Is Truth Individual?

[Left Coast]

I encourage examining the negative side of a picture.

Something might not be true objectively, yet still remains true in someone's mind. That person wouldn't be wrong in such cases.

Can you provide an example?

 

[Nimos]

Often, including on RF, I hear people use phrases like, "your truth," "my truth," "true for me," "true for you," and so on.

Is truth individual? Or is it independent of us as individuals?

There is only truth, either something is or it isn't. Even to say "My truth" or "Your truth" makes little sense in my opinion. Rather one should refer to it as "my situation" or "your situation".

To put it very simple, either an apple is an apple or it isn't.

However our perception of truth can differ, but that only mean that either one is wrong and one is right or that both are wrong.

Then you can have agreed upon truth, which are truth, that we can't demonstrate, but that everyone would agree is true. Such as the feeling of love.. having thoughts, even though no one really know what a thought is suppose to be.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Can you provide an example?

Like religious beliefs. The religion may not be true, but the belief itself is.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes. But what we think about it, is relative to the group using a shared frame of reference, or rather filters through which we perceive and interpret that reality.

The "truth" of whatever that "it" is, does not exist indepently. The "fact" of it, the "in itself" cannot be known to us directly, but is only interpreted for us through our subjective, or collectively subjective filters, i.e., language and culture. And that we call "truth".

That's an interesting thought. But that it exists can be known to us directly, yes?

 

[Left Coast]

Like religious beliefs. The religion may not be true, but the belief itself is.

I don't understand, sorry. If my religion teaches that the world was created 6,000 years ago, and that's false, then my belief in that teaching is also false, right?

 

[Terry Sampson]

Is truth individual? Or is it independent of us as individuals?

Normally, each of us has or had a mother. That is a fact that can only be said to be dependent on us with considerable difficulty. It is, I affirm, a universal truth.
Whether or not an individual's mother is or was nice or not is an opinion, not a fact. It is, I affirm, an individual truth, when true, if ever true.
Consequently, I conclude that some truth is universal and independent of us individuals and some truth is individual.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't understand, sorry. If my religion teaches that the world was created 6,000 years ago, and that's false, then my belief in that teaching is also false, right?

Its the belief of and in itself that is true. (Subjective) Not the substance of that belief. (Objective)

 

[Left Coast]

Its the belief of and in itself that is true. (Subjective)

What does that mean? That the person honestly believes it?

 

[Nakosis]

Often, including on RF, I hear people use phrases like, "your truth," "my truth," "true for me," "true for you," and so on.

Is truth individual? Or is it independent of us as individuals?

There may exist a truth that is independent of us but we are only semi-dependent on it. The subconscious mind can create a reality which we experience that does not depend on this independent truth. It is almost independent but not quite. We are still dependent on the basic necessities of existence.

So the truth that you experience is not independent of you, but I think it is safe to assume there exists a truth that is independent of us.

 

[Quintessence]

Like many words, "truth" is polysemic or holds several different meanings depending on context and culture. That variation is going to heavily determine now one processes this question. What sort of "truth" are we talking about?

 

[Windwalker]

That's an interesting thought. But that it exists can be known to us directly, yes?

We can know something exists directly, but we cannot say we know what that something actually is, objectively speaking. What we think about it, is mediated through language and culture.

We cannot say that what I am petting is a "cat" in true objective reality, for instance. We experience that "something" as a "cat" because that is how our subjective minds have be trained to perceive it. In reality, it's not a cat. It's just a collection of energies we call "cat". But that does not in any sense define its objective reality independent of how we perceive it.

A cat doesn't know it's a cat. It just exists as itself, independent of what we think it is. The reality of the cat to God, is not the reality of a cat to a human, for instance. It's perceptions all the way up, and all the way down.

 

[Left Coast]

Like many words, "truth" is polysemic or holds several different meanings depending on context and culture. That variation is going to heavily determine now one processes this question. What sort of "truth" are we talking about?

Usually I use the term truth to mean, "reality," or at least, "corresponding to reality." If you use a different definition, feel free to explain.

 

[Left Coast]

We cannot say that what I am petting is a "cat" in true objective reality, for instance. We experience that "something" as a "cat" because that is how our subjective minds have be trained to perceive it. In reality, it's not a cat. It's just a collection of energies we call "cat". But that does not in any sense define its objective reality independent of how we perceive it.

A cat doesn't know it's a cat. It just exists as itself, independent of what we think it is. The reality of the cat to God, is not the reality of a cat to a human, for instance. It's perceptions all the way up, and all the way down.

Is all that objectively true?

 

[Quintessence]

Usually I use the term truth to mean, "reality," or at least, "corresponding to reality." If you use a different definition, feel free to explain.

That's a good starting point which then gets us into ontology. Given the nature of reality is a philosophical question that rests on ultimately unprovable assumptions, this would then have significant implications for the nature of truth. It would mean truth is unavoidably individual and subjective. Not everyone uses the word "truth" in that fashion, though.

 

[BSM1]

Facts are truth, aren't they? What makes facts facts is that they're true, right?

Yes. But 'truth' is not always fact. For instance, at one time the sun revolving around the earth was the accepted truth. However, this was not factual. As more facts are learned, truth changes.

 

[Windwalker]

Usually I use the term truth to mean, "reality," or at least, "corresponding to reality." If you use a different definition, feel free to explain.

What is reality to us, is subjectively interpreted. What one person calls reality, is not necessarily reality to another. Examples are countless.

 

[Secret Chief]

Facts are truth

Did it used to be a fact that the sun orbited the Earth?

 

[Left Coast]

Yes. But 'truth' is not always fact. For instance, at one time the sun revolving around the earth was the accepted truth. However, this was not factual. As more facts are learned, truth changes.

I see, so you're using "truth," to mean, "whatever a person or culture believes," regardless of whether the belief is accurate.

 

[Secret Chief]

Yes. But 'truth' is not always fact. For instance, at one time the sun revolving around the earth was the accepted truth. However, this was not factual. As more facts are learned, truth changes.

Blimmin eck we just posted this simultaneously.

 

[Left Coast]

Did it used to be a fact that the sun orbited the Earth?

Yes.