Truth and Belief

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

....Any named or unnamed man of philosophy in those times could have swayed the masses with pseudo-intellectual thoughts, if he so chose to do so.

Really?

Is this true, or more of a belief?

Without knowing too much about the information technology in action 2000 years before the invention of the printing press, I am wondering how it happened, in terms of the general believing.

[Aristoddler]

It's an assumption.

My assumption.


And without the printing press, I would assume that word of mouth would be the most common method of media so to speak...which would also lead me to assume that his origianl words of wisdom were incredibly misconstrued by the time they did get to printed form.
So this leads me to wonder what he really said?

[perplexity]

How good it would be on the odd occasion if they'd stop to wonder what I'd really said, today or the day before.

Two thousand years after the event, why worry?

"...All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest, hmmmm, li, lie lie,..."

(Paul Simon)

[pilgrimshost]

Religion, the hub of belief is descovered to be of alternative origins from which it supposedly began and thus is not 'true'. Science gets 'updated', it has flaws (gaps) that are 'covered' over by 'theories' and not then true indeed. The Universe itself is the 'Great unknown'. Every fact about it is just theories an insignificant race on an insignificant world in an insignificant galaxy has devised to try and understand it. Isnt it strange that any so called certanty is subject to be questioned? Logic is not universal as many things that defy logical principles seem to exist, so itself is not a rule. Words have no fact in them that can be drawn apon as truth to an existance or proper meaning; Psykic-is it actually true to exist as the definition proclaims: telekanesis, extra terrestorals, Reserection, omnipresence, God, Reincarnation. So if a word has a meaning it also is subject to change.

Facts are often just the majority opinion. History, science religion ect.Such as the origin of the pyrimids, or the purpose of stone henge.

Therefore; Belief=fact. truth=myth.

[freaky_monkey]

It's certainly true to say that science gets "updated" with noticeable examples such as string theory, relativity, quantum mechanics, macro and micro evolution etc. However, 1 + 1 =2. Is this a truth and if so can it or will it ever change? Is mathematics the ultimate truth?

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by pilgrimsHost

Belief=fact. truth=myth.

That is nice.

You could say that I do believe that there is some truth to it.

Truth and belief are narrative issues, both of them, all about the telling of stories.

Originally Posted by freaky_monkey

However, 1 + 1 =2. Is this a truth and if so can it or will it ever change?

1 + 1 =2 is obviously not a truth.

How come they fall for such a silly nonsense?

The scientific equation, the notion of identical equity is one of the most absurd yet one of the most persistent fallacies. In so far as it is possible to experience the separation of entities as if to suppose to propose a set of two or more, the entitites may therefore be similar enough to compare for ordinary purposes, but it is equally axiomatic that the entities are are therefore separate and different, not absolutely indentical.

It is contrary to ordinary experience to propose even that anything stays the same as compared to itself for two conseqential seconds in a row, let alone as compared to anything apart. That is simply not how life is.

Stuff moves, Everything changes, all the time. Come and go. Live and die, divided in order to multiply.

Originally Posted by freaky_monkey

Is mathematics the ultimate truth?

To sophisticatedly investigate an opinion of the inadequacy of abstract conception one might also refer to Albert Einstern's chum, Kurt Gödel, whose wonderful irony was to invoke mathematics as if to mock the very flesh of itself that we feed upon.

The truer it gets, the more absurd it is.

--- RH.

[freaky_monkey]

"1 + 1 =2 is obviously not a truth." Obviously educational standards are as high as ever!

[perplexity]

Pronouns are profoundly deceptive, not truthful.
When the disingenuous are presented with a pronoun they rather take it as an open opportunity to deliberately misinterpret.

If I say that "this is that" or that "that is not this", it may be as absolutly true as I want it to be to me, but it would not be wise or polite to expect to mean as much to you.

My wife annoys with this on a daily basis, the use of pronouns to refer to whatever she had in her head but which is yet to require a five minute interrogation to catch up with what whatever she thought she was on about.

"Pattern-recognition is a throwing away of information.
Any device that can lose information can generalize."
---(W Ross Ashby)

For as far as I am then concerned, for instance, "God" is the ulitimate pronoun, to the extent that it takes forever and a day to work out what exactly the word would mean, blessed with a Capital Letter or otherwise.

--- RH.

[freaky_monkey]

"1 + 1 =2 is obviously not a truth". non sequitur!

[boagie]

freaky monkey,

Pragmatism,utterly necessary for the continuation of life as we know it.Truth,that's very very funny!! Nietzsche:There are no facts only interpretations.Help!!They are coming to my room again!!