Cool. Thanks!

the basic idea, I agree with. — Judaka

:up:

I don't think I can agree entirely with that, but I agree that essentially the objective view is least prone to bias. — Serving Zion

I disagree. The objective view is most prone to bias because so much of it is made of interpretations.

Truth is always in power as it's the base. — Shamshir

Yep. I agree.

Note the OP's changed so we're talking about a quote by someone other than Nietszche.

So when we look back on history and see changing worldviews, were seeing power change hands.

But the notion that our own worldview is just like that: a favored interpretation, is a difficult pill to swallow. The will to truth says "I will not be deceived by appearances.."

Somehow we're supposed to be different from those who went before.

Note the OP's changed so we're talking about a quote by someone other than Nietszche. — frank

A wise move!

Yes. Morality was N's preoccupation. The predator has one interpretation of events, the prey has another. Lacking a God's eye view, all we have are interpretations. Truth is only found in that divine perspectuve unavailable to us. — frank

If truth is actuality, is the prey's interpretation any less true than the predators, or vice versa? Is there another absolutely true interpretation, something more than merely an amalgam of the two perspectives, or a retelling set against a larger horizon?

When it comes to what we might think of as moral truth, do we equate truth only with good or evil as well?

A wise move! — Banno

It's still a good quote.

f truth is actuality, is the prey's interpretation any less true than the predators, or vice versa? Is there another absolutely true interpretation, something more than merely an amalgam of the two perspectives, or a retelling set against a larger horizon? — Janus

In an era of predator dominance, the predator's interpretation is generally taken to be true and the world's divinities supposedly back this up. When the tide turns and the prey comes into power, the prey's interpretation is taken for granted, and again, the divine view aligns with the view of the dominant class.

Think about what happens when belief in divinity disintegrates. The idea of absolute truth persists by inertia, but there's nothing there to align it with.

We pat ourselves on the backs for realizing that absolute truth is a problematic concept and we declare that we don't need it because it isn't useful. In fact, it's incredibly useful. And therein lies the problem. Right?

It's still a good quote. — frank

What if it was "All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation is believed at a given time is a function of power and not truth"?

In fact, it's incredibly useful. And therein lies the problem. Right? — frank

It is if you find something to align it with. The problem is that it fails to be absolute if it is aligned with anything less than absolute; which would seem to make the idea of divinity indispensable. But what use is a divinity who is invisible except through scriptures which purport to be divine revelations?

The only other candidates for absolutes would seem to be nature and humanity. Can they also be counted as divinities, worthy of our reverence? Reverence for all of nature, including humanity, would seem to be the most useful influence I can imagine right now, given the current looming convergence of crises that have resulted precisely because of a general lack of this kind of reverence.

What if it was "All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation is believed at a given time is a function of power and not truth"? — Banno

That works.

But what use is a divinity who is invisible except through scriptures which purport to be divine revelations? — Janus

Once we realize that changes in worldview are really changes in power structure, it occurs to us that our own worldview is rooted mainly in such a structure. From there, the word "truth" goes into acrobatics:

Is our worldview true? Is it false? Is it as true as any other worldview? Or should we dispense with truth and admit that 'there are no facts, only interpretations?'

The basis for the question is a missing divinity, no matter how we may poo poo the concept.

Wait. I don't think I'm explaining this correctly. Maybe tomorrow I'll get the right words.

Yes, the absolute is itself a human construct. If we will inevitably choose some absolute, then there would surely be better choices than the transcendentally dead, or else vacuous, one that is only revealed in scripture was my main point.

A transcendent divinity is always a missing divinity, and ultimately a useless one since it will never become a universalised norm. Spinoza recognized this almost 400 years ago, and proposed that God be equated with nature.

That works. — frank

...and brings out the fiat; "the world is this-and-so".

Of course, the world does not care what you believe; truth has the last say. If you like, that's the power of truth.

Yes, the absolute is itself a human construct. — Janus

What might that mean... that you can choose whatever you wish, and call it "true"? Sure, but that does not make it true.

What I meant was that the concept of absolute truth is historically tied to divinity. Though we've left divinity behind, I dont think most of are prepared to say that truth is nothing more than a reflection of the ruling class. Or are we?

and brings out the fiat; "the world is this-and-so".

Of course, the world does not care what you believe; truth has the last say. If you like, that's the power of truth. — Banno

Truth has the last say? Absolute truth? Or today's interpretation?

Sure, but that does not make it true. — Banno

What makes it true? I thought you were deflationary about truth.

What I meant was that the concept of absolute truth is historically tied to divinity. — frank

Adding the word "absolute" to the word "truth" only causes discombobulation. Like adding "Pink" to "disestablishmentarianism"...

What makes it true? — frank

What makes what true? "P" will be true IFF P... that's all there is to it, apart from a bit of pragmatics.

It's needed in this context.

What makes what true? "P" will be true IFF P... that's all there is to it, apart from a bit of pragmatics. — Banno

That's deflation. There is no truth-maker in it.

It's needed in this context. — frank

The context of the garden path you want to wander up? :razz:

Yep. So do you think a truth-maker is needed?

How could there be one thing that makes each proposition true - a thing shared by all propositions?

Nuh. Truth-makers are a distraction, not a help.

I know the metaphysical sorcery to make it sort of work, but then it's not really an account of any specific proposition, so it's just confusing in discussion of theories of truth.

The similarity shared by all truths (that they are the case) is never an account of how any of them are true.

I agree. :smile:

I know the metaphysical sorcery to make it sort of work, — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes - know in the way not too dissimilar to how you know how to ride a bike, not in the way you know that Brexit is a bad idea.

Are you thinking of truth in the propositional or empirical sense or truth in a "spiritual" sense? (I put the latter in brackets to indicate that I am not proposing that there is any any "transcendent authority" or need for any such idea, but merely that there might be ideas which are true to the human spirit or the spirit of nature, where "spirit" is understood to be something like "life", "liveliness' or health).

Nuh. Truth-makers are a distraction, not a help. — Banno

Then why were you saying the world is thus and so?

Redundancy is just about assertions.

The context of the garden path you want to wander up? :razz: — Banno

Yea.

The context of the garden path you want to wander up? :razz: — Banno

What else is human life if not a wandering up one garden path or another?

I don't agree. We can draw a distinction between what is true per se, and what is true relative to some context or other. Examples of the latter would be empirical truths, psychological truths. poetical truths. moral truths and so on.

This is not to say that we can ever know what is true per se, we know only relative truths (and our knowing them is also relative) but merely that we can define truth in these different ways.

But absolute (in this context cross-cultural) truths of human life or nature can be posited, not as things known in any propositional sense, but as guiding ideas that "hit the mark", as I suggested above. And I would add that these kinds of guiding principles always involve some idea of divinity and a feeling of reverence.

likely you know better than I the problems with this definition — tim wood

No, I don't see any problems with the definition. Could you explain the problems you see? Thank you.

The objective view is most prone to bias because so much of it is made of interpretations. — frank

It is also least prone to bias because it's role is (supposedly) impartial in it's interpretation of facts. The subjects themselves are no less interpreting the truth than the objective judge is, but they are interested only in how the truth supports their own views.

A sheep says that it would never slay a human, and that a human does not need to slay the sheep. That is usually true except in exceptional circumstances. So when the human is rationalizing that truth in order to slay the sheep, he has to say that he will starve if the sheep is not slain, or that the sheep is not a conscious being that can possibly have that point of view.

But what does an objective judge say about it? (Ie: one who is not a sheep, and one who does not slay sheep). I think that is why vegans are so easily angered when they are opposed. Their judgments see that the truth supports the sheep in justice, while the sheep-slaying human is resorting to untruths to rationalise that injustice.

(You probably have experienced in your own way, how frustrating it is when someone is insisting that you are wrong, but they are refusing to acknowledge the truth.)

So, it drives the vegan mad, because they are also simultaneously pained by their empathy with the sheep that suffers injustice, and they, though being an impartial judge, are powerless to exercise justice.

Then, in their desperation for power to do justice, they have been known to implement untruth, as for example, thinking that the sheep-slayer knows he is doing injustice to the sheep, when in fact the sheep-slayer has not yet seen the truth according to the sheep's point of view.

So I have found from this, that power is distinct from truth, and that truth is only powerful when it is effective for conviction.