In a world where everyone will say that they value ‘truth’ and will come up with rationalizations about what they believe to be true, how can anyone be credible in their claim to value the truth? If each person believes that the reason others disagree with them is because of an emotional compromise that they have made with themselves, how can anyone set themselves apart? If everyone naturally values truth in the same way, does anyone really value truth?

In light of the above, we should be skeptical of our ability to easily recognize what is true. Then, we can reframe the issue as a way to value truth is to reject emotionally appealing falsehoods. Combining the two, the person who values truth is the one who rejects what they recognize to be true and closely excavates for emotional drives in relation to their belief.

Going further, the person who values truth is the one who regularly rejects what they believe to be true and obsessively excavates their psyche for unidentified emotions that may be influencing the process.

This is the way one can set themselves apart in valuing truth. In other words, this is what it actually means to value truth.

Just a quick note before I go to bed, and think about it more seriously tomorrow.

Truth is a fact that can be proven -- by evidence, by repeatable observation, by others other than you.

Anything else is just belief.

Do we not hold our beliefs as truths? Beyond the propositional level, at the level of embodiment, is there really a difference between the two?

I believe you took way too many drugs in the past and I think this is 100% true.

Oh, and yes, we all can see through your "I will slowly build a completely worthless case of massive special pleading"

As I stand before a field of flowers I am welled amidst this beauty in an aboriginal splendor. My companion , suffers from allergies , and experiences distress of the first order as we both manifest our particular relationships to the field of flowers.

But the both of us can and do note the growth of the plants during the spring, the fecundant flowing of summer only to return to a wilting of plant during fall and the subsequent destructive loss into the seed of the plant during the winter.

And so we have the spring, summer, autumn and winter of the plant being to which both of us, my companion and I can bring into thought activity which is not of our particular predispositions.

The thoughts to which we find the "truths" of the plant kingdom are contained within that kingdom and not dependent upon our particular dispositions.

I repeat, "the thoughts are within the plant kingdom " and not ours as ownership. Likewise, the thought movements of the planets of sun, moon, mars,....are within those bodies and not ours to own.

Now within the human being is the ability to "think" and in that I note the lunar rhythms and bring this thought activity into my soul and this experience then becomes my own , my experience of the lunar activity of thought has changed my being, in essence.

My companion can likewise bring the thoughts of the solar movements within her being and again manifesting this change within her very being, the being of her soul.

Each of us experiences life with variations of semblance such that there is the soul that opens to a plenitude of experience while others may be open to a lesser degree and in this, according to the soul experiences of each the human being gains form within the soul of Man.

I am immersed within the thoughts of Mary while Peter within Jean ; the feelings I have about Mary are my own as are those of Peter within Jean.

The "thought activity within Mary are the same whether Peter or I observe for they are the thought considerations of Mary, those of her very being, and likewise Jean.

The next question then becomes; what are the relationships of the thought activity of the field (Mary,sun,moon...) to my perceptions of sight, sound,taste, etc.....

Another way, do the thoughts of the field have a relationship to the perceptive field and and is Man able to bring forth this connection in his search for "truth" ?

Are you saying that there is nothing interfering with our connection to objective truth? There is no such thing as bias? We have no filter through which we interpret the world?

Interesting definition. What is a fact under this conception?

I'm saying the "world stands on its own" and in seeking knowledge Man is included in the issue. I haven't finished as of yet but hope to display the idea of "truth" within thinking.

Of course I may see the movements of the sun as Copernicus whereas in the 5th century the Ptolemaic approach held fast . Believe it or not each of these perspectives have good legs but I can't speak to this as "bias".

My perspective of "bias" is seeing Mary based upon my feelings and expecting Jean to "see" Mary in the same way or to have the same feelings. My feelings are my own and Jean's feelings are his own and i shouldn't expect him to have the same [perspective as mine if I am dependent upon feelings.

It is the critical issue as the "world speaks to us" and the work of the searcher for truth is an exploration within thinking which I haven't as yet finished in this thread.

It goes on and on but of course it is possible and very likely for 2 people to observe the world and obtain different "truths" for man is a limited being and as the adage of the "tree" observed from different perspectives acknowledges, seeing an tree from different vantage points helps us in our search for knowledge.

The sun rises above the horizon, in the eastern direction from where you are standing.

In Iowa, a leaf changes color in the fall, and drys, and falls to the Earth from a tree.

It’s unsurprising that the impulse is to either obfuscate or trivialize what is in the OP. To take the OP seriously is to start down the path of voluntarily participating in your own betrayal. That is the cost of truth though.

In the same way, Christ voluntarily participated in his own betrayal, participating in the events that lead to his crucifixion. It’s a personal preference whether one wants to identify as a Christian or not, but in order to value truth, following the example of Christ by participating in your own betrayal, is mandatory.

This is a belief. It has nothing to do with truth.

I don't. And I just showed you the difference between truth and belief.

This is a belief.

Exactly, because I can't know the truth in this matter, thus it has nothing to do with truth.

Fact/Truth: since I don’t make my own Beer, I must purchase it in some way from someone else.

Belief: I believe I need Beer to get trough all the posts, past, present, and future, in this thread.

If you hold yourself to the process described in the OP, your understanding of ‘truth’ changes or broadens. I am obligated to say “in my experience” but it is universal. We are using different ideas of truth. Eventually, truth becomes a hierarchy of lower truths and higher truths.

Currently, you are using truth to mean factual truth. Is that fair? I am using truth to mean moral truth because for me that is a “higher” truth. I don’t expect agreement on this, but I thought I would just describe what is happening anyway.

Special pleading at its finest. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sorry, but I’m starting to find these types of responses endearing in a way. You are expressing a truth, but there are higher truths.

I feel the same way about your useless special pleading.


Can you translate this gibberish to proper english, please?

There is no other truth.

Pretty sure you signed up for this sh*t.

Truth is that which is in accordance with reality. How is that?

If we can agree on that, then moral truth is how to orient toward and be more in accordance with reality. Of course, if one thinks they are naturally in accordance with reality, then this would seem unnecessary.

Do you have evidence, that is repeatable, that someone other than you can confirm? Then, yes.

Now you're just full of bullsh*t.

See Plato’s Two-Worlds Theory. See Christianity’s Kingdom of Heaven. It’s not a new or uncommon idea.

I "believe" in the spiritual realm, but it's not truth.

Plato's theories, and the kingdom of heaven, are certainly not new ideas -- but they are not truth.