"A man does not believe the truth he holds, but believes the truth that holds him. "
I ran across this quote in an old early 2oth century textbook today. Agree or disagree?
Truth
Moderator: Moderators
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #3
very profound quote.
There's a great article in newsweek about denial. In fact this quote from Wanda Sykes still makes me livid.
"You stick to that lie. You believe in that lie so much that it becomes the truth to you."
GUAH!
Anyway the quote makes me think about the whole inner/ outer perspective analogies. Is the word revolving around me, or am I revolving around the world type of thing, though badly put.
It's almost as though it implies self conscious, doesn't it? The ideals we've grown up with, though never recognized, might be held as truths to some. And those people are sometimes the hardest shells to crack when it comes to what we're discussing.
I thought today that the people I work with are ignorant about new knowledge. Which is pretty typical of this job setting. I'm the new guy, and there's nothing I can probably teach them in their minds, so most of the days are crap.
Furrowed brow's statement I can agree with. It is a skill. That's a perfect definition. Especially compared to what I've mentioned above. It takes so much effort and time to find one's own free will and to confirm beliefs.
There's a great article in newsweek about denial. In fact this quote from Wanda Sykes still makes me livid.
"You stick to that lie. You believe in that lie so much that it becomes the truth to you."
GUAH!
Anyway the quote makes me think about the whole inner/ outer perspective analogies. Is the word revolving around me, or am I revolving around the world type of thing, though badly put.
It's almost as though it implies self conscious, doesn't it? The ideals we've grown up with, though never recognized, might be held as truths to some. And those people are sometimes the hardest shells to crack when it comes to what we're discussing.
I thought today that the people I work with are ignorant about new knowledge. Which is pretty typical of this job setting. I'm the new guy, and there's nothing I can probably teach them in their minds, so most of the days are crap.
Furrowed brow's statement I can agree with. It is a skill. That's a perfect definition. Especially compared to what I've mentioned above. It takes so much effort and time to find one's own free will and to confirm beliefs.
-
AClockWorkOrange
- Scholar
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:07 pm
- Location: Alaska
Post #4
the iffy thing about "truth" is that its whole concept seems to be the invention of the intelligent mind.
we assume that our intelligence is so incredible and that we are some great entity and pinnacle in the universe, as reflected by the Judeo God's favoritism of us.
if we look at every other being around us, they do not seem to search for abstract reasoning or definition of the world, they just live.
Intelligence is a bizar and new evolutionary step that isnt working out for us very well.
with it, we invented the concepts of God, Civilization, Agriculture, and "Truth". These are just extensions of our inhanced ability to interact and absorb our surroundings.
Truth is nice and fun, and tends to make us feel nice and can make our lives easier (harnessing electricity, etc.)
But really, it isnt very real. It certainly isnt consistant with the rest of the universe.
I understand the logical fallacy of "the truth is there is no truth" and i bet you feel big and powerful for being the first to think of it. Bravo.
But here it is: the concept of a truth and universal meaning to things is a human construct, i the way that laws are a human concept, and words and language. They are real becuase we choose to hold them as such. But, if we abandon them, they disapear. Ideas are like that.
That is where they differ from the rest of the universe, where matter and energy (i use these terms becuase that is how i know to define them) exist regardless of their recognition of existance for all i know.
Meaning and truth does not.
These words i type are just shapes that ascribe meaning too. The shapes exist, the meaning behind have to be attached.
Truth is, as lame as it is to say: An Illusion.
we assume that our intelligence is so incredible and that we are some great entity and pinnacle in the universe, as reflected by the Judeo God's favoritism of us.
if we look at every other being around us, they do not seem to search for abstract reasoning or definition of the world, they just live.
Intelligence is a bizar and new evolutionary step that isnt working out for us very well.
with it, we invented the concepts of God, Civilization, Agriculture, and "Truth". These are just extensions of our inhanced ability to interact and absorb our surroundings.
Truth is nice and fun, and tends to make us feel nice and can make our lives easier (harnessing electricity, etc.)
But really, it isnt very real. It certainly isnt consistant with the rest of the universe.
I understand the logical fallacy of "the truth is there is no truth" and i bet you feel big and powerful for being the first to think of it. Bravo.
But here it is: the concept of a truth and universal meaning to things is a human construct, i the way that laws are a human concept, and words and language. They are real becuase we choose to hold them as such. But, if we abandon them, they disapear. Ideas are like that.
That is where they differ from the rest of the universe, where matter and energy (i use these terms becuase that is how i know to define them) exist regardless of their recognition of existance for all i know.
Meaning and truth does not.
These words i type are just shapes that ascribe meaning too. The shapes exist, the meaning behind have to be attached.
Truth is, as lame as it is to say: An Illusion.
Post #5
Yes, I like that quote.
When we really believe something, it grips us, changes us. I'd call it 'conviction'. When we have a conviction about something, especially if it is a powerful spiritual truth (e.g. there will be a day of judgment) it begins to affect our thoughts, feelings and actions.
Thanks.
When we really believe something, it grips us, changes us. I'd call it 'conviction'. When we have a conviction about something, especially if it is a powerful spiritual truth (e.g. there will be a day of judgment) it begins to affect our thoughts, feelings and actions.
Thanks.
-
realthinker
- Sage
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:57 am
- Location: Tampa, FL
Post #6
You might have run across it here otherwise, but I'll explain it again. An individual's understanding of truth has two parts, correspondence and cohesion.
For something to be true it must correspond to observable phenomenon. We know that we cannot defy gravity. We know that fire burns us. We know we cannot breath water. You can quibble particular circumstances, but at face value all those things are true because our experience has shown us nothing else. If we were to believe anything contrary to those we would not likely live particularly long.
Now, for those things not so easily observable we apply logic and introduce ideas that build for us a cohesive set of beliefs. The atomic theory of the atom isn't something that we can really observe, but we can apply the theory to a condition that allows us to predict chemical behavior and observe results that are compatible with the theory's ideas. We hold beliefs that will never correspond to directly observable phenomenon, but the ideas work. They are not generally contradictory to our experience.
However, in an isolated environment we can experience phenomenon that are misinterpreted by everyone within the population. In fact, our population may build a set of ideas that are entirely coherent but are substantially non-correspondent to anything that is real. Still, it's been a framework of belief that has improved the success of the population as a whole. Because it's a framework that's really of no consequence except to drive behavior, it's no matter that it's all myth. The only catch is that hte population has to remain isolated or hte myths start to fall apart as they are contradicted by myths from another population.
That's where religion stands today. When we were small towns, semi-isolated by distance and lack of communication, religion was the cornerstone of society. It held us together, made us cooperative and fostered social contribution. But today it's becoming more of a divisive force. We fight to hold onto our arbitrary but coherent way of beliefs and try to discredit others who are doing the same. That's what this discussion arena is all about.
It's all about who's arbitrary, relatively inconsequential, version of the truth is more acceptable.
In the end, they're all false to a great degree. Yet we as a society have to have some common understanding of truth. We must cooperate and interact with trust if society is to remain stable, much less grow and prosper. Truth, the absolute truth that cannot be argued against, is that fundamental layer that lets us all live side-by-side and function as a society. The rest is fluff. Too bad no one notices and points out what that fundamental layer is. It's entirely taken for granted.
For something to be true it must correspond to observable phenomenon. We know that we cannot defy gravity. We know that fire burns us. We know we cannot breath water. You can quibble particular circumstances, but at face value all those things are true because our experience has shown us nothing else. If we were to believe anything contrary to those we would not likely live particularly long.
Now, for those things not so easily observable we apply logic and introduce ideas that build for us a cohesive set of beliefs. The atomic theory of the atom isn't something that we can really observe, but we can apply the theory to a condition that allows us to predict chemical behavior and observe results that are compatible with the theory's ideas. We hold beliefs that will never correspond to directly observable phenomenon, but the ideas work. They are not generally contradictory to our experience.
However, in an isolated environment we can experience phenomenon that are misinterpreted by everyone within the population. In fact, our population may build a set of ideas that are entirely coherent but are substantially non-correspondent to anything that is real. Still, it's been a framework of belief that has improved the success of the population as a whole. Because it's a framework that's really of no consequence except to drive behavior, it's no matter that it's all myth. The only catch is that hte population has to remain isolated or hte myths start to fall apart as they are contradicted by myths from another population.
That's where religion stands today. When we were small towns, semi-isolated by distance and lack of communication, religion was the cornerstone of society. It held us together, made us cooperative and fostered social contribution. But today it's becoming more of a divisive force. We fight to hold onto our arbitrary but coherent way of beliefs and try to discredit others who are doing the same. That's what this discussion arena is all about.
It's all about who's arbitrary, relatively inconsequential, version of the truth is more acceptable.
In the end, they're all false to a great degree. Yet we as a society have to have some common understanding of truth. We must cooperate and interact with trust if society is to remain stable, much less grow and prosper. Truth, the absolute truth that cannot be argued against, is that fundamental layer that lets us all live side-by-side and function as a society. The rest is fluff. Too bad no one notices and points out what that fundamental layer is. It's entirely taken for granted.
Post #7
I wouldn't say entire taken for granted. We have to consider the overall idea behind these myths and the mentality they establish. There are way too many factors within this society which determine general concensus, and yes, there are still enough people isolated enough within their own cultures to demonstrate exactly what you're providing.realthinker wrote:You might have run across it here otherwise, but I'll explain it again. An individual's understanding of truth has two parts, correspondence and cohesion.
For something to be true it must correspond to observable phenomenon. We know that we cannot defy gravity. We know that fire burns us. We know we cannot breath water. You can quibble particular circumstances, but at face value all those things are true because our experience has shown us nothing else. If we were to believe anything contrary to those we would not likely live particularly long.
Now, for those things not so easily observable we apply logic and introduce ideas that build for us a cohesive set of beliefs. The atomic theory of the atom isn't something that we can really observe, but we can apply the theory to a condition that allows us to predict chemical behavior and observe results that are compatible with the theory's ideas. We hold beliefs that will never correspond to directly observable phenomenon, but the ideas work. They are not generally contradictory to our experience.
However, in an isolated environment we can experience phenomenon that are misinterpreted by everyone within the population. In fact, our population may build a set of ideas that are entirely coherent but are substantially non-correspondent to anything that is real. Still, it's been a framework of belief that has improved the success of the population as a whole. Because it's a framework that's really of no consequence except to drive behavior, it's no matter that it's all myth. The only catch is that hte population has to remain isolated or hte myths start to fall apart as they are contradicted by myths from another population.
That's where religion stands today. When we were small towns, semi-isolated by distance and lack of communication, religion was the cornerstone of society. It held us together, made us cooperative and fostered social contribution. But today it's becoming more of a divisive force. We fight to hold onto our arbitrary but coherent way of beliefs and try to discredit others who are doing the same. That's what this discussion arena is all about.
It's all about who's arbitrary, relatively inconsequential, version of the truth is more acceptable.
In the end, they're all false to a great degree. Yet we as a society have to have some common understanding of truth. We must cooperate and interact with trust if society is to remain stable, much less grow and prosper. Truth, the absolute truth that cannot be argued against, is that fundamental layer that lets us all live side-by-side and function as a society. The rest is fluff. Too bad no one notices and points out what that fundamental layer is. It's entirely taken for granted.
I mean I agree almost completely. But I'm just picky enough to use different wording. Individual experience do lead to better understanding in relation to a personal culture, and if we look back on experience we can relate every reason and logically based idea from some experience we've learned before.
The key flaw is how it's typically bridged. Have you considered what might lead or transcend individual experience to religious experience? Or how people's mentalities become fixated on one certain raising?
I'd like to hear more.
But the trend I'm unhappy with are the people who only look for what the general concensus would find as moral or just. They literally mimic what others would agree (I think, for fear of ridicule) and in spite of what other ideas may actually enlighten or question their own core values.
The election is coming up next year, and that's when these ideas and values and mentalities become truly problematic.
Post #8
Welcome to the DC&R forums bbc1785bbc1785 wrote:Yes, I like that quote.
When we really believe something, it grips us, changes us. I'd call it 'conviction'. When we have a conviction about something, especially if it is a powerful spiritual truth (e.g. there will be a day of judgment) it begins to affect our thoughts, feelings and actions.
Thanks.
Arbitrary convictions could be called superstitions. I have created a personal conviction that a particular pair of socks is unlucky -- there's not much I can do to rid myself of this conviction as such is fate and causality that I can attribute any subsequent misfortune to their wearing. Despite counting myself as rational in most other matters, I simply have to leave those particular socks in the drawer.
Post #9
One way of ridding this superstition would be to throw the socks that are unlucky away.QED wrote:Welcome to the DC&R forums bbc1785bbc1785 wrote:Yes, I like that quote.
When we really believe something, it grips us, changes us. I'd call it 'conviction'. When we have a conviction about something, especially if it is a powerful spiritual truth (e.g. there will be a day of judgment) it begins to affect our thoughts, feelings and actions.
Thanks.
Unless of course you feel that those socks must be kept in the drawer so another pair of socks does not to take on their unlucky behavior.Post #10
Quite. By retaining the socks at the back of the drawer the "unlucky spell" is contained. It's worked thus far (as attested to by a couple of lucky incidents) - so why risk changing anything?Onorc wrote: One way of ridding this superstition would be to throw the socks that are unlucky away.
