Conclusion: Any individual in possession or "revelation" of such a truth has 2 options: conceal it/keep it to oneself. In which case one cannot tell the truth. And so becomes a liar by definition.
This is basis for powerful and dangerous propaganda - from the word "to propagate" - as in to propagate delusions, deceptions and misinformation. To be deceitful. This is therefore wholly immoral as it disempowers others/misleads them and reduces their ability to be moral or take control. It is manipulative.
So to know the truth and not speak it is the archetype of the "villain", "antagonist" or "evil doer". — Benj96
Thus if one who has some revelation and knows truth but does not speak about it such as institutions, it's very likely this is so because revealing the truth would not be understood (esoteric truth) or the public wouldn't even care to listen to it. — SpaceDweller
Thus if one who has some revelation and knows truth but does not speak about it such as institutions, it's very likely this is so because revealing the truth would not be understood ( — SpaceDweller
the public wouldn't even care to listen to it — SpaceDweller
Why would a fundamental, profound or simple/basic truth be esoteric (specialised and inaccessible).
The whole point of truth and it's "acknowledgement" ie "knowledge of what's true" is that it very much is accesible by following basic logic and reasoning to their ends.
Truths make sense to people. Strings of lies do not because theyre "inconsistent" (false) ie not true and thus not sensible. — Benj96
Socrates concludes that the prisoners, if they were able, would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave
I would say it applies to both but more leaning toward institution, it depends on what is meant by 'truth' or how is it defined.Secondly you speak in doubles first saying "one who has some revelation" and then "such as institutions" which is it? One person does not an institution make. — Benj96
What you're talking about is exactly "esoteric" truth, meaning not only that it would not be understood by cave men (it blinds them) but also unwillingness of those circles which know it to share, both applies.I think it's far more reasonable that an "institution" or hierarchy of power, withholds the truth from the top (manipulator/truth with-holder) downward not because the general public couldn't understand it but rather because they don't want the public to understand it as if they did, they wouldn't be in a position of power anymore would they? — Benj96
Yes, agree.Also the publics lack of understanding of it is literally caused by whoever withholds it from them. It's in effect keeping the public distracted and uneducated (without knowledge). It's easier to deceive and manipulate someone without much understanding of anything. — Benj96
The public would of course care but I don't think they would believe it.If you asked the public would they like to know who is fooling them and misguiding them. Who is spreading prooganada and misinformation. Do you genuinely think they wouldnt care? — Benj96
Well, Jesus also proclaimed truth and we all know people *did* care but didn't believe it.Imagine going up to someone and saying "so I have this big super important super powerful secret which let's me manipulate others. And I'm not telling you what that is."
You think people "wouldn't care". — Benj96
I think because it is objective truth that truth is not known. — SpaceDweller
I think of truth as of universal truth which answers the existence of all things because this would answer many great philosophical questions. — SpaceDweller
The public would of course care but I don't think they would believe it. — SpaceDweller
Jews went out of the cave and killed him to not be dragged out of the cave — SpaceDweller
I think for this discussion to make any sense you should define what is meant by truth, that is, what should this universal truth be about, what should that universal truth answer or reveal — SpaceDweller
You said "Any individual in possession or "revelation" of such a truth", thus I assume by revelation you mean truth which answers great questions. — SpaceDweller
Also I assume there can be only one truth — SpaceDweller
That is, approach in which there is search for "esoteric truth"consists in postulating the existence of a "universal esotericism" of which
it would be a matter of discovering, of explicating the “true” nature
consists in positing that, to validly study a religion, a tradition, a spiritual trend, and so on - and, consequently, "esotericism" - it is necessary to be a member of it oneself on pain of not
understanding very much about it
How does one prove their validity as the claimant to objective morality in this dilemma? When everyone is prepared to project delusion, judgement, intolerance, envy and hatred onto them despite their noble attempt?
The answer is a 3 step process: ... — Benj96
1). Speak the truth, if it is indeed as powerful as it ought to be - because of its logical and revelatory nature, the truth speaker ought to gain some attention and fandom, rising from obscurity to the height of politics and media coverage. — Benj96
How? Not saying anything doesn't make you a liar. Knowing something and telling it to others is two separate things.Conclusion: Any individual in possession or "revelation" of such a truth has 2 options: conceal it/keep it to oneself. In which case one cannot tell the truth. And so becomes a liar by definition. — Benj96
How? Not saying anything doesn't make you a liar — ssu
Besides, any person or entity that is part of the universe and interacts with the universe cannot know objectively all truths — ssu
all absolute universal truths — ssu
nor can a dead person influence the world once it's dead. — SpaceDweller
There are countless martyrs in the name of truth and none succeeded to answer great questions. — SpaceDweller
Therefore I think truth is either esoteric, a lie or it doesn't exist. — SpaceDweller
Truth cannot be a lie. Otherwise the foundations of our court/judiciary system is completely faulty and evidence and justice are total nonsense. — Benj96
Truth cannot be esoteric, because it spans the range from basic/simple to complex. — Benj96
Truth cannot not exist, otherwise all of science is debased. — Benj96
Therefore truth exists. And as a spectrum of all true things, some are more longstanding, more consistent, more fundamental, than others.
I just drank some water is true.
Civilisation has been around for millenia is true.
Animals exists for millions of years is true.
The planet condensed via gravity is true... — Benj96
"IMO, Absolute truth"-tellers e.g. gurus, sages, prophets ... are immoral insofar as they preach 'illusions of "absolute knowledge"' – ignorance – to their naive and gullible followers. Thus, philosophers (e.g. Socratics, Pyrrhonians) are the original cult deprogrammers. :fire: — 180 Proof
If we cant know all truths at all times, isn't that then a limitation to absolute knowledge?Of course they cant know all truths at all times. — Benj96
And what does the second law of thermodynamics tell us? Or quantum physics of the idea of Newtonian clockwork universe?One does not require to know every movement of every particle to know the laws and rules that govern such processes. — Benj96
Existence of logical truths does not imply existence of universal truth, universal truth may as well consist of multiple or a series of logical truths, however the opposite is false, such that any of the logical truths is universal truth because no such logical truth is known.
What you're saying is that universal truth is necessarily logical truth even though unknown, but this is wrong assumption for reason above. — SpaceDweller
If we cant know all truths at all times, isn't that then a limitation to absolute knowledge? — ssu
Even if we understand these limitations — ssu
When any entity interacts with the world around it, there are then issues that it cannot know. It cannot make an objective description. — ssu
The closest thing to "absolute truth" is that such "knowledge" is either ineffable or unknowable — 180 Proof
Absolute truth"-tellers e.g. gurus, sages, prophets ... are immoral insofar as they preach 'illusions of "absolute knowledge"' – ignorance – to their naive and gullible followers. Thus, philosophers (e.g. Socratics, Pyrrhonians) are the original cult deprogrammers. :fire: — 180 Proof
My point was we can and are approaching fundamental truth by observing it's uniform unchanging behaviour in the system around us. — Benj96
Truth is an abstraction. — Tom Storm
Sounds like you come at truth from a more spiritual or religious path - hence the role of transcendence in your formulation. — Tom Storm
This seems to assume the impossibility of a multiverse, containing multiple universes with different physics. Is that so? And if so, why think that a well justified assumption? — wonderer1
I believe the Mutliverse is an idea brought around by the fact that every person understands or perceives on singular thing - "the universe" in billions of ways - "subjectivity".
Well my answer to that is, my definition of the universe as the entirety of all things.
The "Multiverse" for me is still "the universe". Because if there's more than one one, then my definition expands to include all of them.
Ok, but that is not what physicists are referring to when discussing multiverse concepts. — wonderer1
was in the hope of pointing out that we may only be approaching accurate modeling of things within the universe we are part of. So calling that " fundamental truth" is questionable. — wonderer1
Physical laws & constants are not "absolute truths". We "know" them only as structural invariants of our most reliable, provisional scientific models.If that is the case how to we know the mass of the sun, the strength of gravity or the speed of light? — Benj96
IMO, anyone who denies that 's/he do not know that s/he do not know' by preaching some "absolute knowledge" is not an honest seeker (lover) of wisdom, whether s/he uses 'philosophical techniques' (e.g. sophist) or not (e.g. priest).Who's to say these truth tellers weren't just philosophers?
Physical laws & constants are not "absolute truths". We "know" them only as structural invariants of our best provisional scientific models — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.