Sorry Clovie...( for disagreeing with you )....They say you should never start a sentence with an apology...but here goes !
Truth is not something different to each individual as truth is either there or it is not !
Truth - in the ear of the beholder - CAN be interpreted in different ways, but the seed of truth - or the untruth - must be there in the first place before it can be interpreted rightly or wrongly by the interpreter.
Originally posted by Papaumau
The belief or not does not decide if the item or word is true or false.It either IS true or it is untrue !
It is whether you believe it to be true or not that does not matter.
From a philosophical standpoint this is ridiculous. They understood that in the 4thC BC -
"A man says that he is lying. Is what he says true or false?"
Eubulides
Still working on it these days with the slightly more refined theory of Paraconsistent logic.
Even in a non-philosophical sense - If a man says "God will smite the unbelievers" he and many thousands of others will believe it to be a literal truth. Others believe it to be false. WHO thinks it's true and who false depends if the man is an American or an Israeli.
Truth is far from absolute.
Originally posted by Phoenix
But it is. EXAMPLE:me -- That colour is teal. ((TRUE))
you-- that colour is dark green ((also true))
BUT THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT IDENTICAL.
According to you, the colour MUST be teal OR dark green - I say, teal is true to me, dark green is true to you
Good example phoenix
But I am afraid that to say green is green is asking for people to say there are shades of green.
That is nevertheless not a way of proving truth as the definition was not clear or precise enough to argue that it was true or false in an empirical way.
The question needs to be stated precisely before the precise and truthful answer can be provided.
Indeed "Teal" and also emerald can be said to be green, but as the song says..."The forty shades of green" are all true too.
Where this example goes wrong is when someone says that turquoise is "green" when actually it is a greeny/blue. ( Greeny/blue=true...Green=false ).
It is all about accuracy of description I guess.
Originally posted by Papaumau
That is nevertheless not a way of proving truth as the definition was not clear or precise enough to argue that it was true or false in an empirical way.
Nice try - took me a full minute to see what you did there - which is 60 seconds longer than ive ever had to pause on KMC before.
Phoenix wasn't trying to prove a truth, P was trying to show that truth sometimes cannot be proved ( as it's often subjective).
You are the one trying to prove the truth - you can't default her argument by inverting it to say that it doesnt support your own.
Boo-ya!
truth is most likely a statement made without any sugar coating... if someone is feeling inside "Gee this person is a real jerk", but say "Wow you're such a nice person" its obviously not the truth until they come clean and say "Gee this person is a real jerk"... but there are alot of different kinds of truth as you've said.. religion... ethics... politics.. I dont think much more can come of this except for vague answers
Originally posted by Mr Zero
Nice try - took me a full minute to see what you did there - which is 60 seconds longer than ive ever had to pause on KMC before.Phoenix wasn't trying to prove a truth, P was trying to show that truth sometimes cannot be proved ( as it's often subjective).
You are the one trying to prove the truth - you can't default her argument by inverting it to say that it doesnt support your own.
Boo-ya!
WOW....Mr "Z"....
You are nearly as sneaky as I am !
Actually this "what is truth" question has generated many thousands of pages of debate all over the world of words and it is too unclear - and unspecific - a question to arrive at a clear or specific solution.
Nevertheless it is a fun subject to debate !