Your question presupposes a God's-eye point of view, and that we do not have. We can only determine the truth from within the world, not from outside of it. That's one of the central premises of modern pragmatism (of which Peirce is generally regarded as the founder).
Pragmatically (at least in the Peircean variety) the reason we inquire is because we experience things that we find surprising and that we cannot completely explain or give a rational account of. Such inquiry is usually prompted by the evidence, the force if you will, of experience. When nothing in experience prompts us to inquire any more then this can be taken as sufficient grounds for presuming that what we know must be true (at least from a pragmatic point of view). If it were not true, then experience would give rise to new doubts within us and we would begin to inquire again. Peirce's clearest account of this process is outlined in one of his better known articles call "The Fixation of Belief."
For a question like yours to deserve serious inquiry it has to arise from genuine doubt that is prompted by some tension or inadequacy between our accounts of the world and our experience of it. The arising of such tension would suggest that our accounts may not be complete and that there is still more to learn (which there obviously is). This is what prompts or moves us to inquire. As along as there is more to learn then we haven't reached the end of all inquiry. Nevertheless if we did reach a moment when all tension or resistance between our accounts of the world and our lived experience of it ceased (e.g. when everything we predict or aim to bring about has a 100% success rate with no anomalies or exceptions), then that would be sufficient (pragmatically) to justify the belief that our accounts must be true.
Last edited:
Fascinating. I come only as a literature major, who only heard about Plato's cave in a Spanish class 
Philosophy, religion, science are all fascinating areas for debate. We will never agree until we kill off those who deny our dogma (oops, that is "politics"!)
Personally, I am an agnostic atheist. We will (probably) never know the ultimate reality. What worries me is denial of provable facts ... which is an innate human fault, and a root cause of much of the argument, fighting, killing throughout history!
Mark Twain said something like: "It's not what you don't know [that gets you into trouble], it's what you know that ain't so." The brain is the only way we have to perceive reality, yet there are built-in defects that short-circuit the very attempt!
Philosophy, religion, science are all fascinating areas for debate. We will never agree until we kill off those who deny our dogma (oops, that is "politics"!)Personally, I am an agnostic atheist. We will (probably) never know the ultimate reality. What worries me is denial of provable facts ... which is an innate human fault, and a root cause of much of the argument, fighting, killing throughout history!
Mark Twain said something like: "It's not what you don't know [that gets you into trouble], it's what you know that ain't so." The brain is the only way we have to perceive reality, yet there are built-in defects that short-circuit the very attempt!
Just thought about this..in what context?..
...provable truth? (Belief)How is the cave and truth effected...if the universe is cyclic..or if we cease to exist? Is truth omnipresent? Or is it in the eye of life?
Regards
M. Gregg
If you're sincerely interested in these kinds of questions, then here's a good place to start.Just thought about this..in what context?..
How is the cave and truth effected...if the universe is cyclic..or if we cease to exist? Is truth omnipresent? Or is it in the eye of life?
Regards
M. Gregg
Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
You stated, "Truth is a present belief..." I took this as your definition of truth.
My reply, "A person's present belief that 'Elvis is alive' is not a truth ..."
is just one example of a belief that is not a truth.
For a better definition follow Philosophil's link Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Correct! Based upon scientific evidence.
However this does not preclude further discoveries.
Statement is (there is what there is, there is nothing more)<<this is everything that exists, and more. (what may exist even if not discovered yet.)
Beyond the cave..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
I guess,
Its Schrodinger's Cat...is it true until you look?
Or is it true, you just haven't looked yet..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4
Something else for the mix..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywn2Lz5zmYg
Regards
M. Gregg
Its Schrodinger's Cat...is it true until you look?
Or is it true, you just haven't looked yet..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4
Something else for the mix..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywn2Lz5zmYg
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
You seem to suggest that "further discoveries" will inevitably render present scientific truths false. (correct me if I am wrong)
Further discoveries often help prove how right we are now, eg evolution becomes more certain with each new discovery.
I do believe,
That some maybe incorrect. Some will be modified to the point that existing ideas may be wrong. Some will build on the existing ideas.
There is one thing for sure..what we know now will pale in comparison.
Take a look at (not all) some old text books.
Do you think we have reached the point where we know enough to be sure we are right?
There are still many questions that we don't have the answer to.
We haven't even put a man on another planet..magnetic fields elude us.
Gravity we don't understand. Life we don't understand.
Time we don't understand...we don't even understand what reality is.
We have concepts of the above..however...
Do you think contact with another alien race would change the way we think? Even stranger would be no life anywhere else..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
What if the Truth is, that Truth is always changing? That the Big Guy just enjoys playing with plasticine, that the most fundamental mechanisms are not absolutes as we understand such to be, and what we see, are aware of, rationalise to a type of understanding, is just a snapshot of the moment in the play of Everything, always ready to be transfigured into something else - for no other reason than that the New is more 'interesting', gives more scope for variation of Being?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.