Who are you to questions one's interpretation of The Truth? Because my idea of truth does not fit your mold your definition you would have me set here n defend what it is to me. No thanks. I discussed only i used your own comments to assist in proving the thread question, in my eyes or as i see it my Truth. It is SUBJECTIVE.

Yet the difference in what you are doing and i have done is i accept you have your view and i have mine. I walk away feeling as if i presented the truth and it's meaning from my view. Good night.

Who am I?



I'm the one reading what you write. You called truth an opinion, I just read it.

I accept that you have your view. I do not accept that you understand truth. That takes being shewn.

Thus far, all that's been shewn is that you confuse truth with opinion, belief, fact, and reality. That is indicative of misunderstanding truth.

There is no 'his truth', 'her truth', 'your truth', and 'my truth'. Rather, there is his belief, her belief, your belief, and my belief.

It is either true or not, and that is not determined by what we think about.

This makes no sense whatsoever. If truth "is as one person's mind perceives it", then truth is personal perception/worldview. Perception/worldviews can be false. Truth cannot. Therefore, truth cannot be as one person's mind perceives it.

It is also self-contradictory because personal perception/worldview is belief based. Therefore, if truth is perception/worldview, it is belief-based. Thus, to say truth is not belief but rather is as one's mind perceives it is to arrive at an inherent contradiction.



If you hurt, then it is a fact that you hurt, not "the truth". If you say 'I am in pain' and that claim is true, it is so because your words correspond to fact/reality.



First, facts are states of affairs, they cannot be distorted. Rather, one's interpretation of the facts can be. Interpretation is thought/belief about the way things are. That is being distorted, not the facts.



You're confusing truth with belief about the way things are. False belief exists. Belief about the way things are can be false. Truth cannot. Therefore, truth is not belief about the way things are.

Interpretation is subjective.

No argument here. It can also be false. Truth cannot. Therefore, truth is not interpretation.

We only have our interpretation ... and we act upon that ... this feels a little deja vu

They're tied together... necessarily so.

Well that seals it right there.

Since truth ultimately comes down to a human's definition of the concept. And different people have different interpretations of that definition, then it quite naturally follows that truth is necessarily subjective based on that simple observation alone.

Exxman and Creative simply have different interpretations of how they view the concept of truth.

Just as Exxman has explained.



Exactly.

Clearly I have a totally different interpretations of the concept of truth from Creative as well.

But he can't seem to comprehend this.

He appears to be under some extreme delusion that only his interpretation of the concept of truth is correct, and everyone else's interpretations are "wrong".

"It" being what you think constitutes sufficient reason to believe.



It does not follow from the fact that different people have different interpretations of any given definition, that that which is being defined is subjective.



Interpretations can be wrong, truth cannot.

Not only do I comprehend it, I've shown how it is invalid reasoning. I've shown how it is based upon false presupposition and ends in logical absurdity.



Nonsense. Confusing your thoughts about reality with reality.



That is the epitome of delusion.

Here is the introduction to Wikipedia's explanation of truth:



According to #1 Truth has a variety of meanings

I agree. This is why it is wise to listen carefully to which concept of truth a person it using when they use this term.

According to #2 Truth must have beneficial use to be retained within language.

I agree. If you can't explain what you mean in a pragmatic and comprehensible way when you refer to your concept of truth, then you have a useless term.

Crying that everyone else is 'wrong' simply because you can't explain your ideals of truth in a practical meaningful way is a futile position to take.

According to #3 Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars and philosophers.

So proclaiming that any particular view of truth is the only correct view has no more merit than proclaiming that a particular religious dogma is the only correct truth.

It's just a personal view and personal interpretation of what some individual would like to believe is the "correct philosophy".

~~~~

From Webster's Dictionary:

1. sincerity in action, character, and utterance

2. a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>

3. the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

~~~~

Notice that #'s 2 and 3 from Webster's dictionary are in accordance with my view that descriptions and statements themselves are considered to be "truhts" once they have been accepted as being 'true'.

So clearly the people at Webster's dictionary agree with my interpretations and views of on the concept of truth.

~~~~~~

Here are some other views and interpretations of truth at this website.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm

They break truth up into different types of truth as well.

They speak of Ontological Truth, and Logical Truth.

I used different terms. I used "Zen Truth" and "Analytical Truth", but I explained what I meant by the term that I introduced.

This website also breaks Logical Truth down into quite a few different interpretive camps:

1. The Scholastic theory
2. The Hegelian theory
3. The Pragmatic theory
4. The "New" Realist's theory

I'm sure that other organizations and institutions offer their own interpretations of various ways of viewing the meaning of 'truth'.

I didn't bother reading all of these different views because I'm simply not interested. I have my own practical view which works quite well for communicating what I mean by 'truth' to anyone who has an open mind and is willing to actually take the time to understand what I mean by 'truth'.

The views and definitions that I use for the concept of 'truth' are both logically consistent and easy to understand and apply in a meaningful practical way.

So even if you personally disagree with how I use the term 'truth' that doesn't make my use of the term 'wrong'. It simply means that I use the term differently from your own personal philosophies concerning the concept.

~~~~

As I have pointed out, you have not been able to show me how your ideals of this concept could be applied in a meaningful and useful way.

Even Wikipedia had recognized that any concept of truth that has no beneficial or practical meaning can hardly be retained within language since such an ill-defined concept would have no meaning to anyone.

Language that has no meaning is a meaningless language.

~~~~~~

So until you can lay out a specific practical method of how your views and interpretations of 'truth' can actually be used in a meaningful way to determine whether something should be considered to be a truth or not, then you have no meaningful concept of truth.

And thus far you have been unable to do that.

So even if I accept that you have your own esoteric interpretation of truth, your interpretation is still quite meaningless to me because you have been unable to communicate how your idea of truth can actually be used in a meaningful way to determine the truth of anything.

A meaningless idea of truth that cannot be applied in a practical way is indeed meaningless.

You have done no such thing.

I have told you that I assign values of "truth" or "falsehood" to statements.

You simply disagree that statements themselves are what is being evaluated for a "truth" value.

You have some obscure notion of 'truth' in your mind that you feel applies to something ELSE. Yet you are unable to clearly define what this something ELSE is.

You keep referring to truth as a "correspondence", as if that concept itself has some absolute objective meaning on its own whilst you completely ignore the actual things that are being corresponded.

So you refuse to accept my position that it is indeed the statement or description of a state of affairs that is being assigned a value of "truth" or "falseness".

And then you set about proclaiming that my definitions and processes for determining truth are "Logically Flawed" because they don't match up with your esoteric ideas of what you think truth should be.

Well duh!

If you are attempting to apply my definitions of truth to YOUR concepts of truth, then of course they are going to appear to be illogical to you. They don't apply to YOUR IDEA of what you think truth should mean.

It's that simple.

My idea and interpretation of truth is an assignment that we give to a description of a state of affairs.

You reject that very idea.

However, if you were to accept that idea, then you could see how it is indeed totally logically consistent.

Truth is nothing more than something that mankind assigned to descriptions of states of affairs. It's an entirely man-made concept.

You refuse to acknowledge that this is indeed a valid way of defining truth.

So you run off and define truth differently and then proclaim that my logical fails by your definition of truth.

Who cares?

My logic applies to my definition of truth. Not to yours!

Until you acknowledge that I am assigning a truth value to a description, and truth is nothing more than a property of that description, then you are not understanding or accepting my definition.

And by the way this is the same definition that Webster gives:

From Webster's Dictionary"

Truth - 3. the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

They are on the same page I'm on.

They recognize that truth is a property of a statement.

It is something that we assign to a statement when we have agreed that it is in accord with fact or reality.

~~~~~~

So, if you want to claim that I'm wrong, then you must also claim that Webster's Dictionary is wrong as well.

Not to mention the entire scientific and mathematical communities.

So at least I'm in GOOD COMPANY!

So i read from where i left off and thought to myself, if one person's state of mind is that their view is the only view and everyone else is wrong, how can they know truth?

Truth has so many definitions and APPLICATIONS that it comes down to the context and view it is being used from. I am sure this will be said to be false but the only thing i would say to that is perhaps maybe we are on to something here.

Delusion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about psychiatric condition. For the concept in Eastern spirituality, see Delusion (spirituality).
See also: Delusional disorder
Delusion
Classification and external resources
ICD-10 F22.
ICD-9 297
MeSH D003702

A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, stupidity, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception.

Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression.

Definition

Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1913 book General Psychopathology.[2] These criteria are:

certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)[3]

Furthermore, when a false belief involves a value judgment, it is only considered as a delusion if it is so extreme that it cannot be or ever can be proven true (example: a man claims that he flew into the sun and flew back home. This would be considered a delusion). [4]

Delusions are not due to a medical condition or substance abuse and they may seem believable at face value.[5]

Delusions are not tied to any particular disease and they usually occur in the context of neurological or mental illness. Also, they have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states.


Waves @ Art i wanna interpret your mood from your shoes


Having said all this and understanding the definitions. Ask yourself where do you stand in The Truth?

Again this is just the TRUTH i see this from.

No. Confusing your thought/belief with reality.

Not only do I accept, but I understand your position of assigning a "truth value" to a description. I also understand that doing that is the process of verification. I further understand that "truth value" is not truth. Apparently you do not know the difference between the two, despite being repeatedly shown. You're perpetuating the empirical DOGMA that modern philosophers have long since known has existed concerning analytic/synthetic truth. Parrot is not just a bird.

A verified claim is given a "truth value". It is called "true". Verification does not determine truth. For if it did, verified claims could not be false.

"Truth value" is also attributed by constructing a truth table in propositional/sentencial logic. Truth tables presuppose the truth of claims. Logic presupposes truth. Logic is about correct reasoning/inference. Truth tables are a measure of coherency/argumentative form, not truth.

None of these methods gaurantee that the statements/descriptions are true. A verified claim can still be false. An assumed premiss and the following argument can pass a truth table test and still be false.

Truth cannot be false. It only follows that these methods do not determine truth.

Correspondence to fact/reality does.



No. Confusing your thought/belief with reality.

There have been at least three distinct issues throughout this discussion. One being a deep deficiency in your understanding of how correspondence works. You're repeatedly setting it out wrong clearly proves that deficiency. I've already taken the time and shown how your objections to correspondence are completely irrelevant.

The second being your failure to adequately explain and/or reconcile the logical flaws that were shown as inherent in the position that you're arguing for. Namely, that you've conflated between true claims and that which makes them so, between belief and truth, between descriptions and truth, between verification and truth, etc. There is an entire post made up exclusively of your claims which contradict one another. This has been clearly shown, and still stands unattended. Your position is completely incoherent despite your refusal to acknowledge that fact.

Third, the flaws in your argument have nothing to do with matching up with my position. All subjective truth arguments, are incoherent and self-contradictory. They also cannot account for current knowledge. All of that is well known, and has been shown several times over without due attention.

The posturing is sad, but arguing philosophy from Wiki and a dictionary is sadder. Saddest is the fact that you do not even understand what that Wiki article says, and as a result your arguing about what different people mean when the use the term "truth", and holding the Wiki article up as though it validates your position that truth is a description, belief, and/or whatever we define it to be.

Sad indeed.

As if you know that I think everyone else is wrong. Funny. The few participants in this thread do not constitute everybody other than myself. Even funnier is the fact that you've invoked Jasper. One of my favorites.



Try again. How about you answer the questions?

What is the difference between a true belief and a false one? What is the difference between truth and belief?

Anyone who uses the phrase "The Truth" has no idea what truth is.



Sad.

I am sorry to read your need to attack other user's thoughts / posts / and views. However if you clear your head and read where i came in at and what i have typed you will find all i did is tell you my thoughts on Is Truth subjective.

You have chosen to get away from the topic and attack people. This is no longer a discussion about the question or an answer to the question. It has become your issue, not mine.

certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)[3]

Furthermore, when a false belief involves a value judgment, it is only considered as a delusion if it is so extreme that it cannot be or ever can be proven true (example: a man claims that he flew into the sun and flew back home. This would be considered a delusion). [4]

Delusions are not due to a medical condition or substance abuse and they may seem believable at face value.[5]

I used our discussion as an example of how Truth is Subjective.
You chose a path other than that. Good luck and I don't know Jasper, but i can read that his eyes are open.