VERITY - What is Truth?

Who is YOUR favorite celebrity of 'truth'?
Who is YOUR favorite celebrity of 'truth'?
Is truth based on what an AUTHORITATIVE figure decrees??
Is truth based on what an AUTHORITATIVE figure decrees??

INTRODUCTION

This article exposes the Religion of Truth. You will understand why "truth" is the Hallmark of Religion. You will understand why the word TRUTH ultimately resolves to a synonym of the word OPINION.

We understand all concepts because we define them. If someone comes along and invents a word, say “klamokaptica”....it is very easy to make this word God-like by associating tons of mysticism around it. And, it is even easier to brainwash the whole population to parrot this word day in and day out for the rest of their lives, by simply appealing to authority, emotion and the unknown.

It doesn’t work that way for the rest of us who are critical thinkers. We simply ask this person to unambiguously define the key word which makes or breaks their argument: TRUTH. All concepts are defined. There is no avoiding it!

If you cannot define it, then you have NO business using it in a sentence in front of an audience, got it?



WHAT IS TRUTH?

"The word “truth” is a concept that has been conceived by humans for use as a conceptual label of validation on statement types known as propositions. Propositions are statements which propose an alleged case or scenario. This anthropocentric concept of truth is used by many people to intentionally decree a label of “validated acceptance” (i.e. true) or of “validated rejection” (i.e. false) to propositional statements.

But since truth ultimately stems from the validation of propositions, it necessitates an observer who must VALIDATE the proposition before they can label it as ‘true’ or ‘false’. It is obvious that the word “truth” is ultimately dependent on a dynamic process that an observer must perform before labeling a proposition as true/false. This process of validation is called PROOF. A proposition labeled as true/false is always dependent on a human observer’s ability to use their magical powers to validate it as such.

Q: So how do humans validate or prove a statement as truth? What magical powers do they use?

A: Their subjective and limited sensory system!

Since the concept of truth is ultimately dependent on a human’s subjective use of their limited sensory system, it is easy to understand why all truths are subjective; i.e. opinions. Truth is an observer-dependent human-related concept that is inherently subjective. As such, it necessarily resolves to none other than opinion! This limited anthropocentric concept cannot possibly be objective. What is TRUE to you, is a LIE to your neighbor! Your Priest may have convinced YOU of the truth for God, dark matter, black holes, warped space and dark energy, but he hasn’t convinced your neighbor. Truths are inherently biased. Truth is what is dear to YOUR heart & soul, only. Truth means that the authority you worship managed to convince you to believe his statements.

For all intents and purposes, you can use the word “truth” as a synonym to the word “opinion” in every scenario, and you will not change the context or meaning of your dissertation. Just try it and see for yourself.

Remember: TRUTH = OPINION.

Those who disagree, all they need to do is answer the following questions for the audience:

1) What magical means do they use to resolve their statement as being TRUE? Do they use their sensory system? Do they vote on the issue? Do they ask their Priest, God or a higher authority to decide?

2) Is it TRUE that TRUTH is correct? What standard does one use as a benchmark for testing and evaluating TRUTH to be correct? They obviously cannot use truth!!!

Anybody wanna step in the lion’s den and answer these questions for the audience? Are you scared to answer because you will expose your Religion of Truth, or is it because you don’t know? Just be honest with yourself."



PHILOSOPHERS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEFINE TRUTH FOR THE PAST 3000 YEARS!!!

If you search any academic text of Philosophy, you will be shocked to discover that there is not a single OBJECTIVE definition for the word “truth” anywhere to be found. You may find hundreds of out-of-context half-baked annotations which contradict each other. But these are not definitions by any stretch of the imagination. A definition needs to be first and foremost, objective! This means that the definition cannot invoke observers or their opinions. Furthermore, a definition must be unambiguous and should be able to be used consistently in your dissertation. Finally, a definition must not be contradictory. If someone can contradict it, then it belongs in the trash.

Not a single human has ever defined “truth” objectively and unambiguously in the past 3000 years. So when a human ape invokes the word “truth” in a sentence, what do they mean? Just ask any person for a definition of this formidable word and they will get very offended and run away.



TRUTH IS THE HALLMARK OF RELIGION AND THE ART OF PERSUASION!

The Ancient Greeks already understood that truth was nothing more than OPINION. It was the Sophists of Ancient Greece, like Protagoras , Prodikos , Hippias, Eleios, and Gorgias from Leontini, etc. who persistently advanced the principle that “truth is what suits the individual’s interests”. They had the rationality to understand that there is no truth to be had. But it is rather a human invention that is at best, self-serving.

The Sophists were a bunch of “tricksters” from Athens or other cities, but most came from Ionia. They were not into educating in science, philosophy, mathematics and ethics. They only taught the subtle art of persuasion, and how to “win” over your opponent at any cost. What they taught was called “Rhetoric and Oratory”. Their tools were the concepts of “truth” and “logic”. They taught their students how to argue eloquently and “prove” almost ANY position whether that position was correct or incorrect. Rhetoric is the art of composition and persuasion, while oratory was the art of public speaking. If you are a good speaker with the ability to PERSUADE the audience, then it goes without saying that YOU won the argument because the audience believed YOUR version of the “truth”.

The Sophists had incredible skills in debating and persuading. This is why they educated and trained the sons of well-to-do Athenian citizens. Back then, there were no formal schools of logic and debating. Instead, these were “one-on-one” schools, where the teacher would walk with students and talk with them, teaching them all the “tricks” of debating – for a fee, of course. Rhetoric and oratory were essential “sophistry” skills for Athenian citizens. After all, it was these students who would eventually find themselves debating important issues in the Assembly and the Council of Five Hundred.

In similar fashion, the Systems of Logic we have today, like Classical, Tri-valent, Quantum, Fuzzy, Intuitionist, etc. can be used by present-day “Sophists” to prove almost any statement, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

How could this be, you ask?

Because each system of logic is based on rules called axioms. All rules are invented by man to set a foundational context of inference. All inference is thus applicable to that context, only; and never outside of it. In Quantum Logic it is PROVEN that a ball exists and doesn’t exist on the table at the same time. This has been validated with observations! So for a person to CLAIM that their Classical Laws of Logic are correct, then such an individual doesn’t understand the concepts of axioms and Systems of Logic.

The bottom line is this: truth is the Hallmark of Religion. It is Religionists who advanced the concept of “truth” to a God-like status we have today. It is Religionists who have all the truths....especially the “absolute” ones! Rational humans don’t have truths. Rational humans are critical thinkers who are able to explain and justify what they say.



WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?


TRUTH = OPINION!

It is very clear that the Internet Personas who profess the doctrine of “truth” are ignorant on the Philosophical issue and its ramifications. They don’t understand the topic nor the arguments that have been revolving around this term for thousands of years.

If not a single Philosopher in the past 3000 years has been able to define “truth”, .....then what makes these clowns on the Internet today think that they are blessed with the gift of knowing “truth”?


"Define truth and it shall set you free" -- fatfist

More by this Author


Comments 23 comments

Allen 4 years ago

Did Padre Fiesta's divine inspiration work its wonder on you today, Fatfist?

“truth is what suits the individual’s interests”

Here, Fiesta would agree, then disagree, ask you to prove it as truth, then reword it, agree with his own reformulation of it, while "proving" the above wrong by the standards of his reformulation, then later come back to prove his reformulation is false, etc...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Ahhhhh.....now we have someone who is not afraid as Fiesta is to speak the TRUTH. We have Fiesta's Pastor James (openairatheist) who decided to walk the plank today....and got eaten by sharks!!

Fiesta....if you are there....be afraid....BE VERY AFRAID!!!!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

You know, Allen....openairatheist (James Theodore Stillwell) taught me some Sophist tricks today.....you know, typical Pastor lingo.

I am going to try them out on Fiesta.....and the funny thing is, Pastor James said that one doesn't need to answer the questions in order to prove them.

Hey Fiesta....is it absolutely true that shapeless objects have mass or velocity?

If you say yes, then YOU believe that it is TRUE there is absolute truth!

If you say no, then YOU believe that it is TRUE that objects have no mass or velocity!

This is Logic 101 Class, using Logical Absolutes, in case somebody is wondering. This is what atheists learn in their Monastery.


Openairatheist -YouTube 4 years ago

Bahaha! I'm done with you and your appeal to ridicule fallacies. Sorry I don't debate trolls or rubes and you are certainly both and that's an absolute. Goodbye : p


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@openairatheist,

Mr. James Theodore Stillwell,

Your tactics are quite old and lame. Pastors started out with this stuff when the Internet first came to their church. Did you just discover these Sophist tricks just now? What did you think.....nobody would notice these lame tactics....that fatfist is an idiot?

James, you gave it a fair shot.....you tried your BEST. But you fell flat on your face. This is all you....not me! I just held your hand along the way. Just read your posts again.

YOU CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT ALL TRUTHS ARE SUBJECT TO A HUMAN’S PERSONAL VERIFICATION RITUAL.

You are on the record, James. Just look at all that Personal Ritualistic Verification you wanted to perform on the proposition: “God created space and matter”. Matt Slick already VERIFED this proposition to be TRUE!

What would YOUR verification gonna reveal for the audience? That Matt Slick’s Verification is FALSE? If so, then WHO should the audience believe....YOU or Matt Slick? Who holds the goose that lays the Golden Truth eggs.....YOU or your neighbor? How do we confirm this? Should we ask a Priest for his opinion, or should we ask God?

You thought that what was TRUE, is not only true for one person (i.e. Matt Slick)....but is also true for everyone else (including YOU). Not only that, but this truth is also ABSOLUTE (as per your words). Clearly, you hung yourself here too. That was quite the performance, James.

Bottom line, James.....you are running away with your tail between your legs because you SPANKED yourself silly today. You have no more arguments.

You gave an argument which JUSTIFIED that TRUTH = OPINION. Kudos, James!

Ahhhh....the Religion of Atheism....Give an atheist some slack....and they will always hang themselves. So let it be written.....so let it be done!


Allen 4 years ago

Now Fatfist. You know truth is a weak damsel. She cannot defend herself or her honor, so OAA gets angry with you as would any good mangina.

One minute these chivalrous knights tell you truth is unassailable, and in the next breath they're ready to cave your head in for her honor.

Kinda reminds you of all those overtly religious types: In a single breath God is Almighty, in the next, little ol' you has insulted Him with your opinions!

Yep! Atheism has all the hallmarks or ye olde tyme religion, without a doubt!


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Thanx! for a much needed Hub. Fatfist, excellent as usual.

"The city he builds shall bare my name, the woman he loves shall bare my child. So it is written, so it shall be done!"

Ramses II (Ule Brenner) in The Ten Commandments


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Thanks, monkeyminds.

People are starting to wake up and understand what this God-like word "truth" really means.

Truth is the hallmark of the Religions of Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism. The clowns who defend these religions purport to have truths/falsehoods and no truths for God....and for "the sky is blue".

And here poor little fatfist was under the impression that TRUTH is TRUE for everyone!

As it turns out....Atheists will always prove that what is true for you, is not true for them.

Truthers always contradict each other.


KellyJones00 4 years ago

Hi Fatfist. Thanks for inviting me to comment on your article. I'll respond to some of your arguments:

1/ On thousands of years of philosophers being unable to define truth, as shown by their disagreements and variations.

If billions of people disagree about the definition of truth, it doesn't necessarily mean all of them are wrong. It could mean some aren't good thinkers. Truth only needs to be defined by a single person in a way that is coherent and useful to them.

2/ On truth statements being subjective opinions only.

Truth can only ever be defined by an individual, for it to be a reasonable definition. It would be foolish to imagine truth were "objective" only if it were blindly accepted from the hands of a God-ordained priest, or beamed into one's consciousness from some highly-advanced alien race. So, in that sense, the individual must rely on his or her own thinking, to create a coherent definition. So all coherent definitions of truth must be "subjective".

However, this doesn't mean the definition cannot be applicable to everything, and "objective". For instance, if a person defines a "thing" as whatever exists and is finite (short of something else), then that definition can be applied wholesale. Or, if a person defines "two" to mean "a single unit plus another single unit", then that definition can also be applied without exception --- even though it is still his or her own subjective definition. Such definitions are objective in that they can be applied to any experience, any consciousness, any world.

3/ On there being no coherent definition of truth.

Much of the disagreement comes from an inability to see a difference between logical, internally coherent philosophical statements, and scientific types of statements. Namely, to see a difference between philosophy and science.

In science, statements are always contingent on observation, so can be revised and are never permanent. In philosophy, statements are not dependent on the senses for their validification, but purely on the meaning of definitions. This is why the philosophical method is "a priori" (proof found before [observation]), and the scientific method is "a posteriori" (proof found after [observation]).

But this confusion over the two disciplines goes back to my first point: not everyone who tries to define truth is a good thinker. People make mistakes.

At basis, philosophical truth derives from the law of identity, namely, a thing is what it is, and not something else. It is expressed in short-hand as "A=A". This is a philosophical truth, not a scientific observation.

The axiom A=A is the basis of all philosophical statements. It is not proved by using another statement, but is the essence of truth itself. Here are some common errors about A=A:

- trying to prove (or disprove) A=A by saying, "A=A because of something else".

- trying to prove (or disprove) A=A by ascribing a specific property to A, a mistake given A is a symbol representing any thing at all at all times.

- trying to disprove A=A by saying it cannot be proven to be true. A=A is not provable for the simple reason that it is the basis of all proofs.

So, basically, the main reason there is so much disagreement over truth, is from making such errors.

I explain this in a bit more detail in a video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekB_GpjmfJY&list=PL...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Kelly,

“Truth only needs to be defined by a single person in a way that is coherent and useful to them.”

But that makes truth subjective to the individual. Truth gets reduced to none other than opinion. What is TRUE for you, is a LIE to your neighbor.

“Truth can only ever be defined by an individual, for it to be a reasonable definition. .... So all coherent definitions of truth must be "subjective".”

You are making the same point as my article is making.

“However, this doesn't mean the definition cannot be applicable to everything, and "objective".....Such definitions are objective in that they can be applied to any experience, any consciousness, any world.”

But to “apply” the definition of truth, a human observer must validate a propositional statement to determine if it is true or not. This process of validation is subjective because it uses the human sensory system. So even though you ATTEMPT to apply the definition objectively....you are ultimately making a subjective decision to arrive at a subjective “truth” i.e. opinion!

“At basis, philosophical truth derives from the law of identity”

A=A is rhetoric.....it has no meaning. An “apple is apple”. So what? What have we learned from this rhetorical statement?

You can define what the symbol ‘A’ means and what the symbol ‘=’ means,... but it is impossible for you define what ‘A=A’ means. Rhetoric cannot be defined. It is meaningless repetition......a horse is a horse ....of course of course. It doesn’t tell us anything.

If a statement has something to say, it should be of value with meaning and substance. A statement needs to be additive (i.e. A = blah blah...), not repetitive (i.e. A=A).

So it is not rational to say A=A is the basis of truth or of all philosophical statements.

The basis of all philosophical statements is critical thinking and rational explanations. Philosophy must be coherent and explanatory....not rhetorical, like A=A.


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

KellyJones00 said:

----

"In science, statements are always contingent on observation, so can be revised and are never permanent. In philosophy, statements are not dependent on the senses for their validification, but purely on the meaning of definitions. This is why the philosophical method is "a priori" (proof found before [observation]), and the scientific method is "a posteriori" (proof found after [observation]).

At basis, philosophical truth derives from the law of identity, namely, a thing is what it is, and not something else. It is expressed in short-hand as "A=A". This is a philosophical truth, not a scientific observation.

The axiom A=A is the basis of all philosophical statements. It is not proved by using another statement, but is the essence of truth itself."

----

If science is contingent on observation, then science is subjective, i.e. SUBJECT to the observer. But our sensory system is clearly limited (even with the aid of amazing technological gadgetry).

Science is objective precisely BECAUSE it rules out human observers (subjects) wherever possible and accounts for (i.e. explains) human experience in turn, if possible (i.e. what we observe).

We have to hypothesize (assume) in order to theorize (explain). These are the two required stages of the scientific method. All this "a priori"and "a posteriori" crap is just the sort of confusion that arises when so-called philosophers of science drink too many beers or spend years detached from reality getting their PhDs in Meaningless Blabbingology.

Both "a priori" AND "a posteriori" methods mean shit when we're trying to explain reality rationally. Reality takes a big smelly dump on human logic, empiricism, and the senses.


PrestonDeath 3 years ago

"We understand all concepts because we define them." Define Concept in a way that accounts for action, event and space (no thing) that can be used consistently. You stated that "Space is a concept." How can no thing be a concept? Objects DO concepts, right? No Object DOES no thing and no thing does nothing! I only have to show that the statement "There is no truth" is a contradiction and so it's implication Truth = Opinion is false. I am not beholden to offer a better explanation or definition just because I've showed yours to be false. That's not how it works. That's not how it's ever worked.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Preston,

You obviously don't understand what a concept is. A concept is a RELATION. That's it!!!

I urge you to read and understand this article, otherwise you will not be able to have a coherent discussion with anybody on the issue of concepts.

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...


PrestonDeath 3 years ago

How can an Object have a relation to no thing? Define Relation for me!?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Preston,

“Define Relation for me!?”

The ordinary usage of the term ‘relation’ will suffice. Look it up in the dictionary. There is no disagreement here. The term ‘child’ is a concept....a relation/association. Do you understand? This is simple stuff. The term ‘relation’ is not in contention here. It is the term ‘concept’ that YOU don’t understand.

Did you read the article I referenced? Did you understand it?

I just cannot fathom why Americans have so much trouble understanding concepts, relations, associations, etc. Is it because all they teach in the schools of the Good ol’ USA is God and Jesus....and nothing else?? My God!!!

“How can an Object have a relation to no thing?”

....because “no-thing” IS a relation! A relation NECESSARILY associates a minimum of TWO nouns; i.e. the test object and its environment, understand?

There is no singular or absolute relation (it’s a contradiction).....and THAT’S WHY THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH!

This is basic stuff....


nicholashesed 3 years ago

before finishing this article (I'm on the second or third paragraph). Let me state my definition of truth:

Truth: agreement between mind and object

Yes truth is a concept. The concept is a relation between two real objects 1. the mind between your ears. 2. the object your mind is in relation with whether that be a star, a micro-organsim, a building, etc.

Truth relates a mind (subjective) with an object beyond the mind (objective). So it cannot be purely subjective. If the mind is in harmony with the real object it is in relation with then it generates a truth [true concept]. If the mind is in disharmony with the real object it is in relation to then it generates an error [false concept].

I would also say that there is abstract truth. The mind generates a true concept of a real object or a truth. The mind relates this truth to another truth stored up thus generating an abstract concept which is an abstract truth. Even though in this example both concepts originate in the mind they are ultimately rooted beyond the mind since they were both originated from a relation with a real object beyond the mind.

Thoughts? Or is it back to the drawing board. Lol!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Your definition of truth is subjective because it necessarily depends on an observer and their extremely limited sensory system to interpret properties of objects in reality. What is true to you, is a LIE to your neighbor...and vice versa. Truth always resolves to one's opinion. It is impossible to define truth objectively (i.e. observer-independent).


nicholashesed 3 years ago

I understand what you say. But there is potential in human apes as you call them for generating true concepts otherwise we wouldn't even be able to survive. The fact that we have dulled this potential so much is one of the reason's we seem about ready to destroy ourselves.

But lets say there is only one person person and one object beyond the human person. He will still take in that object and can potentially agree with it. Right? This scenario is observer-independent. I think?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“But there is potential in human apes as you call them for generating true concepts”

Truth: a concept of validation for propositional statements.

Truth is an abstract concept that necessarily embodies 2 dependent concepts:

1) A proposition, and

2) Its validation or proof.

Without a proposition, there is nothing for the human to comprehend and attempt to validate (i.e. prove) as true or not. It takes a human observer to empirically prove a proposition by using his sensory system to compare objects referenced in the proposition (i.e. referents). Truth is necessarily EMPIRICAL

Truth is naught but a mere label (think of it like a sticky note) that we place on propositions to show that we empirically validated them. There are no true or false concepts. The concepts of love, morals, virtue, justice, motion, time, location….are not amenable to truth. Concepts are only DEFINED to convey meaning….they are never true or false. Truth is a conceptual label we place on propositions….like a checkmark of sorts.

.

“otherwise we wouldn't even be able to survive.”

Survival is based on using reasoning to determine which path to take……i.e. should I cross through the herd of lions and get eaten, or should I go around them and live another day?

.

“The fact that we have dulled this potential so much is one of the reason's we seem about ready to destroy ourselves.”

Perhaps you are talking about wars and current events. That has to do with human greed rather than truth. The concept of truth has never played any role in human history except in Religion and in academic instead of practical Philosophy. Lies in court are evidence and become TRUTH when the jury & judge are convinced and swallow them….nobody is the wiser. Humans may think they’ve dealing with truth all their lives….but all they’ve been dealing with are petty OPINIONS!

People will do whatever the hell they want to do irrespective of any truth asserted by anyone. The reason is because TRUTH=OPINION. You have your truths…..and your neighbor has his.

.

“But lets say there is only one person person and one object beyond the human person. He will still take in that object and can potentially agree with it.”

Objects are not subject to agreement or disagreement. Objects serve as mediators of phenomena….they perform actions.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

Very good. I think I understand. I think I am rushing through this stuff a bit to quickly.

In any case the only thing I don't is concerning true or false concepts. I am thinking of say Einstein's concept of spacetime. Granted he was sincere in the beginning, he seems to have generated a false concept using false concepts. He should have realized this and then made a statement rejecting his concepts since they do not agree with reality??? Thus I would not have wasted so much time reading all that modern cosmology nonsense. Lol!!!

Alright I think I should take a few hours off from this stuff.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

I think I understand why I was having a problem with your definition of truth. Proposition and validation is a good definition. When it comes to a life of faith though it gets tricky. I believe all the propositions made by Jesus to be true without validation. It sounds crazy and by the standards of science it certainly is. But faith is an effect or quality which moves one beyond the validation process. It frees one from the limits of empiricism which is fitting since no one has ever seen God. So it is mystical. I couldn't even prove it if I tried.

I inherited the sayings and doings of Jesus from the first Christians who were given validation of Jesus' sayings through what Jesus did, i.e. the Resurrection. After Jesus ascended to Heaven Christians started to try to validate their faith which is really not what Jesus intended since he said "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe." So know I see some Christians trying to validate their faith to themselves and others. This causes disturbances and gets us nowhere.


Alan 2 years ago

"I just cannot fathom why Americans have so much trouble understanding concepts, relations, associations, etc. Is it because all they teach in the schools of the Good ol’ USA is God and Jesus....and nothing else?? My God!!!"

Yes! This is exactly what is going on here in the states. Everything is posiond by religion here. It takes a great deal of effort to abort these teachings from our minds, and I do not know a single person here in the states that even understands that there is a problem. Even my wife can not recognize this. She can not outgrow her religion of TRUTH. And while I do not blame anyone in the USA for being taught to love their ignorance, I do blame anyone for wanting to remain ignorant.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"and I do not know a single person here in the states that even understands that there is a problem"

Well, that's what happens when you have Atheists, Theists, Mathematicians, Born Again Christians, Scientologists and Jehovah's Witnesses alike all using the exact same tools to push their Religion; namely: TRUTH, ABSOLUTES, KNOWLEDGE, OBSERVATION, PROOF, BELIEF.

None of these idiots understand the Scientific Method (Hypothesis + Theory) or the difference between objects and concepts. Hence their gravitation towards irrationality and contradictions; i.e. Religion!

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working