The Truth

[Johnny B]

what is the Truth ?

So many times have i been engaged in discussions (debates) with fellow 'SOLers' pushing what i apprehend to be the Truth and likewise been subject to my opponents version of the Truth , " the probable Truth " as Castro once put it.

 

Today, far from my home of Hexadecimals , i'd like to be nosy and endeavour the Truth with SOL intelligentsia ( everyone is a member ).

 

That i´m here writing this topic is mine as well as your Truth, but beyond that raises the question of your conception of this very Truth.

Both the Correspondence Theory of the Truth and the Coherence Theory of Truth seem so to agree with my above Statement , but slightly disagree about your conception of my Truth.

 

Aristole once defined the truth as "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true".

Does that make sense to you ? if so then how ?

 

Basically As my Statement shows a person’s conception of the Truth is deeply intertwined with their conception of reality, and "Ultimate Truth " can´t be the Whole of Reality , but a portion of sort.

Most of my Oponents have been of the idea that their belief is true and real when they can incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a larger and complex system of other beliefs, while i was of the idea that Truth must first somehow correspond to a fact or reality to be beleived in.

 

A belief can be and sometimes is an inaccurate description of some sort of reality, thus sometimes fit into a larger, complex system of further inaccurate descriptions of some sort of realities. Could that inaccurate belief still called a Truth.? a probable Truth? Any Truth?

Am i making any sense to you?

 

What is your Truth and how do you conclude that i´m here writing this topic is really my as well as your Truth?

 

Mutakalim surely knew what he was talking about when he called me a " Feylasuf".

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by J B:

Aristole once defined the truth as "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true".

Does that make sense to you ? if so then how?

Yes and unpalatably so. Sounds tautological to me. My definition of truth mirrors that of science.

[Viking]

JB,

Aristotle waa laga fiican yahay, hadaad runta rabtid meeshan hoose akhri...

 

(It will be said): "Groan not in supplication this day: for ye shall certainly not be helped by Us.

 

"My Signs used to be rehearsed to you, but ye used to turn back on your heels-

 

"In arrogance: talking nonsense about the (Qur'an), like one telling fables by night."

 

Do they not ponder over the Word (of Allah., or has anything (new) come to them that did not come to their fathers of old?

 

Or do they not recognise their Messenger, that they deny him?

 

Or do they say, "He is possessed"? Nay, he has brought them the TRUTH, but most of them hate the TRUTH.

 

 

If the TRUTH had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! Nay, We have sent them their admonition, but they turn away from their admonition. (Al-Mu'minoon 23:65-71)

[Sniper]

Truth is the Qur'an(in faith). About other things, truth is varifiable arguments agaisnt what they say. Aristotle is nothing, read ibn Xajar,Al-nawawi, ibn taymiyah, dahabi,ibn qayim, inb siriin,Mohamed AbdilWahab, and others who demonstrated good faith and knowledge of the TRUE religion. I think, then is when you find the truth.

[Zafir]

It's no different than saying; I don't know. A proof is proof. What is proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's proven.

[-Lily-]

I think a lot more humans would be content if they just accepted the limits of their knowledge. But by all means, do go on.

[Naden]

JB,

 

As humans, we can be eye and/or thinking witnesses to a truth (not ‘the’ truth whatever that may be). When we get up in the morning, brush our teeth and back out of our driveways to go to work, we are eyewitnesses to our daily reality, the only truth in it is our presence. Most of us (if not all) are also thinking witnesses to Watson & Crick’s discovery of the double helix. We were not in their labs and we did not search with them this minutiae of human biology. We can read and think about the results of their discoveries and the subsequent extensive body of work in genetics. In a sense, we are thinking witnesses to that. Science and enquiry can make us thinking witnesses of human and world history through its cumulative study because our individual existence is so limited in time and space.

 

There are truths that may not correspond to a verifiable fact or a sensible reality in our lifetimes. I gather that would mean they will remain largely conjectures in the same manner that DNA was unknown to people in the 19th century. This is where belief appears; it has an inextricable link to the truth about beings, history and so on. It is not all about truths, though. Some beliefs can become downright falsehoods in the light of increased knowledge; you’d be hard pressed to find a scientist that defines any of his/her work as the truth.

 

My truth? I’m still thinking about it.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by WaTerLily:

I think a lot more humans would be content if they just accepted the limits of their knowledge.

How would you know that though?

[Johnny B]

Oh Zafir, i coulden't agree more , a proof is a proof and all u need is good one to make it proven !!

 

Thanks Naden, As usual you've a possitive influence on my reality,You did understand me correctly, and that you disagree with me is natural and somehow expected , as i´m or seem to be always wrong , if i understand you correct, which i hope i do, even though you disagree with the notion that ' Truth must somehow correspond to fact or reality ' you don´t totally divorce Truth from Reality , but instead seem to somehow ' widen ? ' Reality to even include guessworks, likely but not certain realities.

I do agree with you regarding the human limitations in time and space( I´m imagining myself sitting on a chair right next to ya ), but Naden what do you verify statements like " our individual existence is so limited in time and space " against, if not Reality?, simply put i´m agreeing with you becouse i can really verify that sort of human limitation to be a Fact

 

That there are some ( trillions if u like ) of unknown or hidden facts to us today can only make us realise that we've limits and our truths are not the whole of Reality, but it doesen't make us realise that we can belive our way out of that fact.or reality.

I a dore the way you think about your Truth

 

Waterlily,

No boundary is a real boundary unless tested to it´s limits, and to your surprise most of mankind are more content with less than half of what their limitation imposes knowledge-wise , and if you´re content now , i can surely tell you that you've lived far short within your limits

 

Sniper , I'd love to read ibn Xajar,Al-nawawi , any of them developed a theory of Truth ? please i need recomendations to any of their works?

 

Viking

The verse " If the TRUTH had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! Nay, We have sent them their admonition, but they turn away from their admonition.(Al-Mu'minoon 23:65-71) "

is sure an intresting verse for those who understand who the "their" in their desires, reffers to and i am in no position to verify the truth of the trueness claimed in that ' heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! ' .

 

Please help me out !!

[Viking]

Originally posted by J B:

Viking

The verse " If the TRUTH had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! Nay, We have sent them their admonition, but they turn away from their admonition.(Al-Mu'minoon 23:65-71) "

is sure an intresting verse for those who understand who the "their" in their desires, reffers to and i am in no position to verify the truth of the trueness claimed in that ' heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! ' .

 

Please help me out !!

Sure JB, here is a commentary on the verses above...

 

"The words and deeds of the disbelievers which they say and do in confused ignorance are described in these verses. They belie the signs of Allah and deny the Holy Prophet; and they hate the truth because it does not agree with their inclinations. If these selfish and ignorant creatures were to plan the working of the universe according to their desires, it would be a dreadful world, full of confusion and corruption. They know that the Holy Prophet is al amin and al sadiq (true and righteous) and he does not ask any worldly recompense from them, yet they do not listen to him when he shows them the right path and go astray into the wilderness of infidelity and wickedness where they abide for ever even if they are given respite. Their obstinate persistence in wandering and deviation is permanent."

 

What I think it basically means (I stand to be corrected) is that some people deny The Truth (Al-Haqq) and but if they were to (theoretically) plan the workings of the universe and all its fine-tuned physical laws, they would fail misrably!

[Cara.]

JB, after we make huge assumptions like the truth of our own existence and of other minds... there's no Truth with a capital T. Only approximations of reality. It's audacious arrogance to claim a monopoly on Truth, as if one is the owner of the only well in the village. Humans yearn for simple rules in a complicated world, and some individuals take advantage of that by proclaiming to know the unknown. Then they make their claims impossible to verify and damn the doubters. Thus Truth is born. It's Truth because it is beyond mundane fact-checking or verification.

[Naden]

JB,

Naden what do you verify statements like " our individual existence is so limited in time and space " against, if not Reality?, simply put i´m agreeing with you becouse i can really verify that sort of human limitation to be a Fact [Razz]

I can't verify, JB, but it is my closest conjecture since we live in ever decaying bodies (not mine, everyone else's ). I do wonder every once in a while if we are plugged into a giant matrix (damn Hollywood :mad: ).

That there are some ( trillions if u like ) of unknown or hidden facts to us today can only make us realise that we've limits and our truths are not the whole of Reality, but it doesen't make us realise that we can belive our way out of that fact.or reality.

Agreed. Like many social and cultural beliefs, I think religious beliefs usually need not facts and proofs from believers. That they largely correspond to what could be described as instinctive needs, wants, fears and so on are what makes religious/divine questioning ever present in human consciousness.

 

I had an instructor some years ago wonder if a religious ‘gene’ would someday be identified. Like with all things sociobiological, I am a little impatient with and unsure of the importance of this questioning. I think that some find comfort in faith doctrines more than others and feel less inclined to question whether these doctrine correspond to physical realities.

 

If you haven't already, you might find Ibn Sina's writings interesting. I would even try Al Ghazali's work if you find translations. It's a little difficult to ignore his vicious rhetoric against women but I suppose like all historical work, we cannot divorce the man and his time in history from his writings.

[Johnny B]

Viking,

I appreciate the effort bro , but i think that commentary to the verse left me in the dark when it highlighted what the verse refers to , namely the deeds and words of 'the disbelievers' said and done in a confused ignorance.

And continues with the claim that those very ignorant and confused disbelievers have the knowledge that the Prophet is true and righteous.

 

And yes i do agree with you that some people deny some reality ( Truth ),here i´m thinking of an OJ in court etc etc , but i don´t exactly know what you mean by "the Truth".

 

Now, i understand that some people deny realities( truths )for personal or whatever reasons , but what i don´t understand is the relation between their refusal to grant the truth of the statements or allegations of the Prophet and the planing of the workings of the universe and all its fine-tuned physical laws.

 

Viking, correct me if i´m wrong but how do you verify the Truth in the hypothetical notion that "If these selfish and ignorant creatures were to plan the working of the universe according to their desires, it would be a dreadful world, full of confusion and corruption." , i mean , for you to have that notion as a Truth?

 

Cara,

You too seem to take advantage of my sad situation of ignorance, but unlike some people your claims can be verified by even ME.

 

Naden,

ever since i read your post i sure have lost some brain cells , but not decayed , actually i look younger than my real age thanks to a ' non-aging gene' in the family.

Guess what, sometimes i too wonder if a 'religion gene' exists and if some people (like me)are in dire need of it.

 

As for the notion " some find comfort in faith doctrines more than others and feel less inclined to question whether these doctrine correspond to physical realities.", i coulden´t agree more , yes that seems to be the case.

But according to almost all the religions i heard of , a Deity is trying to reach us and save us from ourselves and what not, but chooses to communicate with us through few choosen people, Cæteris paribus ?

[Jamilah]

Originally posted by Naden:

Some beliefs can become downright falsehoods in the light of increased knowledge;

That is true especially in the case of Aristotle who is known in physics for wrongly believing that an object in motion has a preference for being at rest. This was disapproved by Galileo and Newton who both maintained that due to inertia an object has a preference to retain its current state of motion (whether it is in uniform motion or even rest). Similarly, in the field of chemistry Aristotle proposed that all matter is made of four primary elements: fire, air, water, and earth (this reminds me of captain planet my favourite cartoon as a child). This too was proven false.

 

Now, I can't help wonder why JB would quote a person who has more falsehoods associated with them than truths, :confused: I am a little puzzled.

 

Great recommendations Sniper and loved the response by Viking, walahi Aristotle waa laga fiican yahay.

[Johnny B]

Jamilah , i've quoted Aristotle becouse he happens to have a good point regarding what we cal " TRUTH ", so don't wonder nomore,

 

If i first disregard your fatal general assumption of Aristotle having more falsehoods associated with him than truths and buy your hint " Aristotle wa laga fican yahay ", i sure will do just fine , but maybe to your disappointment we've alot more to thank Aristotle for, and the Correspondence Theory of the Truth which holds till today is traced back to his defination about the truth , hence my quote, his definition offers a muted, relatively minimal version of a correspondence theory.

There are many other big brains like Plato (Cratylus 385b2, Sophist 263b), Descartes 1639, ATII 597; Spinoza, Ethics, axiom vi; Locke, Essay, IV.v.i; Leibniz, New Essays, IV.v.ii; Hume, Treatise, 3.1.1; and Kant 1787, B82—Berkeley etc etc.

 

Now, i do agree with you that Naden's general statement about some beliefs becomimg downright falsehoods in the light of increased knowledge holds tight, but it was unfair of you to lebel Aristotle as a man of falsehoods and thus judge him.

From what i can tell making mistakes is an equal opportunity.

 

Jamilah, please share what the recommendations of mr Sniper say about the Truth , if there is a base for comparation with my qoute of Aristotle.