Objective truth/Truth deals with relationships
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
Would you mind showing me how the relationship between the green table and 4 chair is a truth please?
Although a crude example, the PURPOSE of the chairs are for people to sit at the table, that was thier creators intention by design. While people can use it for what they want, just as a homosexual man can use his organ for whatever he wants, the truthful relationship is seen through the relationship.
However, I will try to bring more accurate examples.
-
mquran wrote
'The table is green' is truthful statement if and only if this particular table is in fact, green.hope u 2 dont mind my barging in!
let us say the table really is green....to the best of our knowledge...as well as v can observe with naked eyes...that the table is green would be a fact! so a fact the table is green! ur truth the table is green!
however...let us suppose the table is of some other color...perhaps white..and u are wearing green shades...the table would be green...again...but this time around it will be a relative truth (ofcourse its another thing that everything would be green as well)! however here the fact would be the table is white! ur truth (as seen from behind the green influence) the table is green!
or let's say the table is blue...but u reflect a yellow light on it...it might appear green! so the fact the table is blue! ur (relative) truth (under the influence of the yellow light) the table is green!
note that i am just making an example assuming that yellow and blue give green...ofcourse there's a book out there screamin yellow and blue dont make green!
dunno if that made any sense...-S
-
hope u 2 dont mind my barging in!
No, certainly enjoyed the mental exercise you catalysed.
let us say the table really is green....to the best of our knowledge...as well as v can observe with naked eyes...that the table is green would be a fact! so a fact the table is green! ur truth the table is green!
To me, yes. It's a fact.
however...let us suppose the table is of some other color...perhaps white..and u are wearing green shades...the table would be green...again...but this time around it will be a relative truth (ofcourse its another thing that everything would be green as well)! however here the fact would be the table is white! ur truth (as seen from behind the green influence) the table is green!
No, your last statement should read the table is green where 'is' is now no longer objective (as arbitrarily as objectivity can be taken).
or let's say the table is blue...but u reflect a yellow light on it...it might appear green! so the fact the table is blue! ur (relative) truth (under the influence of the yellow light) the table is green!
Once again, the 'is' is compromised in this case no longer yielding an objective result.
note that i am just making an example assuming that yellow and blue give green...ofcourse there's a book out there screamin yellow and blue dont make green!
Assumptions duly noted and point made.
dunno if that made any sense...-S
It did and thanks again for the mental exercise.
-
Peace be upon you,
However the chairs still slide under the table, regardless of the color
-
mquran wrote
No, certainly enjoyed the mental exercise you catalysed.cool! -)
mquran wrote
To me, yes. It's a fact.yes...but let me clarify myself there are 2 different viewers! 1 of them be u, the other the rest of the world! also absolute truth = fact, relative truth = truth! also, whenever the vision is influenced by external factors...the viewer is unaware of the external influence!
so now it is a fact....as well as the truth for both of u!
so the fact the table is green
ur truth the table is green
row truth the table is greenmquran wrote
No, your last statement should read the table is green where 'is' is now no longer objective (as arbitrarily as objectivity can be taken).the fact will remain the same the table is not influenced by the fact that ur vision now encompasses it through shades.....it remains the same color as before white...so in terms of absolute truth....it still is white!
however, for u the truth now changes...because u no longer see it without bias...but ur bias affects only ur truth...not that of the row......for them it is still white....however u no longer see it as white...u see it as green! (i hope u dont bring into pic the fact that u will see everything else green...v are talking ur perceived color with relation to the actual color of the table)
so the fact the table is white
ur truth the table is green
row truth the table is whitemquran wrote
once again, the 'is' is compromised in this case no longer yielding an objective result.the objective result does not change...as the light merely reflects and gives an illusion...were a chemical reaction to take place then the objective result might change!
so yes...the objective result is still the same beyond ur perception and the perception of the world...the table is still blue!
however...whoso observes the table under the influence of the yellow light, the subjective truth would be the table is green!
so the fact table is blue
ur truth table is green
row truth table is greenmquran wrote
Assumptions duly noted and point made.cool! -)
mquran wrote
It did and thanks againnetime! -)
mquran wrote
for the mental exercise.did that make any more sense? -S
-
Peace idolfree,
thanks for the explanationWhat we seek for are the correct relationships of the parts with each other and the whole.
there could be more than one correct relationship among the parts, couldn't it?
Peace be upon you both,
Truth deals with relationships. We have to have an objective standard with which to MEASURE truth. Truth is tied with measurement. Science deals with measurement and science gives us the ability to KNOW that we know something. This is how physicas, chemsitry and such were developed.
Just look at a mathematical equation, one side must equal (=) the other side.
The God will WEIGH our deeds, weighing is to MEASURE and that goes back to the first recorded religion of Khamit, where Tehuti weights the Heart against the feather, which shows if your life was ruled by emotions or by Peace. The word Tehuti means double measure.
Anyway, back to this text, even the weight of a mustard seed will be counted, counting is measurement.
Facts and definitions are really illusions, or what is called Maya. We can look at a rock and say "that is a rock", thats a fact, but how does that guide us in life? What we seek for are the correct relationships of the parts with each other and the whole.
I will bring more examples soon.
-
Peace be upon you Elena,
Quote from Idolfree
What we seek for are the correct relationships of the parts with each other and the whole.there could be more than one correct relationship among the parts, couldn't it?
Yes, but we have to find the proper relationship for the WHOLE as well. Many problems in the world are caused because a solution to a problem is causes three other problems elsewhere. We are looking for the solution that does not cause futher problems. The Greek "Hydra" was the sumbol for this concept , when you cut off one head three more appear.
I am going to give more clarification of truth and relationships later today.
-
Peace be upon you,
The below is taken largely from the teachings of Ra Un Nefer Amen in his book on Incarnation Objectives.
Divine Law is what we call TRUTH. People in the western world confuse truth with factual infomation. Somebody stole something. There were three people in the room. I walked in and I say, "Who stole it? Tell the TRUTH!" That's a misuse of the word. I'm not asking for truth. I'm asking for facts. The word truth is used for two different things and most people don't understand that. If I ask the question, "should men have sex with men?" Is that true? Now thats NOT a factual question. Thats an abstract question. That has to do with relativity. If I say "Who stole that?" and there were three people in the room, I'm asking a factual question. I'm asking for the facts. If I ask, "should men have sex with men?" I'm not asking for facts. I'm asking for relativity, relationship.
There's a wedding between the form of things and the function it's meant to perform. Because of this, people don't know the truth about, lets say, eating. What should you eat? Its not a factual question. Its a relativity question, an abstract question. And its what we call TRUTH. Maat is the rerelativity truth, not the factual truth. People have trouble with this.
For me to answer the question, "who stole that?" I could simply say, "I saw him." Its a fact. "He took it." That doesnt depend on anything else. Now, what is the food of man? You have to say, "well, look at the shape of your teeth." Any fangs? No fangs, eight? SO you know that I'm not a vampire. You know that I am not a predator. You know I am not suppossed to go out there and kill with my mouth. This makes it very clear. Look at my hands over here. Claws? No claws, right? So my hands are not the hands of a slayer, to actually slay. Look at my skin. Hide? No hide, right? So, I'm not supossed to rough it up for my meals. If I'm a killer by nature, if I'm suppossed to kill to eat, I would be endowed with natural weapons. I would have a thick hide because I'm going to rough it. I'm going to get real rough because my meal is not going to stand still. It's not going to turn over either. It's going to give me a run and a fight for my money. So I have to have som eweapons, some effective weapons. I would also have an affinity for blood. I'd walk in and see some blood on the floor, "Oh, Lord, that looks so good." What do you all do when you see blood on your plate? See that, right? Sharks smell blood, manthey're coming. Lions smell blood, they're coming. Lion sees blood, he follows the trail of blood. That's a meal. You don't do that.
If we were suppossed to eat, then for the major part of our existence on this planet, we would have eaten our meat raw. We would still have a taste for raw meat. We would have the kind of teeth that could handle raw meat. Our teeth can't handle raw meat. We can't even chew raw meat. Our teeth are not suited for chewing raw meat. The fiber is just too tough. We can't tear raw meat apart with our teeth. They will wear out. Fired up food--cooked food--is a late invention. It's the latter part of man's existence on this earth. Wehere we meant to eat meat, we would eat it raw and there would be powerful chamicals in our stomach to kill the germs. You eat raw meat, or meat thats not cooked properly, you'll get all kinds of salmonella infection. Yuo have to scrub that meat up real good. You think Lions scrub thier food up? "This animal is dirty." Man, a lion sees a pig that hasn't bathed from the time it was born--that pig is dirty, with feces and mud all over it--and he eats it just like that. There are powerful things within its digestive tract to handle that. These are the hands of fruit pickers. These are the weapons for picking fruits and nuts off trees. You take the meat and cook it so that the germs won't kill you, and so that the meat won't wear out your teeth, and so you can digest it. Then you put onions and garlic and paprika and thyme and tomatoes on it to make it taste like a vegetable. Isn't tha the art of cooking? All you people that think you are meat eaters, let them take the steak and just boil it, and tell me how you like it. You want it seasoned. You want to make it taste like a vegetable. You know its the truth.
It's the form/function, the relationship between form and function that tells us what the truth about something is. This is Maat. Everything in nature has a relationship between the form and the function. There's also the relationship based on interdependence--everything relates to something else that that relates to that other thing. That way everything is caught up in a web of interrelationships.
-
Yes, but we have to find the proper relationship for the WHOLE as well.
That is why Relational Truth can't be an OBJECTIVE TRUTH or ABSOLUTE truth but only a CONSENSUAL TRUTH where the "truth" is agreed upon.
For those of you are brave enough and daring enough to jump in the Sea of Truth here is more theories on Truth.
But dive in at your own peril Dhttp//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
Major theories of truth
Questions about what is a proper basis upon which to decide whether, and to what extent, belief is in accordance with fact, and to what extent statements and the ideas they convey are in accord with real things, whether for a single person or an entire community or society, are among the many important questions dealt with by the theories introduced in this section.Traditional theories of truth share the claim that truth is a property that certain types of things may have, perhaps in relation to other things, and so the assertion that something is true makes a substantive, significant claim about it (Blackburn & Simmons, 1999). There have more recently arisen so-called deflationary or minimalist theories of truth that are based on the idea that the application of a term like true to a statement does not assert anything significant about it, for instance, anything about its nature, but that the label truth is a tool of discourse used to express agreement, to emphasize claims, or to form certain types of generalizations (Horwich, 1988; Field, 2001). As always with classification schemes, a caution against cut-and-dried categories needs to be observed. There are perspectives on truth that combine selected elements from one or more of the identified types. For example, Susan Haack (1993) proposes a theory of foundherentism that seeks a middle ground between the perspectives on knowledge known as foundationalism and coherentism, closely related to the correspondence and coherence theories of truth, respectively.
Traditional (substantive) theories
Traditional theories of truth treat truth as a meaningful concept, taking it to refer to significant properties of meaning-bearing entities, to relations that connect them to each other, and to relations that involve them with other things in the world. According to these theories, ascribing truth to meaning-bearing elements says something significant about them. Such theories analyze truth as a descriptive property with a nature that can be discovered through philosophical investigation and reflection. The task for such theories is to explain the alleged nature of truth.Coherence theory
Main article Coherence theory of truth
There is no single coherence theory of truth but rather an assortment of distinct perspectives that are commonly collected under this title. A pervasive tenet is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole. Where theorists differ is mainly on the question of whether coherence entails many possible true systems of thought or only a single absolute system. For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within the whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency. For example, the completeness and comprehensiveness of the underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the utility and validity of a coherent system.Some versions of coherence theory have been claimed to characterize the essential and intrinsic properties of formal systems in logic and mathematics. However, formal reasoners are content to contemplate axiomatically independent but mutually contradictory systems side by side, for example, the various alternative geometries. On the whole, coherence theories have been criticized as lacking justification in their application to other areas of truth, especially with respect to assertions about the natural world, empirical data in general, assertions about practical matters of psychology and society, especially when used without support from the other major theories of truth.
Coherence theories distinguish the thought of continental rationalist philosophers, especially Spinoza, Leibniz, and G.W.F. Hegel, along with the British philosopher F.H. Bradley. They have found a resurgence also among several proponents of logical positivism, notably Otto Neurath and Carl Hempel.
Correspondence theory
Main article Correspondence theory of truth
Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory, in essence, attempts to posit a relationship (a "truth relation" between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or objects on the other, as it might theoretically exist independently of the persons involved in the exchange and independently of other issues. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers. This class of theory holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in prinicple solely by how it relates to objective reality, by whether it accurately describes (that is, corresponds with) that reality.Correspondence theory has traditionally operated on the assumption that there is an objective truth relation with which it is the human task to become properly aligned. In practice, however, more recent theorists have articulated that this ideal cannot be achieved independently of some analysis of additional factors. For example, analyses of correspondence that are cast within particular languages are forced to admit the particular language in question as an additional parameter at the outset of theoretical work, and only gradually construct a language-independent truth predicate by means of a careful theory of translation among different languages. There are strong theoretical limitations on the extent to which this can be done. Commentators and proponents of several of the theories introduced below also have widely asserted that the correspondence theory neglects the role of the persons involved in the "truth relation."
Constructivist theory
Main article Constructivist epistemology
Social constructivism holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as "constructed," because it does not reflect any external "transcendent" realities (as a pure correspondence theory might hold). Rather, perceptions of truth are viewed as contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender are socially constructed (Hegel, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of social determinism).Consensus theory
Main article Consensus theory of truth
The consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. The label "consensus theory" of is variously attached to a number of otherwise very diverse philosophical perspectives. Some variants of "pragmatic theory of truth" have been included as consensus theory, though the range of "pragmatic theories" is sufficiently broad that it merits its own classification. Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of the concept of "truth" is J?rgen Habermas. Among its current strong critics is the philosopher Nicholas Rescher.Pragmatic theory
Main article Pragmatic theory of truth
Three influential versions of the pragmatic theory of truth are due to Charles Peirce, William James, and John Dewey.Peirce defines truth as follows "Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth" (1901, CP 5.565). This statement emphasizes Peirce's view that ideas of approximation, incompleteness, and partiality, what he describes elsewhere as fallibilism and "reference to the future", are essential to a proper conception of truth. Although Peirce uses words like concordance and correspondence to describe one aspect of the pragmatic sign relation, he is also quite explicit in saying that definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than nominal definitions, which he accords a lower status than real definitions.
Peirce's theory of truth depends on his theories of signs and inquiry. Inquiry is a process that transforms signs in regard to an object, for example, any form of belief revision or logical inference, and it includes scientific method, "the right method of transforming signs". A transaction that turns signs into signs in respect of an object is a three-place relation, known in logic as a triadic relation. In sum, pragmatism involves a triadic theory of truth.
William James's version of the pragmatic theory, while complex, is often summarized by his statement that "the 'true' is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the 'right' is only the expedient in our way of behaving" (James, 1909). By this, James meant that truth is a quality the value of which is confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to actual practice (thus, "pragmatic". James's pragmatic theory is in part a synthesis of correspondence and coherence theory, with an added dimension. Truth is verifiable to the extent that thoughts and statements correspond with actual things, as well as "hang together", or cohere, fit as pieces of a puzzle might fit together, and these are in turn verified by the observed results of the application of proposed truths to actual practice (James, 1904, 1907, 1912). James extended his pragmatic theory well beyond the scope of scientific verifiability, and even into the realm of the mystical "On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, then it is 'true'". John Dewey, less broadly than James but more broadly than Peirce, held that inquiry, whether scientific, technical, sociological, philosophical or cultural, is self-corrective over time if openly submitted for testing by a community of inquirers in order to clarify, justify, refine and/or refute proposed truths.
Deflationary (minimalist) theories
Main article Deflationary theory of truth
Other philosophers reject the idea that truth is a robust concept in the sense discussed in the previous section. From this point of view, to say "2 + 2 = 4 is true" is to say no more than to say "2 + 2 = 4", and that there is no more to say about truth than this. These positions are broadly called "deflationary" theories of truth (because the concept has been "deflated" of importance) or "disquotational" theories (to draw attention to the mere "disappearance" of the quotation marks in cases like the above example), or alternately, "minimalist" views. Whichever term is used, deflationary theories can be said to hold in common that "he predicate 'true' is an expressive convenience, not the name of a property requiring deep analysis."In addition to highlighting this formal feature of the predicate "is true", some deflationists point out that the concept enables us to express things that might otherwise require infinitely long sentences. For example, one cannot express confidence in Michael's accuracy by asserting the endless sentence
Michael says, 'snow is white' and snow is white, or he says 'roses are red' and roses are red or he says ... etc.
But it can be expressed succinctly by sayingWhatever Michael says is true.
Once we have identified the truth predicate's formal features and utility, deflationists argue, we have said all there is to be said about truth. The primary theoretical concern of these views is to explain away those special cases where it appears that the concept of truth does have peculiar and interesting properties. (See Semantic paradoxes, and below.)Performative theory of truth
Attributed to P. F. Strawson is the performative theory of truth which holds that to say "Snow is white" is true is to perform the speech act of signalling one's agreement with the claim that snow is white (much like nodding one's head in agreement). The idea that some statements are more actions than communicative statements is not as odd as it may seem. Consider, for example, that when the bride says "I do" at the appropriate time in a wedding, she is performing the act of taking this man to be her lawful wedded husband. She is not describing herself as taking this man. In a similar way, Strawson holds that "to say a statement is true is not to make a statement about a statement, but rather to perform the act of agreeing with, accepting, or endorsing a statement. When one says 'It's true that it's raining,' one asserts no more than 'It's raining.' The function of 'It's true that...' is to agree with, accept, or endorse the statement that it's raining."Redundancy and related theories
Main article Redundancy theory of truth
According to the redundancy theory of truth, asserting that a statement is true is completely equivalent to asserting the statement itself. For example, asserting the sentence " 'Snow is white' is true" is equivalent to asserting the sentence "Snow is white". Redundant theorists infer from this premiss that truth is a redundant concept, that is, a mere word that is conventional to use in certain contexts of discourse but not a word that points to anything in reality. The theory is commonly attributed to Frank P. Ramsey. Ramsey held that to think of truth as any sort of property is mere "linguistic muddle".In the course of his argument, Ramsey observes that there are many different ways of asserting what is really the same proposition, at least so far as the abstract logical meanings of sentences are concerned. The strategy of Ramsey's argument is to demonstrate that certain figures of speech ? those in which truth and falsehood seem to figure as real properties of propositions, or as logical values that constitute real objects, however abstract, of discussion and thought ? can always be eliminated in favor of paraphrases that do not reify truth and falsehood as nouns, nor even use true and false as adjectives.
A variant of redundancy theory is the disquotational theory which uses a modified form of Tarski's schema To say that '"P" is true' is to say that P. Yet another version of deflationism is the prosentential theory of truth, first developed by Dorothy Grover, Joseph Camp, and Nuel Belnap as an elaboration of Ramsey's claims. They argue that sentences like "That's true", when said in response to "It's raining", are prosentences (see pro-form), expressions that merely repeat the content of other expressions. In the same way that it means the same as my dog in the sentence My dog was hungry, so I fed it, That's true is supposed to mean the same as It's raining ? if you say the latter and I then say the former. These variations do not necessarily follow Ramsey in asserting that truth is not a property, but rather can be understood to say that, for instance, the assertion "P" may well involve a substantial truth, and the theorists in this case are minimalizing only the redundancy or prosentence involved in the statement such as "that's true."
Proponents of pragmatic, constructivist and consensus theories would differ with all of these conclusions, however, and instead assert that the second person making the statement "that's true" is actually participating in further verifying, constructing and/or achieving consensus on the proposed truth of the matter ? e.g., the proposition that "it's raining".
Deflationary principles do not apply to representations that are not analogous to sentences and they do not apply to many other things that are commonly judged to be true or otherwise. Consider the analogy between the sentence "Snow is white" and the person Snow White, both of which can be true in a sense. To say "Snow is white" is true is to say "Snow is white", but to say Snow White is true is not to say Snow White.
Semantic theory of truth
The semantic theory of truth has as its general case for a given language'P' is true if and only if P
where 'P' is a reference to the sentence (the sentence's name), and P is just the sentence itself.Logician and philosopher Alfred Tarski developed the theory for formal languages (such as formal logic). Here he restricted it in this way no language could contain its own truth predicate, that is, the expression is true could only apply to sentences in some other language. The latter he called an object language, the language being talked about. (It may, in turn, have a truth predicate that can be applied to sentences in still another language.) The reason for his restriction was that languages that contain their own truth predicate will contain paradoxical sentences like the Liar This sentence is not true. See The Liar paradox. As a result Tarski held that the semantic theory could not be applied to any natural language, such as English, because they contain their own truth predicates. Tarski thought of his theory as a species of correspondence theory. Donald Davidson used it as the foundation of his truth-conditional semantics and linked it to radical interpretation in a form of coherentism.
Bertrand Russell is credited with noticing the existence of such paradoxes even in the best symbolic formalizations of mathematics in his day, in particular the paradox that came to be named after him, Russell's paradox. Russell and Whitehead attempted to solve these problems in Principia Mathematica by putting statements into a hierarchy of types, wherein a statement cannot refer to itself, but only to statements lower in the hierarchy. This in turn led to new orders of difficulty regarding the precise natures of types and the structures of conceptually possible type systems that have yet to be resolved to this day.
...and it continues...
Regards,
-
Peace be upon you Lote Tree,
You verify just what the article I shared stated, that Man is totally confused on a simple subject
-
Peace upon you idolfree1, all
Concerning your example of eating raw meat, and its implications as that we are not meat-eaters because we need to cook our meat, and fire came lately in human history...
If we go by analogy, every implication of any of human invetions should be left, ignored, because, as you suggest, it came "lately" in human history, even speach or more precisely ABSTRACTION.
Abstraction is the faculty to refer to/to understand something without it being present, at hand. Like if I say I like apples, each one of us has its own abstract concept for what an apple is, what does it taste like, colors...
We would return to jungles to be able to find fruits and vegetables, not being able to farm.
So this is the dillemma We are at a certain stage in human evolution able to generate "non-truths" and "truths", while before, we had no choice but to follow "the truth". By your understanding, we should renounce to all human knowledge.
Do you think it is the purpose of our existance? I don't KNOW. I have trust that it isn't.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion.
--
-
Peace Kyle,
Am I correct in asserting that "truth' is not necessarily a "fact", but "fact" is always the "truth"? Either way please explain, if I am incorrect. Thanks.
-
Peace be upon you Someone,
Concerning your example of eating raw meat, and its implications as that we are not meat-eaters because we need to cook our meat, and fire came lately in human history...
There are several other factors as well, however if you have no choice, then by all means eat some cooked meat.
If we go by analogy, every implication of any of human invetions should be left, ignored, because, as you suggest, it came "lately" in human history, even speach
You are singling out one piece of evidence and disregarding the rest. Lets reason it out. Both cooking food and speech did not start from the beginning (although I would think speech came before cooking food), but the SURROUNDING EVIDENCE suggests that we were created for speech. The FORM/FUNCTION is what we are dealing with to clarify the truth. We have vocal cords, mouths, etc. But with eating raw meat, we dont have fangs, claws, strong enough digestive acids to eat a filthy pig covered in feces as a lion does, etc. The signs point us in the right direction.
or more precisely ABSTRACTION.
Abstraction is the faculty to refer to/to understand something without it being present, at hand. Like if I say I like apples, each one of us has its own abstract concept for what an apple is, what does it taste like, colors...
We would return to jungles to be able to find fruits and vegetables, not being able to farm.
The term abstract refers to the expression of a quality apart from an object. For example, you have dogs, then the abstract group Canine. One is an EXTERNAL grouping (dogs), the other is an INTERNALLY grouping (canine). Regarding apples, they are not abstract, "Fruit" would be the abstract group. Everyone who has knowledge of an apple agrees to its basic characteristics.
So this is the dillemma We are at a certain stage in human evolution able to generate "non-truths" and "truths", while before, we had no choice but to follow "the truth". By your understanding, we should renounce to all human knowledge.
Do you think it is the purpose of our existance? I don't KNOW. I have trust that it isn't.
I am not following the dilemma, I think you are not exactly clear as to what I am saying just yet, please let me know if the above responses have not clarified my position.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion.
Always! Thatw what we are here for.
-
Peace be upon you Danish,
Am I correct in asserting that "truth' is not necessarily a "fact", but "fact" is always the "truth"? Either way please explain, if I am incorrect. Thanks.
A truth is based on abstract relativity, it relies on the interconnectedness of all things which gives us a means to MEASURE truth, not just guess at it. A fact does not have to have anything else with it, it can stand alone.
-
Peace upon you idolfree1,
I think we are discussing about fact vs truth, although my previous post was somehow off-topic.
Let's take the law of gravitation as an example. Can you please tell, as per your understanding, some facts and truth(s) related to such a law? This could clarify the subject a little more.
--
-
Peace be upon you Someone,
I think we are discussing about fact vs truth, although my previous post was somehow off-topic.
Let's take the law of gravitation as an example. Can you please tell, as per your understanding, some facts and truth(s) related to such a law? This could clarify the subject a little more.
Well if it is Divine Law, then it doesnt deal with facts, but relationships. Since we are dealing with relationships, we need more than one thing.
-
Paz,
...Divine Law is what we call TRUTH. ..It's the form/function, the relationship between form and function that tells us what the truth about something is. ..
I see. Then, in order, to observe the reality - to understand the correspondence between form and function in that reality --> truth -; to follow that truth since truth is right, to follow right. That is to submit to the divine law, said in religious terms, or following what is safe, clear,manifest and doesn't cause further problems.
Now the task would be to identify the correct relationships in every field we are interested in.
-
ElenaNow the task would be to identify the correct relationships in every field we are interested in.
This is exactly what al-quraan concerns itself with. While Al-kitaab , the writ of humanity if you will can be observed in reality, al-quraan is the detailling, the telling of what's what in the book (in quranic tafseelul kitaab , 10/37). If you think of al-kitaab as the pie of human reality, al-quraan is the best way to slice that pie.
-
Peace be upon you Elena,
Now the task would be to identify the correct relationships in every field we are interested in.
Correct. ) Even those we are not "interested" in. Our interests come from our likes and dislikes, some things we have to do even when we dont like it. Many people are not interested in being vegetarian, so thier interest might not be "food choices".