[Guille]

Facts are events in the universe, parts of reality. But truth, is the interpretation of humans of this facts.

[Steve Hanson]

Mkirkpatrick:

If we could know truth,I do not think that we could share it ,do you!Who would believe you?

then why would you attempt to explain it to me?

[michellemfry]

I wonder if truth is synthesized from more fundamental philosophical ideas. Truth in that sense would be a compound concept based upon several most fundamental items, such as fact, time, and origin.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by michellemfry I wonder if truth is synthesized from more fundamental philosophical ideas. Truth in that sense would be a compound concept based upon several most fundamental items, such as fact, time, and origin.

This could explain why there are no good theories of truth. All fail, and in big things. So it is derived or composed of more fundamental concepts. What are these concepts?

Also, remember that all contemporary philosophy is antihegelianism, they all reject the idea of dialectic thought and negation as death.

[michellemfry]

I'm with you on the theory of truth being lacking. I have in mind a theory of truth, not a definition. The process of filtering away falsehoods needs to be included in the synthesis of truth. I do feel that with truth you have to consider the facts, the origin or source, and some element of time.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by michellemfry I'm with you on the theory of truth being lacking. I have in mind a theory of truth, not a definition. The process of filtering away falsehoods needs to be included in the synthesis of truth. I do feel that with truth you have to consider the facts, the origin or source, and some element of time.

I believe Truth is the Disposition to Know the Facts. When we say we have the truth, we really mean we have the knowledge, the certainty, the real position. And these are all--I'll refer to them as Knowledge, to generalise-- Truth Data (TD). TD is the extraction that humans do of certain Truth Points. I see Truth like a dimension which is parallel to that of Time and of Events. Therefore Truth always goes with reality, and we can't know it, we can know, and this is TD. But remember that inmideatelly after we take the TD out of the Truth Dimension, then the TD is not Truth, just Knowledge, taht means that it was true in the particular point in which it was on the truth dimension, but not now. Also I think that the dimension of Truth is just between those of events and of time. We are ussually consciouss of events, and after of time, as a derivative.. That is why, when we know the truth of something, we are in the line between the line of events and the line of time. That is why when there ar eno events we centre on time, but primarilly we centre on events.

My aim in this thread, as I have always said, is to achieve a theory of Truth which is much more obvious and clear than the rest.

[michellemfry]

I would only change one little thing about the thread. Something to the effect of the development of a predisposition to know the facts.

[baudrunner]

Truth is represented by the one trend established by evolution when the entire range of possibilities presented themselves. We are there as representative of that one possibility that took root and developed into the reality that exists now. We can never change it so truth is a constant.

Deviations and digressions from truth may represent knowledge and facts but they are not and cannot be truth. There is no longer that realm of possibilities in which reality can become manifest, it will always be the way it is and stay right here.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Heraclitus stated, "The entire universe and divine understanding, in unity with that which we are logical, is the essence of truth." My simple interpretation of this is that, "Truth' is the mathematical logical equilibriation of all the truths and facts." The problem is we never possess all the truths and facts, i.e., the incompleteness of human understanding falling short of, truly true, truth. The web is helping, and we're getting closer.

Keep on keeping on,
Lloyd

[Guille]

Lloyd,

We all agree that truth is parallel to nature. But do we all agree that it is parallel to logic? Pascal once said 'Contradiction is not a sing of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sing of truth.' We are confident when we say that -1x-1=1=1x1 but we are also confident when we say that -1 is not the same as 1. This is strange, as nxn doesn't equal mxm if it's not the same number, and -1 and 1 are not the same number. But both assuptions are true, therefore Pascal is correct in his statement.

What I mean is that NOTHING is completelly logical just as nothing is completelly unlogical, just as nothing is compeltelly good or complletely bad. I meant hat nature is a dimensions of events, a line. And truth is a line which is parallel to it. The thing is that truth is what we have to look at nature, to get on nature, to know nature. It's a disposition for us, subjects to nature and it's objects. However, we can never have the turth, or know the truth. Truth is there always, if you get some truth data from the dimension of truth, then this truth data is now knowledge, liek science or philosophy. But it's not truth anymor,e for it's in disconection from nature, althouh it has an origin from connectedness iwth nature. For more about my thoughts on:
logic-science-math; go to the math forums a thread I started entitled "Logic and Mathematics"
Truth-Knowledge-Nature; go to the philosophy forums the forum "Epitemology" has a thread of mine entitled "Knowledge and time" and another thread entitled "Traditional Epistemology vs Contemporary Epistemology".

You can use the search engine to look for them.