Leyla Shen wrote:Man.
Bondi wrote:
Nope, truth cannot be a human construct, since that would mean that there is no truth but individual truths, which is a contradiction in terms. In reality, one cannot monopolise a true idea as one's own, because it becomes a mere fantasy, losing all its scope and genuine being.
On the contrary, if an idea is true, then it belongs to all those who can grasp it. Only in this way can truth encorporate all aspects of humanity.
And this last statement is not a contradiction, how?
It is not contradiction because truth is a combination of "facts". for example simple truth "tree fell in the woods". There can be only one truth (lets call it X for clarity), the (fact a) of such event actualy happening
and (fact b) it being accuratly identified. Other
truths would not be
true if they would not contain both facts together.
By the use of the term “those†instead of “humanâ€? How do you separate “an idea that belongs to all those who can grasp itâ€
from a “human construct.â€
Animals or any living being in fact can grasp the "some" of truth by the fact of such event actualy happening
and it being acuratly identified. That does not mean that the absolute truth does not exist just becouese we can not identify with absolute certainty how close we are to it.
Truth is not a human construct. reminds me of that question (if you dont look at the moon does it mean that the moon is not there?) The Human construct would be reconstruction of such truth and how close
humanswould get to it. As with prediction of future only backwards to the couse from results. In both instances we would not be able to tell how close we are to the
real truth or X without verification of the (fact a). How close to Future truth human construct is would be arived at eventuly when (fact a) happens. Hence the
truth and
human construct are two separate labels for two different things. human constructs can be many,each different distace from the
only real truth.
From this i would deduct that what you mean that there is no Lie. you know that excuse "Not telling the truth is not same as lie." ? well from the above it follows that everything is
human construct that is not absolute (X) truth. the only difference is you perception of the distance of the
human construct to the (X). If its too far (how long is a piece of string?) then you can call that
human construct a lie.
Is not everything you do and think a consequence of being human and constructing accordingly? In other words, how do you perceive and understand Truth outside of being human? What makes you, Bondi, non-human?
How does this work as a proof or what does it have to do with proving multiple truths anyway?
An animal, for example, functions -- albeit unconsciously -- on the basis of A=A. Its alignment with that Truth could be assumed to manifest as animal construct from the viewpoint of human construct, no?
Ahh, here we go now you are calling your
human construct different name just becouse it has been constructed by animal
animal construct. (why not call it perception construct? would be easier i think.) Animals having inferior
perception constructbuilding machines (brain) would not be as close to the truth as a human with incomplete (fact a) and (fact b), but it would not be
individual truth. hence should not be called truth. just makes it confusing. There is only one truth. This tendancy of taking same word and using them for different meaning is confusing and hence
idea of multiple truthts in my opininon.
To my way of thinking, “individual truths†would be defined as particularities of experience and knowledge, including the breaking, maintenance and expression of individual and/or group-held delusions. Indeed, whilst intimately connected to Ultimate Truth by necessity -- which would be that/those truth/s which is/are universal/absolute from the viewpoint of human -- they are not a direct and conscious expression in the light of Ultimate Truth (which is what makes them delusion,
apparently!).
now you are contradicting your previous statements :S and using word combination "individual truths" guess it is just bad word selection after all?
I think you unnecessarily limit your definition of human. Why?
Well thats question i cant answer, because im not bondi :P ohh this is not for me after all :S ups.[/quote]
ps. inteligence is the tool with wich you can judge the perception constructs and how far they are from the real truth. The higher the inteligence the better the jugement and hence rebuilding the perception construct that matches closer to the reality (truth X) of course some constructs can not be matched to truth "perfectly acuratly" becouse of limited chanels of perception. Higher inteligence can assemble perception construct with closer proxy to truth with less facts/information, just as it can do a puzzle with missing pieces and the distance/resemblance of the construct to reality can only be guessed at by comparing similar constructs that you have built of other things that you can verify (fact a) and (fact b) how close they are to original. (tests,puzzles,jigsaws,prediction,etc,etc) are good example basis of such jugement.They fallow the laws of Logic, thus the better is your logic the better is your jugement and the closer is your perception constuct to truth. Another test of how close your perception construct is to the truth could be if your perception construct resembles some one elses perception construct who is usualy also correct with building perception constructs that most closely resemble later verifiable facts. such as solutions to logic problems or math problems etc. The problem with that test is that somone can "set up" a perception construct that would
appier to carry favourable advantages to the carier/propogator of such construct thusly spreading via verbal information chanell. Since verbal chanell is important to us as a another perception chanell of the world around us, it is possible for this perception construct to spread from person to person easily even though it might not be correct/far from truth and in fact harmfull to the carier. It has to promise to reward the propogation of itself to carrier. religious dogmas and many other similar perception constructs that promise such rewards are in fact are a virus propogated by cariers reciving some sort of reward for doing so, such as ego reward making the carier feel/be special or monetary reward such as priests/polititions/whoever recive for probagating "differnt truth" also known as lie, only this lie is propogating because of its usefulness. (yes i know my spelling/grammar is horrible, but i hope it does not detract meaning from my message) And here is where i want the comparison of my perception construct to your perception construct of the truth ;) It is important for the language, being the medium or the tool for the comparison, to be "in sync" so i guess most of the time you are callibrating the language when you speak of philosphy.To me philosophy is just that, calibrating a information chanell between conciousness and other conciousneses :) as in just sharing statements about the obvious. I envy matematicions and their highly calibrated language, maybe its time for me to learn it, insted of labouring at the english :S