Truth and Belief

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Yes. It is true that I believed that Rio was the capital. But what I believed, namely that Rio was the capital, was false. A simple distinction: (1) whether it is true that I believed that Rio was the capital: (2) Whether it was true that Rio was the capital.

The answer to (1) is, yes. The answer to (2) is no.

No problem.

The problem is the truth, that Rio was the Capital.

While the truth changes, belief craves uniformity.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by perplexity

The problem is the truth, that Rio was the Capital.

While the truth changes, belief craves uniformity.

But truth doesn't change. For example, the truth that it rains in New York City on July 11th, 1941 at 2 pm in Central Park if true, is true a million years ago, is true on July 11th, 1941 at 2 pm in Central Park , and is true a million year from now.

But a belief may be either true, or it may be false.

[perplexity]

A refusal to change the mind is not a refusal of the truth to change.

[Isa]

Originally Posted by perplexity

A refusal to change the mind is not a refusal of the truth to change.

Is this then true until you change your mind? Or has the truth changed, but not your mind?

[Isa]

Originally Posted by perplexity

A refusal to change the mind is not a refusal of the truth to change.

But if the truth changes, but not the minds, how can it be a truth without the agreement of minds? This would imply that the truth is independent of agreement.

[perplexity]

The nearest we get to irrefutability is to say that everything changes, hence the corollary: Nothing is permanent, which is thus indeed averse to agreement; in order to agree belief beseeches perpetuity, better than nothing so to speak.

None the less, the truth of change runs away along with time, faster than we know how to chase it. We therefore believe to force the truth to stand still for long enough to discuss.

[Isa]

Originally Posted by perplexity

The nearest we get to irrefutability is to say that everything changes, hence the corollary: Nothing is permanent, which is thus indeed averse to agreement; in order to agree belief beseeches perpetuity, better than nothing so to speak.

None the less, the truth of change runs away along with time, faster than we know how to chase it. We therefore believe to force the truth to stand still for long enough to discuss.

None the less, the truth of change runs away along with time, faster than we know how to chase it. We therefore believe to force the truth to stand still for long enough to discuss.[/quote]

Very eloquently put. However, it is difficult to fully accept any statement that seems to turn in on itself: ie. “It is absolutely true, that nothing is absolutely true.”

So as far as irrefutability goes, I will have to go with:

“Truth is truth, to the end of reckoning.” –William Shakespeare “Measure for Measure”, Act 5 scene 1

[perplexity]

So nothing is absolute, before the proof to be so?

"Long enough" I say, to reckon before the end.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by perplexity

A refusal to change the mind is not a refusal of the truth to change.

Excuse me, but how can truth refuse anything? Truth isn't a person. I can change my mind about what I believe is true. But what has that to do with what is true?

[perplexity]

The truth is nothing more or less than what is proved, and thus approved as actual fact.

A "truth" claimed or assumed but not approved is thus indeed the responsiblity of the claimant, not for the truth itself to answer to, in so far as there ever was a truth itself.

None the less, belief routinely cheats, pretending to be true for want of the proof.