Well, this is a complicated point you bring up, because each person percieves the world differently, no matter how small the difference, so even if it's true, the "true" thing will be one thing to you, and something else for the person next to you. So if what you're thinking of is true, then it won't be true for the person next to you, even if you're thinking about the same thing, and agreeing on it, because, no matter what it is, the subject will never be understood in the exact same way by any two people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If something is truth, then it doesn't matter what the next person thinks; it's true, nonetheless. How anyone chooses to percieve the truth is merely opinion. It doesn't change it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But so few things are true when you think about it. True things are things that can be proven, but it's impossible to prove something isn't true. Only something like 2+2=4 and nothing else, is really true, because it can be proven. Even then, some people consider this: 2.4+2.4=4.8, so rounding makes 2+2=5 to be true. Truth is based on reality and reality is different for every person, so almost nothing can really be considered "truth". It's really fascinating to think about.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But it baffles me sometimes.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

To take your example into consideration... 2.4+2.4=4.8, not 5. A person's interpretation may be that it can be rounded to 5, but that doesn't mean that 2.4+2.4=5. You're right, in that it can be hard to find truth amongst interpretation and opinion, but there is solid truth. Not everyone believes it, though.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And also... true things aren't always things that can be proven. I believe that God does exist (I am a follower of Christ), and just because I can't fully prove to anyone on the street that He exists, it doesn't make the truth of His being any less true. People can choose not to believe it, but it's the truth. Their unbelief fails to make it any less true. The same thought process could be applied the opposite way (if there is no God), but that's just an example. No one can prove that there is no God, either. And yet, one of those beliefs must be true.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

On the religious note, some people just lack the will, the understanding, or aren't strong enough to accept Christ, it's not always a choice(but it can be.) Also, it's impossible to prove soemthing doesn't exist. I know, I agree with you on the math thing. When it comes to math, math is fact. But even though I agree with you, we probably have a different way of reasoning, and understanding this fact. Now with math, it's true anyway, but if it were soemthing else, We'd technically be believeing different truths because we percieve reality with a different understanding and method of thinking. Even the definition of truth changes, depending on what someone understands truth as. Honestly, only God can really know "truth", because God knows the universe, all the reason and rhyme, and meaning behind everything, so humans can't really have many shared "truths" in their lives. It's frustrating, but we do the best we can as humans, to understand what truth is.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My point was: There either is a God, or there isn't. Some people believe in Him, some don't. Regardless of what anyone thinks, there is solid truth in one of the two. It can't be fully proven on either side, but one is truth.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Such a thing as truth exists, but it is rare in the minds of humans.( I hope, I'm not making you mad, debating like this is fun for me, so I might've gotten carried away.)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But no two people, really think or understand the same way, so only a few people can understand real "truth", and it would be unlikely that any one else on earth understand the truth perfectly, the way it was meant to be understood. In the Buddhist religion, if someone understood something perfectly, they would consider that person enlightened.(depending on my understanding of Buddhism). I think, maybe, this real truth might only happen to a human when what your understanding of something, is the same as God's understanding. Then you will be seeing real truth.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There's where we're not seeing eye to eye; a person's understanding of truth isn't the same as the truth itself. We don't need to understand everything about God to acknowledge His existence. In fact, if we could understand him fully, He wouldn't be much of a God. The main thing I was trying to get at with my post is that the truth is out there, and it is the absolute truth, even if we can't understand it. It's till there, and it's still truth. Different people don't have separate truths. And no, I'm not mad. :) I don't often get mad in an argument, especially when my opponent isn't malicious, and I also enjoy debating.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What you're talking about, with "absolute truth", reminds me of what this philosopher said. I forget who it was, but it was before Socrates, so it was a really old, basic philosphical idea. He believed in "Forms", which were the ultimite truths. That what we see as "Love", or "Joy", are only mere shadows, mere reflections of what they really are, and that, only in death can we finally see real Love, Joy, Sorrow, or anything else. We don't need to know all about God to know about him, but maybe once in every billion, million, or if we're lucky thousand, people understand one small thing, as God understands it, see one truth that actually is real. According to the philosopher, that's not possible in life, only when we're dead. Maybe that's what happens. In death we see God, and along with it we see these Forms, these ultimite truths.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That I agree with... a lot of people, most, don't understand the full truth. Humans only use about 10% of our brains. I, like you, believe that when we die, God opens the rest of our mind to be able to truly understand things. However, if this is the case, then does the statement not still stand that absolute truths do exist, and that none of our suppositions about them can alter their existence?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@298685 (PurpleKneeSox): Yes it stands. If fomething is absolute it cannot be altered by mere thought, but here on Earth, none of that counts. We try to understand, but we can't. But if truth can only be seen in death, does that make the truth on Earth different from what truth is in wherever we go after life? The philosophy itself says, that a pure representation of soemthing like "truth" does not exist here, so if absolute truth does not exist here, does that mean reality and truth are also different here?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think truth is absolute, whether on earth or in life or in death. It doesn't change, even if we can only understand it when we are dead.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But if you think about it, the truth on Earth, as well as the joy, love and everything else, is only a shadow or reflection, of absolute truth that exists only on a different plane. So the truth here is different from the absolute truth. Or more honestly, the shadow of truth is the only thing we can see. So does something exist, even when it is impossible for it to be known by anything?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's what I believe. I don't believe that absolute truth is impossible to be known, but rather that only a certain group of people are aware of it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The "forms" you talk about are called ideas. They are Plato's work, who was Socrates' student, and not some ancient philosopher before him. Most of what we know about Socrates, we know from Plato. And it was not a "really old, basic philosophical idea", it was revolutionary and changed philosophy in a profound way. The next big revolution was Kant, who said that our perception is not a product of the objects, but that the objects are a product of our perception. That is the more modern idea by far. Plato's is outdated. What's more, NEVER say that "philosphy itself" says something. There are no dogmata in philosophy. Also, for every philosopher who says one thing, there's another one who says the exact opposite. If you want to talk about philosophy, please, at least read some Wikipedia articles.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You seem to be under the misperception that there is such a thing called "truth". As was pointed out earlier, the only "truth" that we will ever know is what our senses tell us; but when we think about it, we can't even be sure that they are not deceiving us. The only truth that I can be entirely sure of is the fact that I doubt - I think, therefore I am. The "absolute truth", as you put it, by which I assume you mean the objective reality, is merely a construct we need for communication. Its existence cannot be proven. All that we have is temporary truths that need to be in question at all times. The philosopher Sir Karl Popper introduced the theory of critical rationalism, which states that we must constantly attempt to disprove everything that we know, in order to avoid dogmata and the like. Theories, facts, assumptions etcetera are only valid as long as we fail to disprove them. Sokrates himself was convinced that every truth will eventually be disproven.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I can just as easily say that you are under the misconception that there is no truth. There are some things that are true, and it doesn't matter who personally disbelieves it - it is still true.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This only works for scientific facts. If it were "That shirt looks good on Timmy" that you said, it would be completely true to you but to someone else a total lie. There isn't one truth about many descriptions.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not even for all scientific "facts". As a matter of fact, not even the theory that it is gravitiy that keeps us from floating into space is proven. Proof only exists in mathematics.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not necessarily. What you're talking about is an opinion, not a matter of truth or not. A better example would be "Timmy got a red shirt." The shirt is red, regardless of whether I am colorblind and see it to be gray. Personal opinions of whether or not truth is actually truth are irrelevant.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But no, there are still relative truths as well as these factual ones. Like if you were asked "Is it true that red is your favourite colour?" the answer could be "true". Or, "That man is your father" would be true for at least one person and false for others.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Those are not the kind of truth I am talking about. "That man is your father" is a relative statement, as you said, but "Bob Smith is your biological father" is not. There are certain things that are true, regardless of what one believes. For example, a woman sleeps with two men, two nights in a row, and then has a child. Each individual may think differently, but regardless, only one man is the father, and that won't change simply because the other believes he is the father.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, that's what I'm saying, some things can be facts which are true for anyone and everyone, and some things are relative and are only true to certain persons.

by Anonymous 12 years ago