Philosophical question?

[ACertainPassingUser]

If it's harry potter style, which is using Veritaserum, people only talk the truth of what they believe as truth.

----

If it's Umineko style, which is using META world - Higher level plane, You can only declare Red Truth with Absolute truth, which is factually and undeniably true from the META event as storytelling narrative, albeit it can have multiple interpretation.

If they try said 0something that's not true using Red truth, They'll choke on the words they're trying to say.

This apllies to things you believe it to be true, even tho they're not factually true. You'll practically choke while realizing that what you believe is not true at all.

The META World - Higher level plane, oversees all the events and guarantees the factual truth of the statements.

 

[BigBadBoi]

 

[RepresentingDesire]

I have said it before and will say it again, it is our perception that creates truth, what we see and what we are convinced to be seeing.

There are many different interpretation on how to be virtues,through blind faith, self-awareness, acceptance or peacefullness. People practice different interpretations depending on if they are preceived as true.

On a more simple level is it obvious that words are just a compact information that often is invented, most colours are only distinct to us if we have a word for them, the same is true for most others words as well. Not even speaking about more complex symbols like colours and what they are saying or about other cultural aspects, like the sun king whore some manly things for his time and nowadays he would be called a drag queen or something similar.

Not even talking about perception itself which can change a lot depending on the organs involved, the differance in perception between animals should be obvious.

 

[TheBestofSome]

Because we, by our nature as humans, only have subjective perception by which to view the world, we have to take a lot on faith if we want to be able to function. We have to trust that what we see is true, at least most of the time, and we have to trust that there is objective truth if we want to get anything done.

The fact that even people who say they don't believe in objective truth still behave as if they do is an interesting phenomenon; make of it what you will. (The same happens with people who say they don't believe in free will, but that's a different discussion.)

As for your first question, I would say that either they have to speak the truth as it appears to them, they have to speak the truth of God, or they have to remain eternally silent. I am here referring to God as the entity/force which created the universe and all that exists, including the concept of logic itself, not a god of any particular religion.

I'd be inclined to think the first option the most likely, with the third coming in second. Unless the various religions are correct and there is a thinking reasoning God which created everything, but I'll go no further on that so as not to break any rules.

Since curses don't exist (so far as we know, anyway) we can't really apply observation to try to figure out what the rules of the curse are/will be, which is how we've figured out basically everything else we 'know'. Either from observing something, or extrapolating from something else we've observed.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

Ngl, some of these answers bother me greatly. Truth is not a complicated thing. It exists by necessity, and it's characteristics are simple. Truth is not constructed by humans. Rather, we recognise it's existence and refer to it as "truth".

The faults of the logical faculties of humans- vagueness, ignorance, limited perception, and simple stubborness, is not a reason to deny something extra-human and quite literally supernatural: truth.

If I scream something false at the top of my lungs, does that make it true? If everyone who hears me believes it, does that suddenly make it true? Truth cannot be changed or made. People who claim truth is subjective mistake it with opinion. Truth that is obscured from human minds still exists.

If I hide truth behind a screen or a veil, does it suddenly not exist anymore? If someone else sees a different portion of truth, and comes to a conclusion different from my own, does that deny the existence of truth altogether? If I re-define truth to be synonymous with opinion, rather than fact, does that mean fact disappears altogether? If I do not know the entirety of truth, does that mean it doesn't exist?

I do not believe there is any merit, logic, or other form of justification for these obscurations.

Don't overcomplicate things for the sake of overcomplicating them. Don't mystify the obvious. Don't deny the existence of reality and that which exceeds it just because it sounds fancy to do so.

You don't learn anything. You don't benefit. You don't find some deep and hidden secret of the universe. You only confuse yourself and others.

 

[LeilaniOtter]

Interesting perspective. Then what of those who cannot percieve? Does everything outside of their perception no longer exist as truth? Can the blind say there is no sun because they cannot absorb light into their retinas? You can perceive your own truth from what humans create but what about what humanity hasn't created?

You are in the same ship of theseus as every other person who thinks. Welcome to philosophy 101! There are plenty of chairs, snacks, and depression to go around.

The whole method whereas humanity perceives everything (and it's impossible for someone to perceive nothing, else they would be dead) just lands more credence to the theory that all of this, everything around us, is a simulation.

One I honestly hope ends soon and starts the game over. *^^*

 

[Deleted member 166465]

There is no truth, there is only:

Leucochloridium paradoxum​

 

[Representing_Tromba]

The whole method whereas humanity perceives everything (and it's impossible for someone to perceive nothing, else they would be dead) just lands more credence to the theory that all of this, everything around us, is a simulation.

One I honestly hope ends soon and starts the game over. *^^*

Although I respect your opinion, I do not believe I can agree with you as I do not find this to be compelling evidence. Honestly, I feel a lot more sympathy with @laccoff_mawning and their take. Though I may be one of the people that they are referring to if I read what they said correctly.

 

[LilRora]

Personally, I prefer to just distinguish objective truth from perceived truth. The issue with this is that, if we really want to dig deep into this topic, we need to start earlier at perception and subjectivity, and the only logical conclusion there is that, if there is any objective truth in the world, we cannot reach it trough our own means with absolute certainty. It is like trying to build out in the ocean - we don't have a starting point that would let us ground our observations. We may think we've reached some truth, but ultimately, without an external factor that knows the truth and confirms our conclusions, we can only think and base our considerations on information based on subjective observation and detached from objective truth.

For that reason, I think that person will not speak objective truth. One common issue with regular lie detectors is that a lie detector cannot tell a lie that the person believes in, because it's based on tells and those all depend on perception of the subject. This situation, I believe, would be the same. They should be unable to knowingly lie.

There is, however, another solution to this, and that is "objective" truth as in "higher" truth, which is a possibility if we assume existence of godly or extraplanar entities, or any other supernatural or preternatural existence, including a possibility of some kind kind of collective knowledge or truth. At that point, however, I think it becomes a bit of a play on words, and I don't like that interpretation.

 

[LeilaniOtter]

If I scream something false at the top of my lungs, does that make it true?

Sadly, too many people in the world believe that.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

Subjective truth is one of the most stifling ideas going around nowdays, thanks post-modernism.

Just think: If objective truth isn't real, then why bother trying to figure things out.
It's the same as saying facts don't exist.

But the idea refutes itself, because it makes a truth claim which it denies exists. It's nonsensical.

But the biggest amount of confusion comes from the lack of definition of terms, and conflation of meanings.

Did someone lie? No
Does that mean they told the truth? No and yes
They could just be wrong.
They merely shared their authentic understanding. Or lack of understanding.

Anyway, objective truth is whatever God says it is, because He is the one who defines all existence.

 

[Supperset]

If a person is cursed to speak only the truth and nothing else, who's truth, or what truth do they espous?

How were they cursed? What were the circumstances of their curse? If you are asking this as an author, the you would be the one deciding what truth is. What I mean is the one responsible for the incident curse would be responsible for truth in this scenario.

They can decide the "objective", "subjective", "perceptive" or even made up truths.

Do they have the infinite knowledge of the universe to speak its truth or are they limited to their own understanding of truth?

A man will with that kind of knowledge will most likely die or if by a novel logic go insane or ascend to a higher form. Humans don't have that much capacity, probably, I read that somewhere.

Is truth what they believe to be truth or what is factually true? Does truth require experience or are they beholden to the mystery of our creation, whether purposeful or accidental?

Let's say our world is a book and some all knowing god or something similar to relatively benevolent being (hopefully) is the moving force of the universe, infinite or finite doesn't matter, then othe one responsible would be then.

What is truth and how do they speak it?

Depends on the nature of the curse. Look at Sunny from Shadow Slave the guy is cursed to not lie but still manages to lie everytime, but in his case the truth is more of subjective than the objective.

Where does the truth come from? How can we be certain the truth that they speak is true to the full extent of its implications? Who can witness for such truths?

Please discuss with civility and peace.

In the end I can only say I don't know.

 

[RepresentingDesire]

Ngl, some of these answers bother me greatly. Truth is not a complicated thing. It exists by necessity, and it's characteristics are simple. Truth is not constructed by humans. Rather, we recognise it's existence and refer to it as "truth".

The faults of the logical faculties of humans- vagueness, ignorance, limited perception, and simple stubborness, is not a reason to deny something extra-human and quite literally supernatural: truth.

If I scream something false at the top of my lungs, does that make it true? If everyone who hears me believes it, does that suddenly make it true? Truth cannot be changed or made. People who claim truth is subjective mistake it with opinion. Truth that is obscured from human minds still exists.

If I hide truth behind a screen or a veil, does it suddenly not exist anymore? If someone else sees a different portion of truth, and comes to a conclusion different from my own, does that deny the existence of truth altogether? If I re-define truth to be synonymous with opinion, rather than fact, does that mean fact disappears altogether? If I do not know the entirety of truth, does that mean it doesn't exist?

I do not believe there is any merit, logic, or other form of justification for these obscurations.

Don't overcomplicate things for the sake of overcomplicating them. Don't mystify the obvious. Don't deny the existence of reality and that which exceeds it just because it sounds fancy to do so.

You don't learn anything. You don't benefit. You don't find some deep and hidden secret of the universe. You only confuse yourself and others.

You show well why I distinguish truth from what is real, there is of course a reality upon which we base our truths or opinions because especially when it comes to complex topics like how was our universe created there is little difference . I am a perceptionist, not a metaphysicsist, so in the first place this argument is probably not for me, but I would say that you are the one obfuscating things by just ignoring how obfuscations do exist,


Because saying truth cannot be made or changed is such a dangerous idea, I cannot go further into the danger without breaking guidelines, I will just say that as a german it is very obvious that truth is creatable, or just look at propaganda abd how it functions in generell.

 

[Rezcore]

Truth isn't subjective, humans are.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

You show well why I distinguish truth from what is real, there is of course a reality upon which we base our truths or opinions because especially when it comes to complex topics like how was our universe created there is little difference . I am a perceptionist, not a metaphysicsist, so in the first place this argument is probably not for me, but I would say that you are the one obfuscating things by just ignoring how obfuscations do exist,


Because saying truth cannot be made or changed is such a dangerous idea, I cannot go further into the danger without breaking guidelines, I will just say that as a german it is very obvious that truth is creatable, or just look at propaganda abd how it functions in generell.

Your definition of truth is wrong.

 

[RepresentingDesire]

Your definition of truth is wrong.

An opinion is another way to say a point of view, what we consider truth is often a point of view of something that is real. An very easy example would be that a red apple is not for every person red or even for every animal, there is a spectrum of light that is reflected (which is what is real) by every object and depending on how the eyes function an object can have different colours which is the truth.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

Forgive me if this comment feels a bit sharp. I know it was not the intent of this thread to go down here, but it needs to be said.

what we consider truth is often a point of view of something that is real.

This is the problem. The definition of truth isn't "a point of view of something that is real".

Instead, we consider truth to be the real thing that's at the end of our point of view. In the case of the apple, the truth of it's colour would be it's entire absorption spectrum. That's simply it's definition. It's how we use it in the english language. You can google search it if you disagree with me.

Sometimes we make the mistake of being wrong, and mistake our opinion to be factual when it's not, but do you truly believe that changing the definition of "truth" to be synonymous with "opinion" will somehow solve the issue and fix the problem? Do you at least think it's going to help?

I distinguish truth from what is real

Let's have this entire thread again, but let's use the term "real" or "fact" instead of true. What then? Are you going to change the definition of "real" or "factual" as well? Are you going to delete every word that relates to objective truth from the English dictionary out of fear of misuse? Is this the way forward? Is this beneficial?

You know that people taint the word "truth" to fit their purposes, but surely you also know that they'll do the same to the words "fact" and "reality" when it benefits them to do so. Will your distinguishment of "truth" and "real" help then? Surely changing the definition of a word is going to do nothing more than worsen problems, not fix them.

If you can call a 'true' statement 'not real' or 'not factual', why can't we just call that statement 'not true' as well? Isn't that just the better method?

 

[TheBestofSome]

Someone might say that rubies are red. But from physics class we know: red doesn’t actually exist.
What we call “red” is just a specific wavelength refracted from white light.

At the risk of sounding like an idiot, I'll disagree with you here. What we call the specific wavelength of light doesn't matter in the slightest. It still exists. We can call it red, or green, or huzzlegrun, but it doesn't change that the wavelength exists, and that the object (in this case a ruby) will reflect light of that wavelength under normal conditions. To say that the ruby is red is only shorthand for saying that the ruby reflects a wavelength of light which we have assigned the name red.

We can twist language all we like, and there are people which do so for various reasons, but it doesn't change the nature of what they speak of. It just makes what they say more or less untrue. We all have our own versions of the truth, but those are all more or less true or untrue as they compare to the absolute truth, which humanity has been striving towards for more or less all its existence. That's been the point of science; to find out what is real, what is the true nature of things.

We may never be able to reach absolute truth, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist, the same way that being unable to take samples from the center of the sun does not mean that the center of the sun doesn't exist. Our limitations prevent us from reaching both, but both exist anyway, and we can view some of the effects of both despite not being able to get at the source.

 

[RepresentingDesire]

Forgive me if this comment feels a bit sharp. I know it was not the intent of this thread to go down here, but it needs to be said.

This is the problem. The definition of truth isn't "a point of view of something that is real".

Instead, we consider truth to be the real thing that's at the end of our point of view. In the case of the apple, the truth of it's colour would be it's entire absorption spectrum. That's simply it's definition. It's how we use it in the english language. You can google search it if you disagree with me.

Sometimes we make the mistake of being wrong, and mistake our opinion to be factual when it's not, but do you truly believe that changing the definition of "truth" to be synonymous with "opinion" will somehow solve the issue and fix the problem? Do you at least think it's going to help?

Let's have this entire thread again, but let's use the term "real" or "fact" instead of true. What then? Are you going to change the definition of "real" or "factual" as well? Are you going to delete every word that relates to objective truth from the English dictionary out of fear of misuse? Is this the way forward? Is this beneficial?

You know that people taint the word "truth" to fit their purposes, but surely you also know that they'll do the same to the words "fact" and "reality" when it benefits them to do so. Will your distinguishment of "truth" and "real" help then? Surely changing the definition of a word is going to do nothing more than worsen problems, not fix them.

If you can call a 'true' statement 'not real' or 'not factual', why can't we just call that statement 'not true' as well? Isn't that just the better method?

I am aware of your points, I simply try to distinguish what we think is real and what is real and that all I try to do even if I have to redefine words to a slight extenct because it is helpful in understanding humans and varying levels of truth. Every word is just a way to express information and very changeable which is the reason I use them often to show of how our understanding of reality can change depending on the tools of understanding we have, even if words are definitely less critical than our senses.

I try to stop people from thinking all they think is right or at least the best, but not in a murder is good way for which there are many arguments that aren't value based. If it weren't for that I would have literally ignored the way you seem to think, which I honestly can only guess because you have mostly asked questions and the rest is statements that make you look like a naive realist,