You are, the way, the truth, and the life. And the anointed secretary of the state of affairs.



Did I get that right? I'm writing this down for future generations.

The true self is connected to everyone.

Everyone is the way, the truth and the life.

We are the only reality, and we are consciousness.

We are TRUTH.

As Depak Chopra says:

I am that, you are that, this is that, and that's all there is.

You mean you're not the secretary of the state of affairs?

Whew! It's a good thing I didn't write that down in the Gossips.

So you are saying, "I am that, you are that, this is that, and that's all there is."

Sounds nice and concise.

A bit on semantics...



Semantics are vital to effective communication, there can be no doubt about that. I mean, broadly speaking, semantics refers to what people mean when they use any particular word, phrase, etc. It broadly refers to meaning. The important thing to note, especially in this context, is that sometimes things are - quite simply - not a matter of arguing semantics; not a matter of arguing over which definition is preferred, ought be used, etc. Meaning is both personal and social. Personal in that specific terms, phrases, names and the like can invoke past emotion and mind states, and social in that most every term we learn necessarily involves a social element(talking, books, etc).

Hence, because we are aware of the personal element, a good philosophical discussion/debate often begins with one defining their terms at the outset, this is especially true of contentious ones. That is because people versed in philosophy understand the issues that can arise from arguing over definitions, from arguing semantics. There are bigger fish to fry. The frying pan is a disciplined approach. As bushido noted earlier, if a term is given a specific value, then - if we expect to arrive at a meaningful conclusion - we must remain consistent/coherent throughout. In order to remain consistent the value must hold throughout the formulation(conversation).

Wittgenstein changed the face of modern philosophy by showing how meaning is use, and by showing how use is learned. Our dictionaries are constantly being updated to show the most common uses of a term - not a proper definition, just the most common use(s). Definitions(meaning) are given in numeric order from 1(being the most common use of the term) thru however many other uses are common enough to warrant their inclusion. So really there can be little argument regarding whether or not a term is most commonly used to mean this or that. Webster has gathered and organized that info for us. Thus, on the one hand, I would completely agree with Abra's earlier claim that doing philosophy out of a dictionary is rather pointless, especially if that involves nothing other than pointing out the most common uses of a term. On the other, definitions are the basis of written language, and communication itself depends upon shared meaning of the terms being used to communicate an idea and/or thought - in context, because different uses apply to different contexts.

We might think therefore, as some traditional schools of thought would have it, that it only follows that in order to understand what it is that someone is saying we must understand what it is that they mean. In order to understand what they mean we must agree upon the definitions of each of the terms in question, otherwise communication is doomed to fail.

However, we would be wrong to continue holding such a thing, and Davidson and others have shown this in a remarkably irrefutable and undeniable fashion.

We can dispel with word for word semantics. We can dispel with a focus and/or dependence upon individual terminological meaning altogether, and in doing so leave that sort of "semantics" and all of the unnecessary arguments behind. We need only to employ charity(which basically means that we grant from the very outset that the terms being used are being used in common fashion), and treat the meaning of a claim or set of claims as a whole, rather than as individual terms having individual meanings being bound together by syntax(the structural/grammatical rules of any given natural language). In other words, all we must know in order to grasp the meaning of another's claim(s) is what it would take for the claim(s) to be true. We know this because it is quite clear that if a listener knows what it would take for a speaker's claim to be true, then by default alone, the listener knows what the speaker's claim means. That is the case because truth itself is central to all thought, belief, and language, and there are no private languages. Thus Davidson's approach holds good in all cases where the parties share a common language.

I would like to add a bit to this notion...

It is not wrong, on my view, to use a term in common fashion. I mean, afterall meaning is use. Rather, it is wrong to insist(not that you are) that only one use pertains to all contexts. It is also self-defeating to insist upon equating two terms which can be used as synonyms, but also have very distinct uses, especially in a philosophical context where understanding the distinction itself is crucial to grasping the whole of the argument being presented.



A very common use of the term, perhaps the most common in the US. "The truth" here meaning honest testimony.



Another very common use, "the truth of the matter" here meaning what actually took place, or the ways things are/were; the case at hand; the states of affairs; fact/reality.



Perhaps not so much an inaccurate one Di. Could it be just a matter of conventional speaking habits producing an uncertainty where none ought exist, where none need to exist? Namely, an uncertainty regarding truth. Could it be that truth, itself, has been Orwellianized? You've read 1984, yes? If not, I suggest it for it offers a good understanding of how words and concepts can come to mean very different things than what they are or were through intentional misusage alone. Such misusage can result in negative stigmas that evolve by later producing immediate mindsets in an entire generation of people. The collective conscience - the moral fiber of a nation - can be intentionally and deliberately altered by purposeful attachment to certain ideas, terms, concepts, and notions on a broadscale basis if a means to do so is available and one has access to the means.

Witness... Ronald Reagan's "The government is the problem."

To the topic at hand, all I've attempted to show throughout this thread is how common terminological use can, and often does, affect/effect our own understanding - sometimes in ways that heighten understanding and sometimes in ways that darken it. If our understanding is about the way things are, and it is without exception, then we must be very disciplined in our everyday descriptions, in our everyday usage, because tomorrow's thought/belief about the way things are will follow from the manner by which we come to terms with it - today and yesterday.

I am not a proposing that all thought is formed in words. Rather, I am proposing that if we do not become aware of how our linguistic expressions affect/effect our thoughts and our actions we cannot possibly exercise intentional, deliberate, and purposeful self-direction(aka free will). Everything we claim is necessarily prefixed by "I think", therefore we cannot possibly escape that element of subjectivity. It is inherent to a thinking subject. It is also self-evident that initial thought/belief formation is autonomous, and that repetitive thought/belief becomes internalized. It only follows that by our repeatedly using certain descriptions and/or using certain words in order to convey our thoughts on any given matter, that those words/terms will become part of how our future experiences will be framed in thought.



You're very welcome. Is there a more important pursuit?



Again, thank you for your engagement here Di. You never disappoint. To this day, I hold fond memories of our discussion regarding the ever-evolving dynamic of individual maturity in a thread about maturity itself, rather than the most common use of the term. We work quite well together...

Creative, I know you do not like the idea of the two distinct differences between scientific true and personal true.

But there is no way around the two.

Lets take it from another angle....

I want you to show me in what scenerio one person's truth of an event they experienced (which is almost all reasons for belief/truths that people share/remember/learn from/etc...) is the exact same/universal for all other people.

If this cannot be done then there is no way to say that personal truth is not subjective.

Scientific truth never deals in one person's personal experience as a base for fact so we cannot use that form of true.

The personal truth of "I exist" is totally subjective.

If a person believes that "I" is "my body" then that part of "I" is objective. You can call it a "fact" that I have a body, if you wish.

You can call it a fact that I have a pot belly if you wish.

I'm pretty sure that if you saw it you would agree that it's self-evident.

I'm eating a chocolate wafer bar right now too boot. Thus insuring that this self-evident manifestation doesn't disappear from the physical matrix anytime soon.

Although there may come a day when I get off my lazy butt and exercise, thus magically transforming a previous self-evident truth into a false fable of days gone by.

Truth has a way of changing over time I imagine.

ditto

Donut. Chocolate covered.

In every scenario...

I believe X means I believe X is true.



Personal "truth" is just another name for belief.

No I don't think so. Personal truth is personal experience. It is only seen as "belief" from your (another) point of view.

Nevermind...

It's not worth it.

You don't seem to understand. Everything is really still an opinion.

I think you pretty much made YOUR point Creative, so why to you persist?

Do you have another point to make?

Aw shut up and eat your opinion... I mean donut.

I did. It was delicious. Here, have one. Have some tea too. Cheers!

Are those pictures of opinion?

Visual aids.

Visual aids are opinion?