Four questions regarding authorities and the nature of truth

Post Reply New Topic

"Truth" is a social construct, an "approving" label given by people or society to things that they believe in/accept or value.

.

I was speaking of the kind of truth that is not dependent upon belief:

----------
Truth, n. (Webster)
1. Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be.
2. True state of facts or things.
(The duty of a court of justice is to discover the truth. Witnesses are sworn to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.)
----------

Definition number two is just an "example" of "use", as it doesn't actually say what a "true state" means, and number one says that it is "conformity to or exact concordance with" reality. "Reality" is something which recedes as approach it! Who defines what "reality" is at any given moment, but society and/or people?

"True" is just a value judgement, which is applied by society/people to what they perceive as reality. When most people thought that the sun orbited the earth it is a fact that that idea of reality was the "truth", and the idea that the earth orbited the sun was not "the truth".

As it is humans, and humans only, that use the word "truth", it was therefore actually "true", then, that the sun orbited the sun. The fact that the earth has always orbited the sun is irrelevant to the fact that humans decide what is true, what things "are" true, and that this changes irrespective of any absolute reality.

.

Practically all words have multiple definitions. Here, the word "truth" refers to the underlying reality, rather than what people consider to be true at the time.

Humans can decide something is true but reality won't take any notice. Remember when everyone thought earth was flat? They still had the horizon* back then.

Anyway the commonly accepted definition of truth is the underlying reality not the social consensus.

* The word horizon has been around sicne the ancient greeks.

I can almost comprehend what you are saying there, but my mind cannot actually go there. Truth is not determined by estimation.

----------
Value, n. val'u. [L. valor, from valeo, to be worth.] (Webster)
1. Worth; that property or those properties of a thing which render it useful or estimable; or the degree of that property or of such properties. The real value of a thing is its utility, its power or capacity of procuring or producing good. Hence the real or intrinsic value of iron, is far greater than that of gold. But there is, in many things, an estimated value, depending on opinion or fashion, such as the value of precious stones. The value of land depends on its fertility, or on its vicinity to a market, or on both.
----------

Actually I'm not having much trouble getting my mine to where ouinon's seems to be (although the language in that post is tieing me in knots). I think ouinon simply uses the word "reality" like the rest of us use the word "truth" and uses the word "truth" as the rest of us would say "most commonly shared opinion".

Aside from the fact the language implies a stronger importance for socially agreed opinions rather than objective truth (which I disagree with but don't find that hard to comprehend) I don't think that post disagrees with everyone else saying "Truth is objective and universal" as much as it sounds like on a first (or fifth) reading

Possibly so, and I certainly do not mean to be taking anyone to task here!