Most modern philosophers would say it is more certain that the Earth orbits the Sun than that it occurs the other way around, and some would claim that mathematical truths possess an even greater level of certainty than does the first of the aformentioned astronomical propositions. In neither of these contexts, no one seems to talk of complete certainty, but rather of more or less certain. When on says certainty in this context, it means possessing a high degree of certainty.

When you say that we must rely on truths an hope that they are certain, it appears to me that you are using the word differently than either of the two senses outlined above. As I mentioned before, psychological certainty of some degree is a prerequisit for epistemological certainty. So, if you are a position where you have to hope for a truth to be certain, I would argue that it follows by definition that the truth is not certain. If you possessed psychological certainty, then you wouldn't ask--you would either know, or think you knew.

Thus, it seems to me that you are projecting certainty onto the things true sentences are about. I would argue that certainty and uncertainty only make sense in terms of the relations of people to truth. Independently from people, propositions are true or false, not more or less certain. Thus, I don't think it makes any sense to hope something is certain. One can hope that it later gets a greater degree of certainty, but it makes little sense to wish that something is certain right now, because the act of wishing shows that certainty is not the case.

[...]

Truth and fact are different, despite what some modern people think. Fact is something that many people trust to be evidential, i.e. verifiable by experience, close observation, and/or forensic logic. But, truth is beyond fact. Facts are trusted; just because many people trust them, or it might seem obvious to us, doesn't mean that it cannot be doubted and cannot possibly be false. Anything can be false, and thus everything is uncertain. Truth cannot be doubted. It answers all questions immeditately, intuitively and with completely certain accuracy to how things truly are. Truth is also not subject to change; it is true, regardless. Change is an attribute of physical existence, not truth. And while truth is indeed quite personal, because everyone lives it's changing relfection, existence, everyday, it is not obvious because we ourselves are limited, clouded and changing in our physical bodies. We must rely on belief for our truths, and hope that they are certain; because as you said, they could turn out to be.

..you're clinging at straws here, grasshopper. Uncertainty is daunting, but that's no reason to fail me :wallbash: Don't give up just yet!

[kris]

Truth and fact are different, despite what some modern people think. Fact is something that many people trust to be evidential, i.e. verifiable by experience, close observation, and/or forensic logic. But, truth is beyond fact. Facts are trusted; just because many people trust them, or it might seem obvious to us, doesn't mean that it cannot be doubted and cannot possibly be false. Anything can be false, and thus everything is uncertain. Truth cannot be doubted. It answers all questions immeditately, intuitively and with completely certain accuracy to how things truly are. Truth is also not subject to change; it is true, regardless. Change is an attribute of physical existence, not truth. And while truth is indeed quite personal, because everyone lives it's changing relfection, existence, everyday, it is not obvious because we ourselves are limited, clouded and changing in our physical bodies. We must rely on belief for our truths, and hope that they are certain; because as you said, they could turn out to be.
English is a confusing language. In Sanskrit, we can trace most words fairly easily to reveal their etymological roots. For example, the root as, which means 'to be' gives rise to a word sat, which means both being and truth. Etymologically, in Sanskrit, truth is what is and nothing else. I like this simplicity. Truth then is not beyond fact. It is fact.

If I follow scam's scheme, truth is beyond fact. Personally, I can't even think of anything beyond fact. How can we establish that there is something beyond fact? Perhaps, there is nothing beyond fact. I don't doubt facts. I almost always doubt beliefs. I cannot imagine relying on beliefs for truth. I just don't trust beliefs. We must rely on belief for our truths, and hope that they are certain; because as you said, they could turn out to be.I cannot rely on something that I merely hope is certain.

[scameter]

Flux:If you are to say that Truth cannot be doubted, it seems to me that you are simply using a definition of truth that is different than the definition used by the vast majority of mankind.

Actually, I feel that I am using it's actual definition, while most people use it inaccurately. I don't mean this to sound arrogant, just accurate. Most people use truth as probably true, but that is not truth. They also make truth synonymous with fact, when it is not.

Flux:You seem to be using the word "certain" in an unusual way as well.

My defintion of certain is something that when questioned, never proves to be untrue, or even possibly untrue. It is certain.

Flux:As I mentioned before, psychological certainty of some degree is a prerequisit for epistemological certainty.

Like I said, certainty cannot exist while we are in a body, which includes having a psyche, and thus certainty cannot exist in a psychological form, or at all.

Flux:One can hope that it later gets a greater degree of certainty, but it makes little sense to wish that something is certain right now, because the act of wishing shows that certainty is not the case.

Like I said, there can be no certainty for humans while we exist. I agree with you that certainty is the relation between humans and truth, and I think that we can have no complete certainty (and as I've said I don't believe in degrees of certainty, only degrees of uncertainty) while we're alive, and we can thus not know truth. The reason that hoping for something to be true by using belief makes sense is because of that. While we're alive, we can only attempt at our best combined efforts to figure life out and to have less and less uncertainty, but to hope and search for complete certainty with truth in life is itself hopeless. However, beliefs are a necessary and, I believe, essential foundation of human life, and thus they are important.

Kris: I cannot imagine relying on beliefs for truth. I just don't trust beliefs.

Everyone relies on beliefs for everything they do in life, both instinctually and consciously, in the form of trust of perceptions and ideas. For instance, you and Sankrit say that truth and fact are synonymous, and that you do not doubt facts. We must ask, what are facts? Fact is something that is verifiable by experience by multiple people, and fact is what science pursues and is based on. And yet, fact itself is based on belief: the belief that our and other people's experiences are good enough to trust, and the belief that what our methodical experience reveals as fact is a good method for revealing fact.

Kris:If I follow scam's scheme, truth is beyond fact. Personally, I can't even think of anything beyond fact. How can we establish that there is something beyond fact?

We can't. But we also can't establish that there is *not* something beyond fact. Thus, relying entirely on fact as the whole of truth, or saying that there is certainly truth beyond fact, are both beliefs, not certainties, because either one could be possible.

Kris:I cannot rely on something that I merely hope is certain.

As I have pointed out about your belief regarding fact, you already do, as everyone else does. You just don't realize it. Our brain naturally makes us ignore certain things that might hinder our living, which includes making us ignore the uncertainty of life and the possibility that things could be another way than we think they are, continuously.

[kris]

Everyone relies on beliefs for everything they do in life, both instinctually and consciously, in the form of trust of perceptions and ideas. For instance, you and Sankrit say that truth and fact are synonymous, and that you do not doubt facts. We must ask, what are facts? Fact is something that is verifiable by experience by multiple people, and fact is what science pursues and is based on. I suppose I was not clear in my last post. Truth (as sat) is simply what is. It is not limited to what I know to be. I do not claim to know all there is. But what I know to be is truth. There may be other things that I do not know to be, but they are also truth. Truth is not limited by what I know to be.

Fact need not be verifiable by anyone else. If I see a bird fly by my window, the fact that it flew by my window is true whether or not someone else saw it fly and can thus verify it as a fact.
And yet, fact itself is based on belief: the belief that our and other people's experiences are good enough to trust, and the belief that what our methodical experience reveals as fact is a good method for revealing fact.These beliefs are the only thing we have to go by. What our experiences and methods reveal to be are facts but not necessarily all of the facts that could be known. Perhaps the process of uncovering facts is an endless pursuit because there may always be something left to know. But this lack of knowledge of the all the facts does not mean that what we know as fact to be not the truth.

..... But we also can't establish that there is *not* something beyond fact. Thus, relying entirely on fact as the whole of truth, or saying that there is certainly truth beyond fact, are both beliefs, not certainties, because either one could be possible. I agree. But see my comments just above this.


..... Our brain naturally makes us ignore certain things that might hinder our living, which includes making us ignore the uncertainty of life and the possibility that things could be another way than we think they are, continuously.I disagree. Any truth (as what is) that I do not know will add to the truth (as what is) if and when I come to know it. It does not replace the truth (as what is) that I know now.

[scameter]

Kris:But what I know to be is truth.

Of course, you know *that* to be true, because you trust it is. It could possibly not be true.

Kris: If I see a bird fly by my window, the fact that it flew by my window is true whether or not someone else saw it fly and can thus verify it as a fact.

If fact is only seen by one person, that person's perception could be wrong. But, people trust, if multiple people verify that experience, a bunch of people can't be wrong. Of course, that is not definite, but trusted by many people, including scientists; they just only trust certain elite people. If something happens, but no one knows about it, then it has no real relevance to our lives. It may affect our lives, but we don't know it. Fact is a type of knowledge, not occurance.

Kris:These beliefs are the only thing we have to go by.

Thank you for agreeing with me. :)

Kris:But this lack of knowledge of the all the facts does not mean that what we know as fact to be not the truth.

Actually, it does. If we do not know everything there is to know about something, then anything we claim about it is a matter of belief, not certainty. Thus, it is fact, but not truth. Truth is complete, not a partial guess.

Kris:I disagree. Any truth (as what is) that I do not know will add to the truth (as what is) if and when I come to know it. It does not replace the truth (as what is) that I know now.

And yet, it can. That happens all the time. Ancient people "knew" that outer space was water. But, we now "know" that outer space is a vaccuum filled with some kind of energy in every part of it. To quote Men In Black, what will we "know" tomorrow.

[CSwriter1]

I still think that your conflating truth with certainty. It's perfectly consistant for there to be no certainty, but an abundance of truth. If someone tells me than I am a unicorn, I am quite tempted, despite all philosophical doubts, to say that they are wrong, and that the claim is not true. It is not inconcievable that I might actually be a unicorn, but it does not follow that there is no fact of the matter.

Do you really mean to say that there are no truths even in the sense of matters of every day fact, or are you using truths in the sense of some sort of elusive transcendent truth?

If someone told me I am a unicorn, I would ask, "what have you ingested?" I met a woman with schziophrenia who hallusinated. She would know what she was seeing wasn't correct, and really struggled, wanting her responses to life to be within the normal range, while her mind was giving her incorrect information.

"The confusion and undesigned inaccuracy so often to be observed in conversation, especially in that of uneducated persons, proves that truth needs to be cultivated as a talent, as well as recommended as a virtue."
Elizabeth Fry.

Why, Scameter, do you fuss over truth?

[CSwriter1]

[Quote] Truth cannot be doubted. It answers all questions immeditately, intuitively and with completely certain accuracy to how things truly are.[\Quote]

If you are to say that Truth cannot be doubted, it seems to me that you are simply using a definition of truth that is different than the definition used by the vast majority of mankind.

[Quote]We must rely on belief for our truths, and hope that they are certain.[\Quote]

You seem to be using the word "certain" in an unusual way as well. I see "certainty" usually used in two senses:

1. The first is psychological certainty, where a person has comparitively little doubt that a claim is true. A person could be psychologically certain of a claim even if their claim is completely false. Take, for example, a madman who is "certain" that he is a glass of orange juice. Psychological certainty comes in degrees--one is generally more or less certain of something, regardless of whether or not they are justified in beliefing it.

2. The second is epistemological certainty, which is just psychological certainty that meets the additional criterion of being justified. This sort of certainty is also used as a measure, rather than a state. Most modern philosophers would say it is more certain that the Earth orbits the Sun than that it occurs the other way around, and some would claim that mathematical truths possess an even greater level of certainty than does the first of the aformentioned astronomical propositions. In neither of these contexts, no one seems to talk of complete certainty, but rather of more or less certain. When on says certainty in this context, it means possessing a high degree of certainty.

When you say that we must rely on truths an hope that they are certain, it appears to me that you are using the word differently than either of the two senses outlined above. As I mentioned before, psychological certainty of some degree is a prerequisit for epistemological certainty. So, if you are a position where you have to hope for a truth to be certain, I would argue that it follows by definition that the truth is not certain. If you possessed psychological certainty, then you wouldn't ask--you would either know, or think you knew.

Thus, it seems to me that you are projecting certainty onto the things true sentences are about. I would argue that certainty and uncertainty only make sense in terms of the relations of people to truth. Independently from people, propositions are true or false, not more or less certain. Thus, I don't think it makes any sense to hope something is certain. One can hope that it later gets a greater degree of certainty, but it makes little sense to wish that something is certain right now, because the act of wishing shows that certainty is not the case.

I really like your explanation of truth, the different qualities of it.

I remember when I went through a period of being very unsure of what is real or 'true' and I expressed my doubt to my X, who is really annoyed by doubt. He suggested I attempt to put my fist through the wall. Doing so, provided me with a degree of truth I could live with. Now if my hand had gone through the wall, I would not have gained any confidence in my perception of reality.

[scameter]

CS:Why, Scameter, do you fuss over truth?

:) It has been my love for about three years now. I feel that what life means, how it really is, and what I am is truth, and I feel that those are the most important things in life, and I often feel that without knowing them, or at least having beliefs regarding truth, I do not know how to live my life, or why to do it.

CS:If you are to say that Truth cannot be doubted, it seems to me that you are simply using a definition of truth that is different than the definition used by the vast majority of mankind.

Well, I also said, "it answers all questions immeditately." By truth cannot be doubted, I moreso meant it cannot be legimately doubted, because all doubts leveled against it are answered immediately and with full satisfaction and accuracy, with no possibility of any other way things could be.

CS:Now if my hand had gone through the wall, I would not have gained any confidence in my perception of reality.

Just because your experience verified your perception of reality, thus affirming the way you trust reality is, doesn't mean that it is indeed like that. It simply means that your experience and perception are the same, not that your experience is accurate to how things truly are.

[...]

Just because your experience verified your perception of reality, thus affirming the way you trust reality is, doesn't mean that it is indeed like that. It simply means that your experience and perception are the same, not that your experience is accurate to how things truly are.

..this is true: experiencing is flawed. One cannot derive truth from experiencing since it's subjective. Subjective truths aren't truths at all, for if something is true it must be objectively true for everyone. That means that your insistence on beliefs being a vital part of life is untrue, since it's not the case here: it is not true for everyone...

..i understand that you lump religious beliefs in with the learned behaviour that tells me a [the form of a] table is a table, but if you've ever stubbed a toe against a table you'd know it's of a different kind of belief...

..i'm not sure if you remember Kowtaaia, but he'd have a field day with you scameter. Perhaps you should look him up: http://forums.delphiforums.com/kowtaaia That forum is dead, but skim the threads and see if anything rings a bell with you...

[kris]

Of course, you know *that* to be true, because you trust it is. It could possibly not be true.I use what I think is the methodology of science. We make an hypothesis to explain observations. If new observations are explained by the hypothesis, we stay with it. Else, modify it or discard and start over with new hypothesis. At no point, is there is a need to declare that we know it all. If there is such a point, I have not reached it.

If fact is only seen by one person, that person's perception could be wrong. But, people trust, if multiple people verify that experience, a bunch of people can't be wrong. Of course, that is not definite, but trusted by many people, including scientists; they just only trust certain elite people. If something happens, but no one knows about it, then it has no real relevance to our lives. It may affect our lives, but we don't know it. Fact is a type of knowledge, not occurance.Whatever happens can have relevance to my life even if no one else knows about it.


Actually, it does. If we do not know everything there is to know about something, then anything we claim about it is a matter of belief, not certainty. Thus, it is fact, but not truth. Truth is complete, not a partial guess.There may be a complete truth; but we can and often do see it in bits and pieces.


And yet, it can. That happens all the time. Ancient people "knew" that outer space was water. But, we now "know" that outer space is a vaccuum filled with some kind of energy in every part of it. To quote Men In Black, what will we "know" tomorrow.See the beginning of this post.

Scam, you put way too much trust in your doubts and very little trust in anything else.