A few months ago I was discussing Truth over dinner with a friend.
At the time (perhaps still) we differed in opinion if there is a single Truth for which different people have different interpretations or that each of us has their own Truth.
This lead to another discussion whether mankind could ever know the full Truth or not.

I guess we were in a philosophical mood that night and it sort of lingered on.


Just wandering what others think about this

can we ever know the full truth? I'm not sure. It's hard to see the big picture and we always manage to cloud our judgement.
So in a hopeful mode, I would like to think we could... Looking around me, leaves me a little doubtful

I read a quote by some Indian philosopher who said:

"Say not that you have found The Truth. Say rather that you have found A truth."

I think for me that pretty much sums it up.

What Pomona said!

I'm sure that there's "the truth" in a philosophical sense, but the truths that we all find and discuss are personal truths - true in the context of our feelings, past influences, and where we are in the world.

That is an interesting question and I pretty much agree with Pomona. Truth is often clouded with how one interprets a situation and with one's own life experiences. Three people may interepret the same situation in three different ways. Truth for a Pagan will be different to a Christian and that will be different to the truth seen by a Muslim and on and on.

We've almost been here before haven't we?

The Truth; Plural? I'd have to say yes, I see no other option if for no other reason above and beyond the reasons already outlined than that some "Truths" are based on "facts" whilst other "Truths" are based on opinions or, as has already been stated; philosophies.

Example:

Fact: The earth is not flat.
Truth: The earth is not flat

Opinion: The earth as a planet is a conscious entity.
Truth: The earth as a planet is a conscious entity.

Some Truths are incontravertable.

Other Truths are entirely dependent upon the pecieved understanding of the individual.

To state that the earth is not flat is an incontravertable fact.

To state that the earth as a planet is a conscious entity is only a Truth to some individuals, to me it is not a truth, to me it is a theory or a philosophy. The earth as a planet to me is a living organism but not neccessarily having a consciousness of it's own but rather acting as a platform for other consciousnesses.

That of course does not make the idea that the earth as a planet does have it's own consiousness any less; a Truth to others.

What does frustrate me sometimes are those instances where published material is stated as being "factual" when it is no more than "theoretical". The readers often then present what they've read as fact when it is often no more than an opinion proposed and often believed by the writer.

Truths based on these circumstances are not incontravertable and are totally open to debate even though they might be percieved as truth by the both the writer and the reader.

Charles Darwin wasn't so arrogant as to present his Thesis on the Origin of Species as fact when the principles and specifics proposed within that thesis, at the time and possibly still even now; were not entirely proven. He presented it as theory even though, over a hundred years on, most of us now accept the theories of evolution and natural selection as being as close to fact; the Truth, as it is currently possible to get based on current knowledge, much of that knowledge of course being incontravertable "fact".

These are purely examples that I've chosen to use by the way and were not intended for debate within this topic in their own rights as proposals.

Theory only becomes fact when it has been incontravertably proven based upon incontravertable knowledge. Anything outside that arena remains "theory".

The more incontravertable factual knowledge that we acquire; the closer we get to incontravertable truth. The less a theory is based upon incontravertable fact; the more open it is to debate.

Whilst I will often debate an issue that is not incontravertable and enjoy the process; I will not at the same time claim that it is incontravertable.

There are therefor incontravertable Truths and there are debateable truths.

What frustrates me is when people fail to see the difference.

So yes, Truth is plural on more than one level.

It is plural from the concept of individual perception and philosophy and it is also plural when defined as being based upon either fact or theory.

Good topic.

[quote=Dave,Jul 28 2005, 09:15 AM]
We've almost been here before haven't we?

[/quote]

was there another tread before?

[quote=Dave,Jul 28 2005, 09:15 AM]

The Truth; Plural? I'd have to say yes, I see no other option if for no other reason above and beyond the reasons already outlined than that some "Truths" are based on "facts" whilst other "Truths" are based on opinions or, as has already been stated; philosophies.

Example:

Fact: The earth is not flat.
Truth: The earth is not flat

Opinion: The earth as a planet is a conscious entity.
Truth: The earth as a planet is a conscious entity.

Some Truths are incontravertable.

[\quote]

I would argue that truths are always incontravertable, otherwise they would not be truths.

[quote=Dave,Jul 28 2005, 09:15 AM]

Other Truths are entirely dependent upon the pecieved understanding of the individual.

To state that the earth is not flat is an incontravertable fact.

To state that the earth as a planet is a conscious entity is only a Truth to some individuals, to me it is not a truth, to me it is a theory or a philosophy. The earth as a planet to me is a living organism but not neccessarily having a consciousness of it's own but rather acting as a platform for other consciousnesses.

That of course does not make the idea that the earth as a planet does have it's own consiousness any less; a Truth to others.


[\quote]

I would argue that they are beliefs or hypotheses, which become facts or truths.

I would like to see the Truth as singular as a collection of all truths

[quote=Dave,Jul 28 2005, 09:15 AM]

What does frustrate me sometimes are those instances where published material is stated as being "factual" when it is no more than "theoretical". The readers often then present what they've read as fact when it is often no more than an opinion proposed and often believed by the writer.

Truths based on these circumstances are not incontravertable and are totally open to debate even though they might be percieved as truth by the both the writer and the reader.

Charles Darwin wasn't so arrogant as to present his Thesis on the Origin of Species as fact when the principles and specifics proposed within that thesis, at the time and possibly still even now; were not entirely proven. He presented it as theory even though, over a hundred years on, most of us now accept the theories of evolution and natural selection as being as close to fact; the Truth, as it is currently possible to get based on current knowledge, much of that knowledge of course being incontravertable "fact".

[\quote]



I totally agree. I have no problem with writers stating their opinions as opinions but not as truth that everybody has to accept without argument

[quote=Dave,Jul 28 2005, 09:15 AM]

These are purely examples that I've chosen to use by the way and were not intended for debate within this topic in their own rights as proposals.

Theory only becomes fact when it has been incontravertably proven based upon incontravertable knowledge. Anything outside that arena remains "theory".

The more incontravertable factual knowledge that we acquire; the closer we get to incontravertable truth. The less a theory is based upon incontravertable fact; the more open it is to debate.


Whilst I will often debate an issue that is not incontravertable and enjoy the process; I will not at the same time claim that it is incontravertable.

There are therefor incontravertable Truths and there are debateable truths.

What frustrates me is when people fail to see the difference.

So yes, Truth is plural on more than one level.

It is plural from the concept of individual perception and philosophy and it is also plural when defined as being based upon either fact or theory.

Good topic.

[/quote]

Glad to hear you enjoy the topic.
I agree with what you say with one distinction that I don't see debateable truths as truths but as beliefs.

Perhaps this is just because of my background as a logician, where a distinction is made between knowledge and belief. The former has to be proven, while the latter can be assumed and revised when needed.

I think Dave hiot some good points. But I maybe disagree a bit (or maybe it is just interpretation).

First there are Known Universal truths.

2+2 = 4 (absolute fact based on the definintons of 2, 4, + and =)

But there are also Unknow Universal truths.

Here is maybe a disagreement with Dave (not sure for sure)

The example fromDave's post "The earth as a planet is a concious entity".
Once you define what EXACTLY you mean by "earth as a plant" and "cancious entity"you have a statement that must (at least in my view of the way thing work) be either ture of false. We, as living humans, may never know the correct answer, but there is one and only one - it ieither is, or it isn't...

But there also may be subjective truths...
For example: "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla" Here, if by better you mean as far as flavor is concerned and you are talking, for example, "on average" or in a specific brand, then you have something that is subjective - it may be true for me and false for you - But it does lead to a temporal universal truth. If I modify it to be "At this point in time I believe that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla", now the statement has exactly one truth value - it must be either true or false. I don't believe there is a universal truth about wich ice cream is better... Lots of questions having to do with things like morality I also think may not be universal, but a matter of personal and possibly religiously oriented opinion....

Just my opinion,
Seeker

Just don't go looking in the realm of pure maths and physics where what appear to be truths to us turn out to merely be best guesses or totally unexplained mysteries!

I suppose there is also the idea of "level" or "degree" of truth: we may understand or be able to explain some of it but not all of it - gravity means that an apple might fall on my head, but we can't necessarily say why (or only in a local sense). I like my TRUTHS to be explainable, otherwise, how can they be a truth?

In my opinion, TRUTH (ie the ultimate truth) has to be explainable and constant and consistent. Truths (lower-level truths that might have the odd hole, or strong beliefs based on personal experience) may be partially explainable, or partially constant and consistent, but are the nearest we have while we struggle towards the ultimate.

I tend to think of it more as a journey than a destination...

:-)

Looking forward to that journey even if the destination cannot be reached.

I don't think so, again I think that the only difference is in our choice of words.

You used the phrase "subjective"; I used the phrase "debateable", for me they amount to the same thing.

If we're not careful we'll get our legs slapped for debating definitions again

It's very easy to take the "pure" approach; that something is either incontravertably true, proven and correct or that it is not.

Human spirituality and psychology don't operate in that black and white world though do they?

We'd be a very boring lot if they did.

It would not be the first time.
I like my definitions, can't help it. On the other hand, I also enjoy finding the counter example that forces definitions to be changed




It would be boring indeed. But the journey to get everything black and white would be far from it