How do you view truth?

[JKClay]

I have been having a pretty deep and serious discussion between a few friends about truth. What is it? How is it defined? Should one interpret personal experiences through the lens of truth? Or should one interpret truth through the lens of personal experience?

I hesitate to give my view right up front because I don't want to taint the discussion one way or another...

I would like to know what you think. Does your religion or belief structure play a role in how you define truth?

Please keep the religion bashing to a minimum to keep the discussion on track.

I know there are a thousand questions to ask on this subject, so let's see where this takes us.

 

[DirtyDawg]

Truth is treason in the empire of lies. -- Ron Paul

Here it is in the preface of his book: Revolution: A Manifesto

Every election cycle we are treated to candidates who promise us "change," and 2008 has been no different. But in the American political lexicon, "change" always means more of the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war, and more centralization of power.

Real change would mean something like the opposite of those things. It might even involve following our Constitution. And that's the one option Americans are never permitted to hear....

With national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both parties continue to make multi-trillion dollar promises of "free" goods from the government, and hardly a soul wonders if we can still afford to have troops in - this is not a misprint - 130 countries around the world. All of this is going to come to an end sooner or later, because financial reality is going to make itself felt in very uncomfortable ways. But instead of thinking about what this means for how we conduct our foreign and domestic affairs, our chattering classes seem incapable of speaking in anything but the emptiest platitudes, when they can be bothered to address serious issues at all. Fundamental questions like this, and countless others besides, are off the table in our mainstream media, which focuses our attention on trivialities and phony debates as we march toward oblivion.

This is the deadening consensus that crosses party lines, that dominates our major media, and that is strangling the liberty and prosperity that were once the birthright of Americans. Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

There is an alternative to national bankruptcy, a bigger police state, trillion-dollar wars, and a government that draws ever more parasitically on the productive energies of the American people. It's called freedom. But as we've learned through hard experience, we are not going to hear a word in its favor if our political and media establishments have anything to say about it.

If we want to live in a free society, we need to break free from these artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions once again. I am happy that my campaign for the presidency has finally raised some of them. But this is a long-term project that will persist far into the future. These ideas cannot be allowed to die, buried beneath the mind-numbing chorus of empty slogans and inanities that constitute official political discourse in America.

That is why I wrote this book.

~ Ron Paul

 

[RidgeHunter]

See my sig line. Universal consensus carries the weight of truth, dog.

Oh, and:

 

[HMFIC]

Truth for me in the way you asked is being as perfectly precise with the facts as possible.

Personal experiences, misunderstanding, interpretations, ignorance of language and a million other things usually get in the way of the actual facts of the matter though.

I should also say though that this is in the context of the spoken word and veracity and steering away from the religious aspects as you intended. THAT is a totally different discussion.

 

[JKClay]

I should also say though that this is in the context of the spoken word and veracity and steering away from the religious aspects as you intended. THAT is a totally different discussion.

Thanks for your input. I don't necessarily want to steer away from the religious aspects, especially if that is part of how you define truth. I just don't want the bashing that is likely to follow.

 

[DirtyDawg]

It all depends on your point of reference and your ability to think/reason independently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkmQZjZSjk4

Stanford Prison Experiment.

 

[RickN]

Truth for me in the way you asked is being as perfectly precise with the facts as possible.

Personal experiences, misunderstanding, interpretations, ignorance of language and a million other things usually get in the way of the actual facts of the matter though.

I should also say though that this is in the context of the spoken word and veracity and steering away from the religious aspects as you intended. THAT is a totally different discussion.

Agreed. Like if Ron Paul were to admit he is just another politician that would say anything to get elected. That would be truth.

 

[CamaroMan]

"being as perfectly percise with the facts as possible" That pretty much sums it up for me. I don't agree that Ron Paul would say anything to get elected though, if that were true he would say things that sound a little less radical that Demonrats might be down with and traditional Republicans. I think Paul has the right mindset to put this country back on track and alot of people can see that as well I just hope the haters can see the light and stop pushing him off to the side like he isn't relevant.

 

[HMFIC]

Thanks for your input. I don't necessarily want to steer away from the religious aspects, especially if that is part of how you define truth. I just don't want the bashing that is likely to follow.

Well in that case lol...

Another aspect of truth has to do with a person's own understanding and if they believe what they are saying is true. In other words, there is vast difference in someone stating something they think is true and they are just ignorant to the fact vs. someone intentionally lying. The key all revolves around the paradox of 'he who knows'. If you are aware that you know the truth and you speak it, then you are fully immersed in the truth. If you are aware that you know the truth and you lie anyway, then you are a deciever. If you are not aware of the truth, then whatever you say may not be the truth, however it IS your truth... the problem is that you're also a fool.

A good example of this might be "We hold these truths to be self evident". The founders certainly were men who knew that they knew the truth and their words reflect it.

 

[RidgeHunter]

Agreed. Like if Ron Paul were to admit he is just another politician that would say anything to get elected. That would be truth.

Leave it to Uncle RickN to turn a philosophical discussion on truth to politics. You et up with dat Ron Paul.

Besides that makes no sense, since pretty much everything the dude says is controversial. If he was willing to say anything to get elected he might actually have a chance.