There is no truth...

Perceiving something does not make it true ...

Alexandre Orion wrote: Perceiving something does not make it true ...

True, no argument there but how do you determine truth without first perceving?

Well ... we don't even have to deal with truth for that.

According to Bentham, and later Hume, that is all there is. From an empiricist point of view, the world is because it is perceived and most knowledge about the world is induction. Why are we confident that things will happen in a certain way ? It is because we expect the future to behave like the past.

Needless to say, there are some flaws with this. But I'm not going to stand in the way of your voyage of discovery -- I'll let you find those flaws.

This is a paradoxical statement.

"There is no truth"

If that is the truth, then it falsifies itself.

If that is not the truth, then itself is falsified.

Rickie The Grey wrote:

Alexandre Orion wrote: Perceiving something does not make it true ...

True, no argument there but how do you determine truth without first perceving?

It doesnt automatically make it false either...

Well ... we don't even have to deal with truth for that.

According to Bentham, and later Hume, that is all there is. From an empiricist point of view, the world is because it is perceived and most knowledge about the world is induction. Why are we confident that things will happen in a certain way ? It is because we expect the future to behave like the past.

Well, this thread is about "truth"... lol...

When we let go of the past, and dont expect the future, all there is is "NOW",and that perception in the "NOW" is truth...

No judgement, no questions, only 'being'...

Beyond my thoughts, this entire outside world is subject to perception...

FOr me...

The first assumption (or meaning, or definition) regarding the meaning of truth is that, what is true describes a condition that is permanent, unchanging, universal. The traditional, philosophical discussion of truth distinguishes objects (ontology) and propositions about objects (epistemology) and applies to objects and things said about objects. The second assumption, is that truth assumes the existence of objects, and if there is truth, then it can only apply to our only too human assertions and propositions about objects. Objects are not true in themselves but are only so in our propositions about them. Propositions about objects can involve the property of truth and these assertions can have a universal quality. But these ideas assume a human perception and a human perspective and the moment a proposition is stated both the human perception/perspective and the object itself will have changed. Truth, then, cannot be applied to objects for they fail both assumptions. It is the case that what is true, changes, but again, this proposition fails the definition of truth. The property of ‘truth’ is not then permanent, unchanging or universal. When any definition of truth is questionable so also is the meaning of any concept to which the proposition ‘it is true’ could be applied. Acknowledgement: Nietzsche and Embodiment: Discerning Bodies and Non-dualism, by Kristen Brown, SUNY Press, 2006.

Proteus wrote: This is a paradoxical statement.

"There is no truth"
If that is the truth, then it falsifies itself.
If that is not the truth, then itself is falsified.

I was thinking the same thing. It's like saying "everything I tell you is a lie".

Alan wrote: The first assumption (or meaning, or definition) regarding the meaning of truth is that, what is true describes a condition that is permanent, unchanging, universal. The traditional, philosophical discussion of truth distinguishes objects (ontology) and propositions about objects (epistemology) and applies to objects and things said about objects. The second assumption, is that truth assumes the existence of objects, and if there is truth, then it can only apply to our only too human assertions and propositions about objects. Objects are not true in themselves but are only so in our propositions about them. Propositions about objects can involve the property of truth and these assertions can have a universal quality. But these ideas assume a human perception and a human perspective and the moment a proposition is stated both the human perception/perspective and the object itself will have changed. Truth, then, cannot be applied to objects for they fail both assumptions. It is the case that what is true, changes, but again, this proposition fails the definition of truth. The property of ‘truth’ is not then permanent, unchanging or universal. When any definition of truth is questionable so also is the meaning of any concept to which the proposition ‘it is true’ could be applied. Acknowledgement: Nietzsche and Embodiment: Discerning Bodies and Non-dualism, by Kristen Brown, SUNY Press, 2006.

Paradoxically...

Change, is a permanent state, not necessarily an object, but, could be called an object, if one considers a "state" as an object...

Therefore, change = truth...

lol...

all there is is "NOW",and that perception in the "NOW" is truth...

I think you nailed it.

of course it depends on how you define.....

Rickie The Grey wrote:

all there is is "NOW",and that perception in the "NOW" is truth...

I think you nailed it.

of course it depends on how you define.....

lol... :laugh:

Of course....