The Black Vault

The question of "what is truth" appears to need quite a bit of elaboration to flush out all of its varied applications and meanings. There are objective truths that appear to apply to all observers and there are subjective truths that apply to varied perspectives of each individual in the qualitative sense, the "what it is like" for the mind's I self.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_truth

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject.

Truth is isomorphic to the reality of the situation.
Correspondence theory says that true beliefs and statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This appears to say that if a thing is true then it corresponds exactly to the actual state, or condition of the reality in question. Language statements are references through linguistic generalizations , where such generalizations may be interpreted metaphorically as being applicable to many similar situations, things, or objects.

Coherence theory seems to require the holistic approach that differing attributes of the whole system are interrelated and interdependent. the whole is greater than its parts in that dna elementals apply as identity structures in an inclusive set theoretic relationship. In that respect cats are dogs only in that cats are mammals and dogs are mammals but they are not exactly equivalent.

Consensus theory is truth that is agreed upon by many beings in a group situation. consensus truth might not be the actual truth though. Consensus can be dangerous in my opinion, yes.

The wikipedia article on truth is huge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Contingent truths are truths that are true for a specific possibility.

Necessary truths are truths that hold for all possible worlds, where we can understand the idea "possible world" to be a hypothetical situation or universe.

"I eat breakfast every morning" is a contingent truth that applies to a specific world.

"Square circles do not exist" is a necessary truth that applies to all possible worlds, if we mean they do not exist in Euclidean 2 dimensional space.

The truth shall set you free in that knowledge of truth builds strength of character, which will mean more freedom as a strong personality sees more options in life ...possibly

There are some philosophies that say "nothing matters" "life is hopeless" "there is no purpose" etc.

These philosophies cannot be universal as they are highly subjective, and therefore contingent, in character.

I started this thread in the hopes that it will be troll free. It is beyond my power to stop trolls, so I can only hope

Squares and circles are finite representations separated out of a greater relational continuum. They do not actually reside in their own idealized vacuums apart from one another nor are they objectively contrasting states... (but of course can be treated as such within a numerical purview)

Many nuances and gradations of form exist which are not always necessarily perceptible due partly to evolutionary constraints upon biological modes of apprehension. In time, more sophisticated bridging mechanisms may perhaps allow certain apparent attenuations to be better resolved and will thus hopefully lead limited cogitation to superior discernment.

Ultimately, truth can be no greater than those connections which define the extent of what is manifest.

DIss0n80r wrote:Squares and circles are finite representations separated out of a greater relational continuum. They do not actually reside in their own idealized vacuums apart from one another nor are they objectively contrasting states... (but of course can be treated as such within a numerical purview)

Many nuances and gradations of form exist which are not always necessarily perceptible due partly to evolutionary constraints upon biological modes of apprehension. In time, more sophisticated bridging mechanisms may perhaps allow certain apparent attenuations to be better resolved and will thus hopefully lead limited cogitation to superior discernment.

Ultimately, truth can be no greater than those connections which define the extent of what is manifest.

Very insightful DIss0n80r. Definitely food for thought, yes.

We have two definitions, one for circle and one for square, hopefully precise in their meaning, as exact as linguistically possible. On the one hand we have the definition of a circle and on the other hand, we have the definition of a square. They are two completely different definitions in this respective universe of ideation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle

A circle can be defined as the curve traced out by a point that moves so that its distance from a given point is constant.

A circle may also be defined as a special ellipse in which the two foci are coincident and the eccentricity is 0. Circles are conic sections attained when a right circular cone is intersected by a plane perpendicular to the axis of the cone.

[...]

The circle is the shape with the largest area for a given length of perimeter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_%28geometry%29

In geometry, a square is a regular quadrilateral. This means that it has four equal sides and four equal angles (90-degree angles, or right angles)[1]. It can also be defined as a rectangle in which two adjacent sides have equal length.

We can see that these two different definitions are not the same. If someone is going to say that both these definitions are the same they are NOT uttering the objective truth.

It is possible for the two definitions to be the same IF certain special circumstances are allowed and only if such special circumstances are allowed for a hypothetical thought universe, but that is not the original universe where the two definitions originally exist where they are NOT the same.

Tweaking truth requires a tweaker thought universe.

Precise definitions are specific and thus exclusive, yes.

Yet, we must take care not to assume that what is being defined is only our present definition. Linguistic isomorphisms are useful but defining objects of thought too strictly may also occlude us from potential understanding of how said objects fit into other relations which we might not be presently aware of.

That may change our understanding of the object and require adjusting our definition to more accurately reflect the truth.

Oh, and I can't agree with your presumptuous usage of "special" and "original" to baselessly assert the pre-eminence of your viewpoint. Arguing from assumptions isn't going to make you right. Nor is pulling biased hypotheticals out of your aperture and trying to shove them down my throat.

DIss0n80r wrote:Oh, and I can't agree with your presumptuous usage of "special" and "original" to baselessly assert the pre-eminence of your viewpoint. Arguing from assumptions isn't going to make you right. Nor is pulling biased hypotheticals out of your aperture and trying to shove them down my throat.

I started this thread separately in order to avoid any perceived shoving you may have felt tickling your throat in the other thread, yet still, you take offense and start some reactionary knee jerk trolling. Pre-eminence is not an assumption but a necessary and sufficient stipulation that must hold true in order for linguistic coherence to be maintained. They[the stipulations] are not assumptions nor hypotheticals UNLESS and until equivocal generalizations are required for exploring new realms of thought universe.

So please, do not troll this new thread of truth. Please do not take healthy thought craps in my new thread.

Disagreement is not trolling.

Calling me a troll for simply disagreeing is trolling. Equating my posts with bowel movements is trolling. It is not reactionary to point out your troll tactics.

DIss0n80r wrote:Disagreement is not trolling.

Calling me a troll for simply disagreeing is trolling. Equating my posts with bowel movements is trolling. It is not reactionary to point out your troll tactics.

You are doing more than disagreeing, you are making insults and messing up this thread.

If you disagree then make an argument for your point of view or go somewhere else. Don't make rude comments about throat shoving or apertures. Just say how you disagree and why like a civilized person or stay in your original truth thread.

THAT is a very easy choice for you to make.

I have made my argument. You just ignored it.

If "throat shoving" seems rude to you also, then perhaps you should refrain from attempting it.

Anyhow, this duplicate topic is still open to discussion and your opinions on my posts here are not so important. I'm sure there are many things still left to be said which you may or may not agree with, and I am not impressed by your demands for answers.

No one has messed up your thread. We have been arguing on-topic regardless of what you think of my ideas about truth. You will have to accept that people will not always agree with any fundamental assumptions you may have and they may post viewpoints that do not exactly mirror your own.

Getting back on topic, if we make stipulations and rules that are definitions for certain conditions that are true to themselves then the definitions are what they state. You are not allowed to change the definitions and say they are not what they are for your own amusement. A square is not a circle and that, is simply a fact.

The definition is true for itself as it must be and you can disagree but you cannot refute it.