What is Truth?

If you wish to partake in casual "off-topic" discussion amongst spiritual friends, please do so in the Lounge at Dhamma Wheel Engaged.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6064
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: What is Truth?

Post by Ceisiwr » Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:24 am

It may well be that the earth is flat, round or pointy however these are not the 'purest element of Buddhist perspective' which is a 'seeing-as-is'. The common sense (common to the senses) view is based on perspective and touted as 'real'.
Seeing as it is tells us that Realism is true in regards to the statement "the earth is flat" since the statement is ultimately false


Interesting to note though that Buddhism seems to side more with empiricism than rationalism via seeing as it is and sense experience.



As above, noble truths, not ultimate truths.
So its not Realist, so is it then Anti-realist or more pragmatist?


Anti-realism doesnt really deny it just has a different take on what constitutes truth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Its my fault on the wording, Anti-Realism doesnt deny Truth, only what truth is when compared to Realism



metta
The monk who hasn't slipped past or turned back,
knowing with regard to the world
that "All this is unreal,"
sloughs off the near & far shore —
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.

kannada
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:35 am

Re: What is Truth?

Post by kannada » Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:40 am

Seeing as it is tells us...
'Seeing as is' doesn't tell us anything. Assertions are formed based on that seeing.
Interesting to note though that Buddhism seems to side more with empiricism than rationalism via seeing as it is and sense experience.
So its not Realist, so is it then Anti-realist or more pragmatist?
The good psychiatrist enters the delusion of his patient in order to extricate his patient from those delusions. Buddhism seems to use whatever methods are most appropriate for the task.
Its my fault on the wording, Anti-Realism doesnt deny Truth, only what truth is when compared to Realism
So ultimately anti-realism denies realism :lol:

Regards
Just a view - nothing more...

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6064
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: What is Truth?

Post by Ceisiwr » Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:48 am

Hey
'Seeing as is' doesn't tell us anything. Assertions are formed based on that seeing.
For a realist the truth or falsity of the statement "the earth is flat" is ulitmately true or false even if we dont know. Now we have maths and the visual of the earth being round which gives weight to Realism in this case. Of course one could argue for scepticism since, for scepticism, certainty is impossible. How do I know that im not a brain in a vat and that im not dreaming this whole conversation. Or how do I know the universe didnt start only 11 minutes ago and all my memories before were implanted? Answer is I dont, although that knowledge of not knowing is in itself knowing and so a refutation of the sceptic position not to be able to know anything :jawdrop: :cookoo: :lol:



The good psychiatrist enters the delusion of his patient in order to extricate his patient from those delusions. Buddhism seems to use whatever methods are most appropriate for the task.
So its pragmatist?

Its my fault on the wording, Anti-Realism doesnt deny Truth, only what truth is when compared to Realism

So ultimately anti-realism denies realism
Anti-realism denies there is an ultimate "standard" (and so correspondence) of truth but not a denial of truth itself

metta
The monk who hasn't slipped past or turned back,
knowing with regard to the world
that "All this is unreal,"
sloughs off the near & far shore —
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 22093
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What is Truth?

Post by retrofuturist » Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:49 am

Greetings,

Can truth simply be that which is not false?

Perhaps defining what is false may be easier than defining what is true?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6064
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: What is Truth?

Post by Ceisiwr » Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:55 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Can truth simply be that which is not false?

Perhaps defining what is false may be easier than defining what is true?

Metta,
Retro. :)

Thats a Realist approach

"the earth is flat" is false

Anti-realist - Centuries ago the statement "the earth is flat" was true



in terms of moralty

"murder is wrong" is either true or false = Realism

"murder is wrong" - is either true or false in accordance with group agreement. If group A says its wrong then the statement is true but if group B says its ok then the statement is false = Anti-realism


An example would be

"lying is wrong"

According to Kant lying is always wrong (realism)

Accoring to Schopenhauer (who attacked Kants position in this regard) lying isnt always wrong (anti-realism)

metta
The monk who hasn't slipped past or turned back,
knowing with regard to the world
that "All this is unreal,"
sloughs off the near & far shore —
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6064
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: What is Truth?

Post by Ceisiwr » Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:05 am

Can truth simply be that which is not false?

Perhaps defining what is false may be easier than defining what is true?

On another level this seems to fall into line with the thoughts of Descartes. He tired to go against sceptism by finding what it was that he did definitely know, the answer he came up with (from what ive read) is sumed up via "I think, therefore I am"



But how do we know that "I think therefore I am" is true or fale, how do we know that the earth is flat, how do we know that we are not in the matrix etc etc

metta
The monk who hasn't slipped past or turned back,
knowing with regard to the world
that "All this is unreal,"
sloughs off the near & far shore —
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.

kannada
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:35 am

Re: What is Truth?

Post by kannada » Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:13 am

For a realist the truth or falsity of the statement "the earth is flat" is ulitmately true or false even if we dont know. Now we have maths and the visual of the earth being round which gives weight to Realism in this case. Of course one could argue for scepticism since, for scepticism, certainty is impossible. How do I know that im not a brain in a vat and that im not dreaming this whole conversation. Or how do I know the universe didnt start only 11 minutes ago and all my memories before were implanted? Answer is I dont, although that knowledge of not knowing is in itself knowing and so a refutation of the sceptic position not to be able to know anything :jawdrop: :cookoo: :lol:
Time and space, cause and effect are all products of assertion - conceptuality. That is their only 'reality', that is their only 'truth'. What you/we/they/it are is only that. Without raising a concept could 'one' describe oneself? Assert what 'time' it is? Calculate the distance from an asserted 'a' to an asserted 'b'? Assert for whom 'karma' is consequential etc
So its pragmatist?
As pragmatic as the delusions it caters for.

Regards
Last edited by kannada on Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
Just a view - nothing more...

kannada
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:35 am

Re: What is Truth?

Post by kannada » Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:17 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Can truth simply be that which is not false?

Perhaps defining what is false may be easier than defining what is true?

Metta,
Retro. :)
Hi Retro,

Falsehoods are directly in relation to truth. How would we know 'x' is false unless we compared it to a standard named 'truth'?
Falsehood would therefore be explicit and truth implicit...

Best wishes

k
Just a view - nothing more...

User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: What is Truth?

Post by Prasadachitta » Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:49 am

"The earth is flat" is a completely different kind of statement than "Murder is wrong".

"Flat" is well defined and"wrong" is not

Murder is abstract and could apply to many different events.

The earth is specific and well recognized.

The communication of what is true requires a defined or agreed upon paradigm.

Knowing and seeing what is true for yourself does not.

be well all

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: What is Truth?

Post by Modus.Ponens » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:34 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Can truth simply be that which is not false?

Perhaps defining what is false may be easier than defining what is true?

Metta,
Retro. :)

Hi Retro

No. The sentence in my signature is neither true nor false.

Metta
"He turns his mind away from those phenomena and, having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' " - Jhana Sutta

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12831
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: What is Truth?

Post by DNS » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:51 am

dhamma.vinaya wrote: No. The sentence in my signature is neither true nor false.
You lie!


User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: What is Truth?

Post by Modus.Ponens » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:54 am

:jumping:
"He turns his mind away from those phenomena and, having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' " - Jhana Sutta

Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: What is Truth?

Post by Individual » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:59 pm

clw_uk wrote:Greetings

Ive just started a course in philosophy to get myself back into uni, one of the topics covered was truth. When discussing it i realised that as Buddhists we tend to talk a lot about Truth without ever actually defining what truth is

So how do you define truth? Do you take a Realist stance or an Anti-Realist Stance? Or do you go for the pragmatic approach to truth (that which works is true)? Or do you take another view?



Myself, i lean towards the pragmatist philosophy



interested to hear your thoughts

metta
Truth is a product of creative expression, the source of which cannot be rationalized.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra

User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: What is Truth?

Post by pink_trike » Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:33 pm

Truth can't be articulated accurately and fully, it can only be recognized/actualized.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.

Dan74
Posts: 3231
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: What is Truth?

Post by Dan74 » Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:40 am

In Mathematical Logic, there is a precise definition of "truth". You need a system of axioms (a priori assumptions) and logical rules for deriving new statements from these axioms (like "if A, then B" and "if B, then C" implies "if A then C"), then a statement is true if it can be derived from the axioms using the logical rules.

So a simple example is if we accept the statement that "if it rains, then the ground is wet", and it is raining, the statement "it is wet" must be true (this is not very precise).

So in Mathematical Logic, truth is very much a relative thing - it is relative to the system of assumptions and the rules of deduction. I think often people argue as nauseaum because their assumptions are different, or they mean different things - so the statements are not made precise.

_/|\_
_/|\_

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 132 guests