Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

Regarding the essay I wrote a while ago about theories of truth, someone did convince me that nothing substantial can be said about the truth. Well, I was just thinking about symbolic representations of the truth. Tarski's objection to truth-theory apparently seems to be the same as mine, but still, the semantic theory of truth is equally objectionable.

For any given truth theory, as it seems to me, it would make most sense to write in like this:



That reads, "D of T, for every X, is equal to A of T, for every X." D is the determination of truth, A is the actuality of truth (what actually exists and is, in fact, true), and X is everything which could possibly exist. So, in regular terms, truth is best symbolically defined as, "When the determination of truth, for everything that exists, is equal to the actuality of truth, for everything that exists." In case this isn't clear enough, just imagine the right side of the equation being a list of all statements that could be posed and their corresponding truth-values (true or false) and the left side of the equation being the same list, but generated by a proposed theory of truth rather than necessarily being the actual truth itself.

Now, there's a number of problems with this: First of all, what should be obvious is that the truth encompasses itself, that is, any truth-theory must be inherently self-asserting. This can be viewed two ways: First, from the clear and obvious point that the above formula contains the substructure, T, on both sides of the equation. Both sides of the equation are "of truth." When you talk about truth-theory, you are still talking within the scope of determining whether or not a particular statement is true. In other words, discussing truth-theory involves the question, "Is this statement about truth true?" Whether or not any particular answer is valid depends upon the actual answer. This can be explained rhetorically, but I mention it mathematically here, simply for proper form.

The other way that this point can be demonstrated is that the left side of the equation is within the set of X on the right. We assume that X involves everything assertion which may hold true. Well, if this is true, then the set of X would also contain the left-side of the equation.

And, in order for this statement to be valid:



This must also be valid:



The problem with this is that the equation holds true, no matter what the left side is. And so, for any truth-theory, for the person that proposes it, it is automatically true.

Alfred Tarski came to this conclusion in the 1930's. His proposition was that truth can only be defined if you explicitly define the above terms. And mathematically, this is true: As I said, the truth-theory is self-asserting. Well, if you explicitly define what constitutes "truth," in any given language, then the equation holds. And so, whatever any given language defines as truth, that is the truth.

Tarski explained it as:

For every sentence p of a language, "P" is true if, and only if, p.

Wikipedia uses the example:

"Snow is white," is true, if and only if snow is white.

But not in the sense of there being, in fact, any kind substance to the claim. In other words, if you say, "Grass is green," you can say nothing more about that other than that, within the English language and our system of logic, the statement, "Grass is green," is true. This is the semantic theory of truth, which advanced deflationary theories of truth.

Now, at first, this seemed ridiculous. But upon further examination, I think that this is the only formally valid theory of truth. The problem, however, is this: If the subject we are involved in defining is supposed to encompass the substance of "everything," Tarski's claim that truth is restricted within a particular language cannot hold true. In other words, naturally, we don't perceive the whole of truth as being restricted within a particular language in the same way that we don't perceive it as being subjective.

In mathematics, Tarski's indefinability theorem states, "Arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic." Well, with that same reasoning, "Truth cannot be defined in statements of the truth."

And so, I'd argue that truth is indefinable. We can say nothing substantial about it, but only understand it based upon our intuitions about it. Rather than having discovered a more rational definition of truth, Tarski discovered the only rational way of modeling the truth.

Informally, the semantic theory of truth seems most right: If we consider "truth," to be that which is understood through rational observation, then what the majority of scientists claim to be true is most likely to be correct. They are the most intelligent and have reviewed the most evidence, and so, in my opinion, scientists have tended to be the most truthful, historically. And science as an institution is self-correcting, lending credibility to the suggestion that "truth," is nominal, always moving towards an apparently absolute truth.

Formally, the semantic theory of truth is the only one which is valid, mathematically. But still, the semantic theory of truth, like all truth-theories, is self-asserting, so it's questionable. And the semantic theory of truth doesn't really seem to define "truth," at all, but it's merely a model containing persons who believe they've conceived of the truth. With regard to the semantic theory of truth, if truth is defined in terms of specific languages which define the truth, then how does one determine which language's definition of the truth is, in fact, representative of the truth?

[Fido]

What exactly is your preoccupation with truth all about. Is there some thing hanging on this truth? Are you making a moonshot or something? The reason I ask is that most people who deal in truth at all seem happy with a near approximation. And having read some of logic and language I can tell you it is not easy to say exactly what you mean to say even if it is the truth.

What did Anni Defranco say of having not time to react in this life, let alone rehearse? Who has the time, and who has the luxury? If people do not understand what you say as communication, which is not after all, a one sided affair, but rather a process of talk and question, or counter talk, which should, if both sides are willing, result in mutual understanding. From my perspective, it is not inexactness of speech which prevents most understanding, but that understanding requires some change of thought or behavior that the receiving party does not wish to accept.

Apart from that, we talk, hear, see, and feel symbols, and also act through them. I cannot imagine thought or communication without symbols. On the other hand, all the contrived sort of symbolism per your example, is a little thoughtless. Symbols very often work because of a subconscious association, and usually don't work when people say this mean that, and that mean something other. Usually it is a natural rather than arbitrary. Let me finish here with. In my opinion.

[Nathyn]

Fido wrote: What exactly is your preoccupation with truth all about. Is there some thing hanging on this truth? Are you making a moonshot or something? The reason I ask is that most people who deal in truth at all seem happy with a near approximation. And having read some of logic and language I can tell you it is not easy to say exactly what you mean to say even if it is the truth.

What did Anni Defranco say of having not time to react in this life, let alone rehearse? Who has the time, and who has the luxury? If people do not understand what you say as communication, which is not after all, a one sided affair, but rather a process of talk and question, or counter talk, which should, if both sides are willing, result in mutual understanding. From my perspective, it is not inexactness of speech which prevents most understanding, but that understanding requires some change of thought or behavior that the receiving party does not wish to accept.

Apart from that, we talk, hear, see, and feel symbols, and also act through them. I cannot imagine thought or communication without symbols.
Truth is the most fundamental aspect to all philosophy. It is the first brick upon which any house of philosophy rests. If one wants to discover what is true about anything (which all of us do), one must first logically define truth or figure out some methodology by which objects came be regarded as truth without defining truth.

[Gus]

Regarding truth as being true, then, also takes a leap of faith. ;)

[MplsBison]

The only things that objectively true are things that are defined to be true.

1 + 1 = 2 is true regardless of any point of view because we define it to be true.

"Murder is wrong" may be true or false depending on the point of view.


Most things fall into the 2nd catogory and have no definite truthness.

[Fido]

Nathyn wrote: Fido wrote: What exactly is your preoccupation with truth all about. Is there some thing hanging on this truth? Are you making a moonshot or something? The reason I ask is that most people who deal in truth at all seem happy with a near approximation. And having read some of logic and language I can tell you it is not easy to say exactly what you mean to say even if it is the truth.

What did Anni Defranco say of having not time to react in this life, let alone rehearse? Who has the time, and who has the luxury? If people do not understand what you say as communication, which is not after all, a one sided affair, but rather a process of talk and question, or counter talk, which should, if both sides are willing, result in mutual understanding. From my perspective, it is not inexactness of speech which prevents most understanding, but that understanding requires some change of thought or behavior that the receiving party does not wish to accept.

Apart from that, we talk, hear, see, and feel symbols, and also act through them. I cannot imagine thought or communication without symbols.
Truth is the most fundamental aspect to all philosophy. It is the first brick upon which any house of philosophy rests. If one wants to discover what is true about anything (which all of us do), one must first logically define truth or figure out some methodology by which objects came be regarded as truth without defining truth.

To know truth one must disregard time which changes everything, and to disregard time is to disregard truth. Everything before our lives and everything after has a fictional quality about it. Our lives are the essential reality that give all other realities their likeness to truth. But truth is a simple seeming subject that is only as simple as every ones pat answer. The planets are falling into the sun, but the sun has business of its own, and some place it is falling to as well. In a complicated situation philosophy is no better or worse than religion at finding truth. It is beyond us because we cannot stop our lives, or time. Truth is futility. Truth is death. Truth is uncertainty. Truth is time. Settle for what is real, and it may settle for you. All you need is a life time supply of truth. Why buy a truckload if you don't own a truck? If I am getting through to you, nod your bonnet or something.

[Nathyn]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: The only things that objectively true are things that are defined to be true.

1 + 1 = 2 is true regardless of any point of view because we define it to be true.

"Murder is wrong" may be true or false depending on the point of view.


Most things fall into the 2nd catogory and have no definite truthness.
That's not a coherent theory. The first theory is the semantic theory. The second is relative truth. But those two theories are incompatible.

Fido wrote: Nathyn wrote: Fido wrote: What exactly is your preoccupation with truth all about. Is there some thing hanging on this truth? Are you making a moonshot or something? The reason I ask is that most people who deal in truth at all seem happy with a near approximation. And having read some of logic and language I can tell you it is not easy to say exactly what you mean to say even if it is the truth.

What did Anni Defranco say of having not time to react in this life, let alone rehearse? Who has the time, and who has the luxury? If people do not understand what you say as communication, which is not after all, a one sided affair, but rather a process of talk and question, or counter talk, which should, if both sides are willing, result in mutual understanding. From my perspective, it is not inexactness of speech which prevents most understanding, but that understanding requires some change of thought or behavior that the receiving party does not wish to accept.

Apart from that, we talk, hear, see, and feel symbols, and also act through them. I cannot imagine thought or communication without symbols.
Truth is the most fundamental aspect to all philosophy. It is the first brick upon which any house of philosophy rests. If one wants to discover what is true about anything (which all of us do), one must first logically define truth or figure out some methodology by which objects came be regarded as truth without defining truth.

To know truth one must disregard time which changes everything, and to disregard time is to disregard truth. Everything before our lives and everything after has a fictional quality about it. Our lives are the essential reality that give all other realities their likeness to truth. But truth is a simple seeming subject that is only as simple as every ones pat answer. The planets are falling into the sun, but the sun has business of its own, and some place it is falling to as well. In a complicated situation philosophy is no better or worse than religion at finding truth. It is beyond us because we cannot stop our lives, or time. Truth is futility. Truth is death. Truth is uncertainty. Truth is time. Settle for what is real, and it may settle for you. All you need is a life time supply of truth. Why buy a truckload if you don't own a truck? If I am getting through to you, nod your bonnet or something.
You're speaking in poetry and metaphor, like Nietzsche. As amusing as Nietzsche was, I despise such flowery rambling. Be logical.

[tk750]

Nathyn wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: The only things that objectively true are things that are defined to be true.

1 + 1 = 2 is true regardless of any point of view because we define it to be true.

"Murder is wrong" may be true or false depending on the point of view.


Most things fall into the 2nd catogory and have no definite truthness.
That's not a coherent theory. The first theory is the semantic theory. The second is relative truth. But those two theories are incompatible.

Fido wrote: Nathyn wrote: Fido wrote: What exactly is your preoccupation with truth all about. Is there some thing hanging on this truth? Are you making a moonshot or something? The reason I ask is that most people who deal in truth at all seem happy with a near approximation. And having read some of logic and language I can tell you it is not easy to say exactly what you mean to say even if it is the truth.

What did Anni Defranco say of having not time to react in this life, let alone rehearse? Who has the time, and who has the luxury? If people do not understand what you say as communication, which is not after all, a one sided affair, but rather a process of talk and question, or counter talk, which should, if both sides are willing, result in mutual understanding. From my perspective, it is not inexactness of speech which prevents most understanding, but that understanding requires some change of thought or behavior that the receiving party does not wish to accept.

Apart from that, we talk, hear, see, and feel symbols, and also act through them. I cannot imagine thought or communication without symbols.
Truth is the most fundamental aspect to all philosophy. It is the first brick upon which any house of philosophy rests. If one wants to discover what is true about anything (which all of us do), one must first logically define truth or figure out some methodology by which objects came be regarded as truth without defining truth.

To know truth one must disregard time which changes everything, and to disregard time is to disregard truth. Everything before our lives and everything after has a fictional quality about it. Our lives are the essential reality that give all other realities their likeness to truth. But truth is a simple seeming subject that is only as simple as every ones pat answer. The planets are falling into the sun, but the sun has business of its own, and some place it is falling to as well. In a complicated situation philosophy is no better or worse than religion at finding truth. It is beyond us because we cannot stop our lives, or time. Truth is futility. Truth is death. Truth is uncertainty. Truth is time. Settle for what is real, and it may settle for you. All you need is a life time supply of truth. Why buy a truckload if you don't own a truck? If I am getting through to you, nod your bonnet or something.
You're speaking in poetry and metaphor, like Nietzsche. As amusing as Nietzsche was, I despise such flowery rambling. Be logical.

Purpose defines us. Everything exists because of a purpose. The truth cannot be defined according to you. Thus the truth has no purpose. Furthermore the truth does not exist.

I'm simply playing with the idea.

[LostSoul3412]

tk750 wrote: Purpose defines us. Everything exists because of a purpose. The truth cannot be defined according to you. Thus the truth has no purpose. Furthermore the truth does not exist.

I'm simply playing with the idea.

Now the question becomes, who determines purpose for whom?

[Fido]

tk750 wrote: Nathyn wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: The only things that objectively true are things that are defined to be true.

1 + 1 = 2 is true regardless of any point of view because we define it to be true.

"Murder is wrong" may be true or false depending on the point of view.


Most things fall into the 2nd catogory and have no definite truthness.
That's not a coherent theory. The first theory is the semantic theory. The second is relative truth. But those two theories are incompatible.

Fido wrote: Nathyn wrote: Fido wrote: What exactly is your preoccupation with truth all about. Is there some thing hanging on this truth? Are you making a moonshot or something? The reason I ask is that most people who deal in truth at all seem happy with a near approximation. And having read some of logic and language I can tell you it is not easy to say exactly what you mean to say even if it is the truth.

What did Anni Defranco say of having not time to react in this life, let alone rehearse? Who has the time, and who has the luxury? If people do not understand what you say as communication, which is not after all, a one sided affair, but rather a process of talk and question, or counter talk, which should, if both sides are willing, result in mutual understanding. From my perspective, it is not inexactness of speech which prevents most understanding, but that understanding requires some change of thought or behavior that the receiving party does not wish to accept.

Apart from that, we talk, hear, see, and feel symbols, and also act through them. I cannot imagine thought or communication without symbols.
Truth is the most fundamental aspect to all philosophy. It is the first brick upon which any house of philosophy rests. If one wants to discover what is true about anything (which all of us do), one must first logically define truth or figure out some methodology by which objects came be regarded as truth without defining truth.

To know truth one must disregard time which changes everything, and to disregard time is to disregard truth. Everything before our lives and everything after has a fictional quality about it. Our lives are the essential reality that give all other realities their likeness to truth. But truth is a simple seeming subject that is only as simple as every ones pat answer. The planets are falling into the sun, but the sun has business of its own, and some place it is falling to as well. In a complicated situation philosophy is no better or worse than religion at finding truth. It is beyond us because we cannot stop our lives, or time. Truth is futility. Truth is death. Truth is uncertainty. Truth is time. Settle for what is real, and it may settle for you. All you need is a life time supply of truth. Why buy a truckload if you don't own a truck? If I am getting through to you, nod your bonnet or something.
You're speaking in poetry and metaphor, like Nietzsche. As amusing as Nietzsche was, I despise such flowery rambling. Be logical.

Purpose defines us. Everything exists because of a purpose. The truth cannot be defined according to you. Thus the truth has no purpose. Furthermore the truth does not exist.

I'm simply playing with the idea.

Exactly so. The truth does not exist, because truth is too big to be had as an object, and changes in time while existence proper contains all time, space, matter, and change which would be truth were there a perspective from which to view it from without. Life is time, life is change; and from this changing platform of life it is impossible to discern what is eternal, unchanging, and immutable. We can tell what reality is, as a short term life time equivalent of truth. When the great balance of all existence is unknown, truth cannot be known. Truth becomes with the least consideration only a narrow, focused, subjective, abstraction of objective truth. When it is narrowly defined it becomes reality, and when broadly defined become unknowable. What, then, is the point? The one certainty is life, and the one great uncertainty is all filed under the heading of death. Life is reality, and all of existence is truth. What will you waste your life to know?

[MplsBison]

Nathyn wrote:
That's not a coherent theory. The first theory is the semantic theory. The second is relative truth. But those two theories are incompatible.


It's all related to the point of view.

Some truth values change with viewpoint, others don't.

[tk750]

To say that truth does not exist is wrong for if it does not exist then the notion cannot even exist. It cannot be defined but it does exist.

[Fido]

tk750 wrote: To say that truth does not exist is wrong for if it does not exist then the notion cannot even exist. It cannot be defined but it does exist.

The notion of nothing exists, but nothing does not exactly exist. A truth may exist. The truth does not exist. Which is to say The truth does not exist apart from the whole of existence, and the whole of existence, of which we are a part is the only perspective from which we can perceive any truth. Only by blocking one of the parameters of truth: Matter, time, or space, can we say this is the truth, and since we cannot do this in fact, but only in abstraction we cannot have it in reality. For example, I could be very close to the truth in saying change is truth, but for all those who believe truth is unchanging, I am lying. My definition cannot make the truth more meaningless than other definitions make it false. So, if you have reality, which we all have some part of then you have an approximation of the truth without the necessity of legal mumbo jumbo that does not put a finer point on it no matter how much it whittles

[tk750]

Fido wrote: tk750 wrote: To say that truth does not exist is wrong for if it does not exist then the notion cannot even exist. It cannot be defined but it does exist.

The notion of nothing exists, but nothing does not exactly exist. A truth may exist. The truth does not exist. Which is to say The truth does not exist apart from the whole of existence, and the whole of existence, of which we are a part is the only perspective from which we can perceive any truth. Only by blocking one of the parameters of truth: Matter, time, or space, can we say this is the truth, and since we cannot do this in fact, but only in abstraction we cannot have it in reality. For example, I could be very close to the truth in saying change is truth, but for all those who believe truth is unchanging, I am lying. My definition cannot make the truth more meaningless than other definitions make it false. So, if you have reality, which we all have some part of then you have an approximation of the truth without the necessity of legal mumbo jumbo that does not put a finer point on it no matter how much it whittles

Ahh, yes but what exactly determines existence? You and I look at existence in two different ways. I cannot speak for you but I see existence as anything in any degree, no matter how small. Microscopic cells that I cannot see with the naked eye are so miniscule that they (unless of course they're pathogenic) do not affect me. Does this make them any less existant than me? No, as is nothing and truth. We all may have different definitions of the truth. For example, Hitler saw the Jews as evil and I do not. That was his truth and this is my truth. Is there a relativistic or absolute truth? Yet truth is something that cannot be defined. For my truth would be your lie; and your truth would be my lie.

Thus, if we have the slightest notion of something, it exists. If I was to think of the boogeyman, who does not exist in this physical concrete world, he exists in my mind. And that is all we need to determine whether or not something exists.

[tk750]

Nathyn wrote: Regarding the essay I wrote a while ago about theories of truth, someone did convince me that nothing substantial can be said about the truth. Well, I was just thinking about symbolic representations of the truth. Tarski's objection to truth-theory apparently seems to be the same as mine, but still, the semantic theory of truth is equally objectionable.

For any given truth theory, as it seems to me, it would make most sense to write in like this:



That reads, "D of T, for every X, is equal to A of T, for every X." D is the determination of truth, A is the actuality of truth (what actually exists and is, in fact, true), and X is everything which could possibly exist. So, in regular terms, truth is best symbolically defined as, "When the determination of truth, for everything that exists, is equal to the actuality of truth, for everything that exists." In case this isn't clear enough, just imagine the right side of the equation being a list of all statements that could be posed and their corresponding truth-values (true or false) and the left side of the equation being the same list, but generated by a proposed theory of truth rather than necessarily being the actual truth itself.

Now, there's a number of problems with this: First of all, what should be obvious is that the truth encompasses itself, that is, any truth-theory must be inherently self-asserting. This can be viewed two ways: First, from the clear and obvious point that the above formula contains the substructure, T, on both sides of the equation. Both sides of the equation are "of truth." When you talk about truth-theory, you are still talking within the scope of determining whether or not a particular statement is true. In other words, discussing truth-theory involves the question, "Is this statement about truth true?" Whether or not any particular answer is valid depends upon the actual answer. This can be explained rhetorically, but I mention it mathematically here, simply for proper form.

The other way that this point can be demonstrated is that the left side of the equation is within the set of X on the right. We assume that X involves everything assertion which may hold true. Well, if this is true, then the set of X would also contain the left-side of the equation.

And, in order for this statement to be valid:



This must also be valid:



The problem with this is that the equation holds true, no matter what the left side is. And so, for any truth-theory, for the person that proposes it, it is automatically true.

Alfred Tarski came to this conclusion in the 1930's. His proposition was that truth can only be defined if you explicitly define the above terms. And mathematically, this is true: As I said, the truth-theory is self-asserting. Well, if you explicitly define what constitutes "truth," in any given language, then the equation holds. And so, whatever any given language defines as truth, that is the truth.

Tarski explained it as:

For every sentence p of a language, "P" is true if, and only if, p.

Wikipedia uses the example:

"Snow is white," is true, if and only if snow is white.

But not in the sense of there being, in fact, any kind substance to the claim. In other words, if you say, "Grass is green," you can say nothing more about that other than that, within the English language and our system of logic, the statement, "Grass is green," is true. This is the semantic theory of truth, which advanced deflationary theories of truth.

Now, at first, this seemed ridiculous. But upon further examination, I think that this is the only formally valid theory of truth. The problem, however, is this: If the subject we are involved in defining is supposed to encompass the substance of "everything," Tarski's claim that truth is restricted within a particular language cannot hold true. In other words, naturally, we don't perceive the whole of truth as being restricted within a particular language in the same way that we don't perceive it as being subjective.

In mathematics, Tarski's indefinability theorem states, "Arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic." Well, with that same reasoning, "Truth cannot be defined in statements of the truth."

And so, I'd argue that truth is indefinable. We can say nothing substantial about it, but only understand it based upon our intuitions about it. Rather than having discovered a more rational definition of truth, Tarski discovered the only rational way of modeling the truth.

Informally, the semantic theory of truth seems most right: If we consider "truth," to be that which is understood through rational observation, then what the majority of scientists claim to be true is most likely to be correct. They are the most intelligent and have reviewed the most evidence, and so, in my opinion, scientists have tended to be the most truthful, historically. And science as an institution is self-correcting, lending credibility to the suggestion that "truth," is nominal, always moving towards an apparently absolute truth.

Formally, the semantic theory of truth is the only one which is valid, mathematically. But still, the semantic theory of truth, like all truth-theories, is self-asserting, so it's questionable. And the semantic theory of truth doesn't really seem to define "truth," at all, but it's merely a model containing persons who believe they've conceived of the truth. With regard to the semantic theory of truth, if truth is defined in terms of specific languages which define the truth, then how does one determine which language's definition of the truth is, in fact, representative of the truth?

Your equation is wrong. The second one anyway. You cannot do that mathematically thus your whole claim in that the semnatic theory of truth or any theory of truth is wrong is mistaken.

[Nathyn]

tk750 wrote: To say that truth does not exist is wrong for if it does not exist then the notion cannot even exist. It cannot be defined but it does exist.
I don't think anybody's saying that truth does not exist, but simply that truth is in eye of the beholder.

Since I own the eyes that behold truth for me, I'm right and you're wrong. Truth cannot be defined, but it does exist because I believe it does.

tk750 wrote: Your equation is wrong. The second one anyway. You cannot do that mathematically thus your whole claim in that the semnatic theory of truth or any theory of truth is wrong is mistaken.
How's the second one incorrect?

"For all X," would contain the statement itself. If the actual truth contains the truth about everything, then it contains the truth about the definition of truth itself. If the definition of truth does not hold the actual truth about the definition of truth to be true, then the definition of truth is itself false. And thus, all definitions of truth are inherently circular arguments. Because any definition of truth can only be held to be true if it is in fact true. From the standpoint of the one proposing a definition of truth, the definition of truth can never be logically wrong. Definitions of truth can only be logically rejected if one is capable of determining the actual truth without a definition of truth, which would require external observation from an omniscient being.

[Deigo99]

I must admit this is all for the most part out of my depth, but i would like to add one point. If truth is only truth in the eye of the beholder then what of mathmatics? Even the simplest of the human race can see the 1+1=2, so would that be a universal truth, or simply a truth that is simple enough to be truth to everyone? And if one makes the point that truth is change, then does that mean that eventually 1+1 will =3? I find it difficult to concieve truth being in the eye of the beholder, when no matter how many times you at 1 and 1 you will always get 2. (Forgive my rather elementary example)

[Fido]

Deigo99 wrote: I must admit this is all for the most part out of my depth, but i would like to add one point. If truth is only truth in the eye of the beholder then what of mathmatics? Even the simplest of the human race can see the 1+1=2, so would that be a universal truth, or simply a truth that is simple enough to be truth to everyone? And if one makes the point that truth is change, then does that mean that eventually 1+1 will =3? I find it difficult to concieve truth being in the eye of the beholder, when no matter how many times you at 1 and 1 you will always get 2. (Forgive my rather elementary example)

First, math is only a model of truth, which is only useful because it is fairly accurate. But in the example of 1+1= you have to agree that one is one; and that the value is conserved. ( called identity) -But in real life the value of actual qualities is never exact but only approximately exact. One apple equals one apple approximately so they can be counted, but as qualities, every unit changes, -differs- the more exactly it is compared. If you understand that, then one is never exactly one, and when added to another one that is never exactly one then the number will seldom be exactly two, but always approximately two. In the sense that you are adding concepts -apples, which consist of a certain set of apple qualities, you can be exact because an apple as a concept can be treated as a numeral. Number theory works with numbers. You still have to think about what you are actually comparing and adding. Looking at the larger genesis for some rational truth, again, you have to exclude time to fix anything with certainty -spatially.

I have been reading a good History of Ancient Philosophy, and it is two floors away from me now. I bought it, and a ball peen hammer at an estate sale for a dollar. It was translated from German, I guess, in 1925; and takes for granted that the reader is well versed in Greek. That leaves me out. But, the funny thing is that 2500 years ago philosophers were asking these same questions without any possible method of proving or disproving their reasoning. It is amazing that they were laying down much of the basis of science just by suggesting a theory, or as it happened, theories.

[Skiazo]

To find truth, one need only to look around. The laws of nature are truth and the only truth that mankind needs.

[wormwood]

Quote: I must admit this is all for the most part out of my depth, but i would like to add one point. If truth is only truth in the eye of the beholder then what of mathmatics? Even the simplest of the human race can see the 1+1=2 Not necessarily. What If I were adding 1(hour) + 1 (day)? That wouldn't equal 2 of anything.