Practical value of Truth with a capital T

khaled

I'm not sure if this exactly counts as philosophy or the psychology behind it but here I go. The easiest way to troll on this site is to doubt too much. Since this is a philosophy forum people have a hard time telling if you're being serious or not when you say things such as "1 = 2" or "This thread is not in English". You'll likely quickly get ignored and for good reason. No one likes an unreasonable skeptic.

My question though is why? Most people here seem attatched to the idea of Truth with a capital T. As in some fact or statement that cannot be false that we can be absolutely sure of. I'm not so sold on why we would need such a thing, it seems more trouble to defend than it is worth. Let's say someone wants to claim that A is a Truth.

First of all, I don't think, anyone can deny the reality that people make mistakes (reasoning, misspelling, etc). So do we know that A is a Truth? We easily know when things are false (Example: "The earth is flat") but that's it. So there is the hurdle of: How do you make sure you're not making a mistake? I haven't found a satisfactory answer to this, but please share if you think you have one.

I'm more interested in why someone would want (need?) A to be True in the first place. We can all agree that 2=2 and that this site is mostly in English, what further need is there for us to elevate these statements to "undoubtalbe" status? Is it for peace of mind? Is it a reflex to not have to deal with unreasonable people suggesting that 1=2? What is it?

I'm not so interested in whether Truth with a capital T exists, or whether it is obtainable, I am interested in why people try to go for it. I can't imagine life being very different without it.

Brett

↪khaled

It occurs to me that this forum is more about debating than philosophy. Which is fine with me. We can test ideas and see how they fit and realign them with other thoughts if we think they contribute. They don’t always have to be valid. They might just spark some unexpected way of looking at your favourite obsession. But we generally feel that not only is our little obsession more interesting than anyone else’s, but we know more about it than anyone else. Sometimes someone challenges that and the most effective response to that challenge is to demand that they prove it true with a capital “T”. And of course it can’t be done. Why? Because they refuse your thesis, which of course is all it is.

It seems to me to be incredibly egotistical to think anyone comes near to truth with a capital “T”. But that’s our nature to varying degrees. If it’s not then you turn away. Why bother? But if there has to be a holy grail then we have to go looking for it. Some people think there’s some nobility in that. But really it’s just mental calisthenics.

Mww

As in some fact or statement that cannot be false that we can be absolutely sure of. I'm not so sold on why we would need such a thing — khaled

Not so much in support of capital T truth, which I hold as impossible both from inductive inference and the limitations of our own system of knowledge acquisition in the obtaining of it, but to justify something we can be absolutely sure of, and that is the unconditioned, a deductive inference that can’t be reduced further without self-contradiction, from within the same system. When we have that, whatever we build on it stands a better chance of being the case.

Why bother with “people that try to go for it”? Especially if you know they’re not going to get there?

Jack Cummins

↪khaled

Having been one of the people who began a thread about the subject of truth on this site recently I think your question depends on psychological perspectives and context. Some people are looking for a clear answer and some are happy to live with uncertainty.

In terms of context, I think one's underlying framework of thinking and basic ideasis are the main criteria from which the question of truth is explored. If one starts from a certain religious, or some other philosophical perspectives in which one believes that there is a central underlying truth to be found it is likely to be of great significance to reach out and discover it. But, if you believe that truth is relative, then finding ultimates is not a necessary objective.

Personally, I am neither of the view that there is one absolute truth or the view that searching for truth is meaningless. In my own life, and from discussion in this thread, I would say that we cannot find an absolute truth but the need to find frameworks and personal, authentic truths is an important aspect of life and essential to philosophy.

Echarmion

I'm more interested in why someone would want (need?) A to be True in the first place. We can all agree that 2=2 and that this site is mostly in English, what further need is there for us to elevate these statements to "undoubtalbe" status? Is it for peace of mind? Is it a reflex to not have to deal with unreasonable people suggesting that 1=2? What is it? — khaled

While actually getting to the capital-T Truth is probably impossible for most cases, don't we need it as a concept so that we have an idea of what "false" is? If we want to say that the statement "the earth is flat" is false, we'd need to be able to point to some authority that determines falsehood. In practice, this authority will always be something temporal. A mental conviction that we're correct for a bunch of reasons. But it seems we need some absolute standard so that we can conclude that the (small t) true statement is at least closer to it as the false one.

khaled

↪Mww

Why bother with “people that try to go for it”? — Mww

Just curious why there are so many of them. Their number makes me think they might be on to something. Anything.

but to justify something we can be absolutely sure of, and that is the unconditioned, a deductive inference that can’t be reduced further without self-contradiction, from within the same system. — Mww

Idk what this means though

khaled

↪Echarmion

In my own life, and from discussion in this thread, I would say that we cannot find an absolute truth but the need to find frameworks and personal, authentic truths is an important aspect of life and essential to philosophy. — Jack Cummins

:up:

tim wood

As in some fact or statement that cannot be false that we can be absolutely sure of. — khaled

Absolutely sure of? What does that mean? How does that which is absolutely true become something the sureness of which comes into such question that we must affirm it absolutely?

As to such things themselves, there is that which cannot be otherwise, and that that can, the latter contingent.

And there is confusion about all of this, but that confusion doesn't touch the heart of the thing.

khaled

↪Echarmion

But it seems we need some absolute standard so that we can conclude that the (small t) true statement is at least closer to it as the false one. — Echarmion

Don't know why the standard has to be "Absolute". We just need A standard. Of some sort. An aboslute standard would be required to say that "The earth is flat" is False with a capital F. Which is just another Truth with a capital T.

In the case of flat earth, that standard is common sense, trust in our sources, and trusting our eyes. No need to elevate our visual reports or the photos to the status of "undoubtalbe" see? For the purposes of any discussion ever we only deal with agreements. Big T doesn't enter the conversation, so I don't care if it exists or not.

khaled

↪tim wood

How does that which is absolutely true become something the sureness of which comes into such question that we must affirm it absolutely? — tim wood

Assume there is the Absolutely True Statement A, but we do not know what that statement is. How do we go about finding A? At what point do we know (for sure) that we have found A?

I say we are never sure if we've found A, so who cares about A. We don't seem to need it for anything.

Idk if that answers your question because I'm not sure what your question is.

tim wood

Assume there is the Absolutely True Statement A, — khaled

Ifs and assumes, short paths to confusion. And, what exactly are adjectives attached to true or truth supposed to convey? There seems applied to truth a halo of sorts that is not part of truth, and undercuts the meaning and significance of truth. And often enough the halo mis-taken for the substance, the thing itself.

The corrective is to return to basics. And with respect to the true, no embroidery is needed, which weakens the fabric.

Worth noting is that facts are facts and all facts are historical facts. And true is true. And true and fact are not the same thing, and while the world can work when the words are interchanged, it's still a mistake that can be troublesome and lead to confusion.

It's not possible to obtain precise results with imprecise or faulty tools or tools misused. In this respect, language is such a tool. When in the middle - or might we say "muddle" - of work with fatal flaws of imprecision, often enough the best, even only, thing to do is just stop. .

Echarmion

In the case of flat earth, that standard is common sense, trust in our sources, and trusting our eyes. No need to elevate our visual reports or the photos to the status of "undoubtalbe" see? For the purposes of any discussion ever we only deal with agreements. Big T doesn't enter the conversation, so I don't care if it exists or not. — khaled

Well, the question I am asking myself is whether you can have a relative standard that isn't grounded in some absolute. We could say "the earth is round" is relatively more true than "the earth is flat". In fact, saying this seems to make a lot of sense, because even "the earth is round" is obviously ommitting some information, while even "the earth is flat" yields correct enough predictions for a limited number of problems.

But does this notion of more or less true - in this case roughly equating to yielding more or less accurate predictions - work if we don't simultaneously have the idea of the Laplace demon? I.e. have the concept of perfect predictability, and from this we can graduate to imperfect predictabilities.

But then again perhaps this is nonsense, and really the concept of "perfect predictability" is an empty category created from experience of imperfect predictability. In any case, this might all seem outside of the bounds of your topic, since you have specified "practical value", which one might say doesn't include the mere presence of a concept of absolute truth.

Brett

↪khaled

For the purposes of any discussion ever we only deal with agreements. Big T doesn't enter the conversation, so I don't care if it exists or not. — khaled

I think there must be millions of people out there who would consider it a luxury to wonder if the Big T exists. For the them the Big T is staring them in the face every day. What does “ validity” matter to them, or “relative”, or “ absolute”.

The whole idea behind the Big T is that things will finally make sense and everything will fall into place and, presumably, the world and our lives will be better for it, because they make sense. Admittedly it’s a very optimistic outlook. But if we’re seeking something we’ve already largely decided on then we maybe looking in the wrong direction, because the Big T is right there, but it’s like ”No, that can’t be it, that’s not what I was looking for.”

For the purposes of any discussion ever we only deal with agreements. — khaled

If I’m reading you right the quest for the Big T is unnecessary or irrelevant.

khaled

↪Brett

If I’m reading you right the quest for the Big T is unnecessary or irrelevant. — Brett

Yes

For the them the Big T is staring them in the face every day. — Brett

How, then, are mistakes possible?

Brett

↪khaled

How, then, are mistakes possible? — khaled

Well the Big T is not the theory of everything. It’s not a code to every question. The Big T may not be nice to look at. It could put fear into people, it could prompt them to act irrationally, even against their own interests. There’s a feeling that until we find the Big T we’ll continue to make mistakes. That when we do find the Big T we’ll be able create a perfect world.

SophistiCat

↪khaled

Having read through the discussion, I still don't really know what you are getting at with all these Capital T's and Absolutes and so forth. Some examples that you gave (1=2, etc.) have to do with so-called analytic statements. On whether those can be doubted see e.g. Quine's Two Dogmas and the ensuing debate. More generally, the meaning and function of truth is a long-standing question in philosophy, one of the less tractable ones, but I am not sure whether your query has anything to do with that.

Perhaps instead of making vague, sweeping statements, considering some specific question would help.

khaled

↪SophistiCat

More generally, the meaning and function of truth is a long-standing question in philosophy, one of the less tractable ones, but I am not sure whether your query has anything to do with that. — SophistiCat

The question is more about: What is the function of Truth? We don't speak in truths, we speak in what-we-think-are-Truths. So unless you argue that they are the same thing, or that there is some way to go from what-we-think-are-Truths to Truths, then why the need to defend the notion if it never enters the conversation? Don't know if that helped.

Wayfarer

My question though is why? Most people here seem attatched to the idea of Truth with a capital T. — khaled

I very much doubt this applies to ‘most people’ on this forum, although I’m probably one of those to whom it does.

You generally read prose with Truth spelled with capital T in rather old books, as it denotes a rather antiquated and unfashionable sentiment. But what I think it is intended to convey is a sense of lived truth - the kind of truth that we imagine the emblematic Sage to embody - one who is clear-eyed, detached, unsentimental, and with insight into fundamental verities. Perhaps a scientist, scholar or great artist. So, it's really a kind of reference to 'one who dwells in truth' but in any case, a notion remote from our secular age. (Compare the Latin 'Veritas', now widely adopted as a motto, but originally denoting something very similar to Truth, capital-T.)

Brett

↪khaled

I'm not so interested in whether Truth with a capital T exists, or whether it is obtainable, I am interested in why people try to go for it. I can't imagine life being very different without it. — khaled

One of the best things, if not the best, I’ve read on this forum.

Practical value of Truth with a capital T

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions