Can we talk about objective, irrevocable truth? Or merely about claims to truth that are contested by the statements of others? Truth or opinion -- the answer to that question has massive implications for our idea of man.
For the publisher of a debate magazine, the question is almost unavoidable: Can we talk about Truth with a capital T? We believe in discussion, which means subjective truths are pitted against each other. The best arguments -- or the arguments that are best articulated -- will eventually prevail. Language thus becomes the medium through which we gain access to truth. It cannot be divorced from the speaker.
The linguistic turn in the latter half of the 20th century led to an understanding of language as a contextual property. Language is more than the emission of sounds. Speech becomes an exercise in self-actualization. Speaking is acting, which is another way of saying that language cannot be anything but subjective. In the context of the trifecta of speech-thoughts-world, no objective truth remains that should be understood as a given. Children don't actualize a pre-programmed language database when they begin to form words out of sounds. They are actualizing the world they experience -- their world, their subjective existence.
Insights from linguistics and neurology have helped to raise substantive challenges against the traditional idea of truth. We tended to think of truth as something objective and exterior to the world, something larger than material reality. Those ideas have been filed away with the emergence of the linguistic turn. The concept that has replaced them is decidedly different: Truth is opinion -- the stuff that fills the pages of a debate magazine like The European.
The linguistic turn is the most recent slight against man after the belittlements that he experienced through Copernicus, Darwin and Freud. It states: "You are incapable of anything but a well-formulated opinion. Your knowledge is limited." Man is not the recipient of a revelation, nor is he capable of knowing what larger reality might surround him. Instead, he constructs his own reality through the tools of language. He is constantly and subjectively engaged with the people he converses with, and -- on a larger level -- with all human beings that share the same cognitive capacities. His world is one in which things are elevated to truths through the discursive process. There is no objective Truth that can be known and that would provide the key to unlock all the secrets of our reality and existence.
We are not confronted with an objective reality; we are always part of our subjective reality. The world "becomes" through us. When we die, our world dies with us. That understanding of truth has many consequences, two of which I want to mention briefly:
The entrenched interplay of words and deeds has become obsolete with the linguistic turn. For our ancestors, a wise and just man was someone who lived his life according to the norms that he had recognized as true. That is the standards against which ancient heroes and Christian saints were measured. Christ becomes the true son of God in the theology of late antiquity because his actions are manifestations of his preaching. Jesus talks about turning the other cheek and ends up forgiving his tormenters himself. Yet we have to concede that those convictions are not found outside of ourselves or that they are the result of divine mercy. They form inside of us and become real when we articulate or think them.
A second consequence concerns the distinction between good and evil. Saint Thomas could still say that it was ethical to do good and avoid evil. His ideas about good and evil are derived from the maxims of Christian theology. But does the good manifest itself in God, and does evil manifest itself in the devil? Or can we see a parallel to the linguistic turn, where good and evil emerge out of our thoughts, words and actions, where they are shaped by the totality of our experiences?
In both cases, the majority of readers will probably respond intuitively that this is not the case. Impressive personalities have derived their persuasive powers from values that they regarded as having divine origins -- Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa are just a few prominent examples. And it is also absurd to think that good and evil cannot be properly distinguished and defined just because we lack an objective and exterior frame of reference. After all, substantive differences exist between the two categories.
How do we resolve that tension? Some concepts exist that are larger than individual lives, if only because they outlast our finite human existences. As discursive agents, we can agree on a codex of actions and values that guide our interactions and co-existence and help to define what is good and what is evil. And there will always be individuals whose cognitive and empathic powers allow them to articulate ideas that inspire others and serve as guiding lights for our own lives.
Should we give up on the idea of eternal truth? Sometimes it might be sufficient to arrive at a justified opinion.
David Lose: Adam, Eve & the Bible
Objectivity (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Objective Truth: Is Something True Regardless of What We Believe?
Christianity : Pictures, Videos, Breaking News - Huffington Post
1) What do you mean by . . .?
2) How do you know . . .?
3) Why does it matter?
4) What if you're wrong?
Seems like good advice to me. I've always been a fan of the bumper sticker, "Question Authority". A good authority gives good answers. "Because I'm intelligent" or "Because I'm educated" are not good answers to question number 2.
Perhaps in the opinion of some.
"Man is not the recipient of a revelation"
Is that true? No, just an opinion held by some.
"There is no objective Truth that can be known"
Is that true? No, it's self-contradictory assertion, unless one holds that all truth is subjective, in which case there is no objective truth to be known, since the assumption is that all truth is subjective.
Truth can be acquired in two common ways -- evidence and reasoning on the one hand, and on the other hand, someone tells the truth, based on their knowledge and observations. For instance, these two work together in a court of law: CSI presents evidence and reasoning, and witnesses report their observations. Sometimes the truth is obvious; sometimes not so obvious.
The Lord Jesus Christ told his disciples that if they continued in His Word, that they would be truly His disciples, and that they would know the truth, and the truth would set them free. Later He said that He Himself was The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and that no one could come to the Father but through Him.
Lots of people think that's true. One could call that a collective opinion, but it could be an opinion that is indeed true.
I wrestled with these kinds of thoughts for many years and obviously great thinkers have thought about it too.
In the absence of religion I am uncertain that anyone could go beyond "I think..."
Without a definition of truth this whole discussion is futile. I accept a simple but brilliant definition used by Mormons -- Truth is a knowledge of things as they were, and as they are, and as they are to be. It is comprehensive; but it is also perceptive -- "knowledge". It suggests that a person CAN know truth, as there is no point in giving a name to something no Human can know anyway.
It avoids the problems with a factoid that is "true" but misrepresents the situation. If I say that everyone that has ever drank the liquid chemical "dihydrogen monoxide" has died or will die, and that it is found almost everywhere on earth and is very difficult to avoid; you might think it is a very dangerous substance indeed. And, at times, it is!
It is also the name for "water". So while true, I have spun "truth" with a little "t" to hide the bigger truth.
In religious discussions it is very common to spin little truths to hide the bigger one, or to avoid finding it.
There you go making the point of the article. All you have is words on paper OR God himself came and told you, in which case it is still words. It might even be true, but when you tell someone ELSE it becomes just your words, neither any more nor any less believable than anyone else here.
You see, in the telling, you are limited to 250 characters, and it is very likely that what "really happened" won't fit in 250 characters. So you choose, and upon choosing, it is not longer what "really happened" even though the little detail you describe may well have happened.
Lemme go get my bong.
---
OK, I'm back. Try some of this, it's pretty stank.
Back to the conversation. What we have here is a rather verbose and difficult to understand retelling of the Buddha's ancient story of the six blind men and the elephant. In that parable, two things are true:
1. Each of the men is limited in his understanding by his capacities and incapacities.
2. There really is an elephant in the room.
Now what say we order a pizza? Ya got any ice cream or cookies?
“There is no objective Truth that can be known and that would provide the key to unlock all the secrets of our reality and existence.”
His statement means that his statement is not true.
This writer has successfully convinced me that all of his statements are factually untrue.
Truth does not mean opinion, and the stories about Jesus are not true.
If I tell a story about Jesus, it is most certainly true, but of course, you have only my word that it is true, which may not be true. Among other talents, he's our landscaper and occasionally I mention him.
Your words ARE your opinion, and while the truth of anything you say cannot be determined, the fact of authorship means the only thing that is reasonably certain is your opinion.
“Your words ARE your opinion,” (True and false. The specific words I used in the previous post, however, are fact, not my opinion. There is a difference between fact and opinion -- just so you know.) “…and while the truth of anything you say cannot be determined,” (Yes it can. I.e. if on a sunny day I state that the sky looks blue, is that just my opinion, or does the sky actually look blue to those who are not visually impaired?) “…the fact of authorship means the only thing that is reasonably certain is your opinion.” (Your last statement is unintelligible, but thanks for your reply.)
Peace
The mind has an immense Ego. It wants to take credit for all of the actions of the hand. And, in doing so, it corrupts the intent of the Heart.
Words are the tools of the mind. The mind can juggle words and create clever ideas. But, none are as pure or as powerful as the feelings of the Heart. Remember the old saying, "An idle mind is the Devils playhouse." The mind and the words it uses can never even come close to expressing the "Truth."
Spirituallity can only be achieved when the mind is brought to a whisper, when the Heart has free access to the hand and actions flow from the Heart. Truth will be evident when the mind withdraws and becomes an observer. No words are necessary. The actions will reveal the Truth and credit will be given to the Spirit.
Gosh you are so limited! I have seventeen realms but most of them cannot be described in the English Language so y'all just have to believe me.
(Truth moment: I don't even know what a "realm" is or how many there are and whether I should perhaps think about participating in more of them)
I will also be the first one to assert that even Cartesian reference does not define completely the true Truth as we aware.
Anyway, there is Context Free Languages, again within a very fundamental reference that get closer to the true Truth of God. The description in this type of language and therefore thoughts can be objectively communicable as in computer languages...
For a modern mind to respect your thesis, you have to speak and reason with this paradigm.
The epistemic position is of complementarity, not absolutism as this shows...
"It cannot be said that any of these approaches [The 6 Darshanas/Views] is truer than any other, since each is realistic in its own field. The notion of multiple and eventually contradictory relative truths, coexisting on different levels and corresponding to the various human means of investigation, whether observation, thought, or intuition, has been a remarkable instrument in the formation of Hindu thought."
From: Virtue, Wealth, Pleasure, LIberation: The Four Aims of Life, By Alain Danielou; Inner Traditions International, 1993
I think that the life-after-death or "near death experiences" (NDE) that you reference could offer some indication of a life that succeeds the one we know. I would disagree that these experiences are any indication that Christ necessarily fits into a NDE. Christians may see someone or feel a presence and call it Jesus. Those brought up in different religions or in no religion see the figure or presence as someone or something else. The average Hindu who has a NDE will be unlikely to reference his or her encounter with Jesus.
Another problem is that NDEs are just that: "near" death experiences. The body remains alive during the entire experience, unless people are dying and being resurrected. It may be that the spirit, soul, or consciousness can leave the body, but perhaps only while the body remains alive.
That is the point of the article. There is no reason NOT to define truth any way you please, because that is exactly what everyone does -- either forms a definition or accepts one.
Therefore, all you have doen is identified your particular definition of "truth".
Uh, humans did "invent" mathematics. Our mathematics is based on a base 10 or decimal system. It could have just as easily been base 2 (binary), base 8 (octal) or base 16 (hexidecimal.) Humans settled on 10 because we had 10 fingers. Once we settled on base 10, then we discovered the quirks and oddities of the base 10 system of mathematics
The other guy is clearly thinking of "Pi" but it might not actually be as universal as he thinks. I do not send my children to *discover* mathmatics but to *learn* it.
I send my children to school to learn mathematics, not "discover" mathematics.
In my world, 1+1 sometimes equals 10 and anything else means the computer is seriously broken.
But the point of the article is that since people invent the meaning of words, your words are true for you but not necessarily for someone else.
I do not believe that mathematical "laws" are just hanging out there like fruit on a tree. Some relationships do exist that can be discovered, "Pi" being the obvious example, but that *relationship* does not exist. It has no tangible existence until a human mind observes it and the relationship exists ONLY in a mind. It is not "out there" and does not have independent existence.
For the record, and truth's sake, women are no longer implied or assumed to be covered through the use of a masculine reference. Didn't that seem undignified and disrespectful as you read it? That is like saying Americans, and expecting people to just know you are including the Canadians and Mexicans, too. Or saying pork, and knowing everybody will be clear that this discussion covers beef as well.
These changes occurred years ago, yet linguistic stalwarts have just not bothered to honor them. Funny to see a discussion on changes in truth's meaning from someone who has refused to honor and acknowledge a whole gender. These changes cannot be dismissed through saying that is what we were taught in days gone by. Those days have gone by, and now we speak with respect for all people.
We have come to far to allow a whole gender to simply be implied. That is a truth that demands all our attentions.
I provided an added benefit, while hopefully engaging the author in resolving what I hope is an inartful oversight, and one that he can easily resolve in future communications.
His article is about the difficulty of discussing "truth" when it is quite clear that nearly everyone, he would say *everyone*, defines words and phrases uniquely. It becomes impossible to discuss truth itself for that very reason.
For instance, you presume too much when you say "language in OUR world has turned."
Who is "our"? What is "langugage"? What is "turned?" Who are you to say this?
Language for me has not changed. A gender neutral third person singular pronoun does not exist for me. English is today, for me, what it was forty years ago.
Therefore it is not correct to assert "The truth is that the world today uses inclusive language..."
The "world" uses no human language. There is no "The truth" as if only one existed.
Try "I have noticed that some people, but certainly not all, now use English in a manner that was once considered improper. How strange it is to me, and I wish it to be strange for you or I wouldn't mention it, for him to continue to use proper English when so many have abandoned proper grammar and syntax in favor of politically correct speech."
http://www.truechristianityevangelism.org/hell.html
If you master this topic, pick another and stick with researching it till you know all you want to on that topic then go on and on to others until you know more than I know then come and help me.
How do you think that this whole Hell idea works? Does God keep an open door so that people can be saved until the moment they die? After that, God gives up and the soul that spent seventy years on earth now spends billions or trillions of years in a state of torture. Why would a soul care about being thrown into a "lake of fire" if souls have no physical substance? Does your Bible say that a soul is physical in some sense?
Perhaps Hell is what some say: eternal separation from God. Why would a person who never found God and never wanted him find the separation from him to be hellish? It would be like telling a man who lives near Uluru in Australia at a subsistence level that he has to stop buying jets. It would be meaningless to a man in that situation.
You may feel comforted that a Hell is out there for those who fail to share your beliefs, but that is hardly some absolute truth. It is more the words of someone who read a Bible and merely quoted some passages that were recalled.