Veritas?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-05-2014, 05:38 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 02:55 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 02:53 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Define truth.
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality

That is no answer.
Define "reality". Define "fact".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 05:39 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 05:27 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 05:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Yes it is.

And you have answered my question directly and honestly and I thank you for it.

I agree with you. Truth is important. It is important to me to have true beliefs and true views about reality. I do not want to live a life built on and based on lies and untruths.

My view of truth's importance is based on my desire to live a life built on truth.

Some people have a desire to live a life built on whatever makes for a more pleasurable existence etc. etc.

I am mainly asking those hard-nosed, scientifically minded, rational, evidence seeking, clear headed, intellectuals this question.

This is the elephant in the room then; how is the bible 'true'? I assume you are going to bring this conversation around to religion at some point correct?

You assumed incorrectly and this is a red herring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 05:42 PM
RE: Veritas?
You're a slimy fuck, and that's the truth.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
30-05-2014, 05:47 PM
RE: Veritas?
It's sounds all (snort) intellectumatalble when you do it in Latin.
Hoc autem solum est, magnus per magnitudinem est Germy Wanker mauris et irrumabo.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-05-2014, 05:48 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 05:32 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 05:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Yes it is.

And you have answered my question directly and honestly and I thank you for it.

I agree with you. Truth is important. It is important to me to have true beliefs and true views about reality. I do not want to live a life built on and based on lies and untruths.

My view of truth's importance is based on my desire to live a life built on truth.

Some people have a desire to live a life built on whatever makes for a more pleasurable existence etc. etc.

I am mainly asking those hard-nosed, scientifically minded, rational, evidence seeking, clear headed, intellectuals this question.

At work

*Nods* So, a few different things, then.

What is true.

Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.[2] Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p223-224 Macmillan, 1969

This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality. As Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that [either] that which is, is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is, is and that which is not is not, is true". Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b26
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 05:49 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 05:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 02:55 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality

That is no answer.
Define "reality". Define "fact".

That is the definition of truth on the correspondence theory of truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 05:51 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 05:29 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 05:27 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It is synonymous with perception.

And I agree. Reality exists apart and objective of people's perceptions.

Correct, but largely irrelevant. It makes no sense to talk about reality irrespective of one or more peoples perception of it. There are no objective observers, ergo in the practical sense there is no objective morality. Consensus, sure, but objectivity? You never quite get that close.

If that is the case you never can claim that the Empire state building exists independently of those observing it which is absurd.

The Empire State building would exist even if no one lived near it to observe it.

The planet Saturn existed before we observed it through telescopes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
30-05-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: Veritas?
This was dumb as shit when I and I did it, too, friendo, and you ain't an improvement.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
30-05-2014, 06:05 PM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2014 06:10 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 05:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 05:32 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work

*Nods* So, a few different things, then.

What is true.

Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.[2] Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p223-224 Macmillan, 1969

This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality. As Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that [either] that which is, is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is, is and that which is not is not, is true". Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b26

And how exactly, (and I mean exactly), are you going to go about defining and determining what "relationship to reality" means, what it is, how is it measured, and by what means you're going to use to conclude what reality is, (which you must do to make the judgement of "veracity), and what it means to say "relates to reality", and how you have gone about determining that you are even capable of that determination. I propose that since the actual "nature" of 95 % of this universe is at the moment "unknown", you may be wasting your time. But we all know you want to expose your Jebus again ... so why not just get to it, and do the nasty deed now.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-05-2014, 06:07 PM
RE: Veritas?
(30-05-2014 05:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 05:27 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  This is the elephant in the room then; how is the bible 'true'? I assume you are going to bring this conversation around to religion at some point correct?

You assumed incorrectly and this is a red herring.

So this thread has nothing at all to do with whether or not god exists, or the bible is true? You have no intention what so ever of proving anything about the veracity of your religion? You will excuse me then if I am a bit skeptical. Where that the case, the philosophy board would have been a better place for this.

(30-05-2014 05:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 05:29 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Correct, but largely irrelevant. It makes no sense to talk about reality irrespective of one or more peoples perception of it. There are no objective observers, ergo in the practical sense there is no objective morality. Consensus, sure, but objectivity? You never quite get that close.

If that is the case you never can claim that the Empire state building exists independently of those observing it which is absurd.

The Empire State building would exist even if no one lived near it to observe it.

The planet Saturn existed before we observed it through telescopes.

You made a philosophical assertion which I felt needed clarifying. I wouldn't argue that objective reality doesn't exist, only that no human being can be certain of it. After all, the instruments by which we perceive reality, our senses, are imperfect. You can think you see something when in "reality" you never saw it. You can be deceived into believing something based on false information. Our senses are electrical impulses carried to our brains by nerve endings, they are not an infallible reading of our external reality. I think it is an important distinction that people only experience reality in a subjective way.

For some heavy reading, I suggest you look into the writings of Descartes and Nietzsche. You can also find many contemporary philosophers mulling over the same topics.

That being said there is no particularly good reason to believe that the reality I perceive is significantly different from the reality your perceive. I have seen pictures of the empire state building, I have heard others speak of it, many more people say that the building exists than do others who say that it doesn't exist, therefore I have excellent reason to believe it does exist. It is not "true" in that sense that it denotes "absolute certainty" but it is true in that I have very good reason to believe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: