[1] Truth is agreement and anyone who disagrees is attempting to disqualify this definition by using it to do so.
[1.1] This is not a new thought about truth but perhaps a succinct way of showing the paradoxical nature of trying to demonstrate truth when it is not just a mere logical tautology such as in "All green toasters are green". I don't think there is any graspable meaning to tautologous statements; they are redundancies and repetition.
[1.2] Truth can be agreement between the mind and "reality", between language and the "facts", between individuals, between nations, or within an individual's mind.
[1.3] What consitutes reality and what the facts are is always a source of disagreement.
[1.4] If I think of the statement "1 + 1 = 3" I do not agree that it is true and neither has anyone I've ever met.
[2] This understanding of truth upsets some who believe that truth is objective and agreement has nothing to do with it. Even if everyone agreed that the Earth is flat it certainly does not make it true, right?. So, because I see the truth in this understanding of truth, I agree with it and it is true?
[2.1] Truth is the confirmation of the relationship between a mental representation about the world and the actual situation of the world, given that there is an actual situation of the world.
This assumption, that there is necessarily a world "out there" has always baffled me philosophically yet I have no problem accepting it when I take off my philosopher's cap. Why must there be? What if it is all in my or our or its mind? Maybe it is as it appears but this would assume how it appears to me or you or them or us.
[2.11] I was once told that there is an objective, real world out there (or in here, or whatever) because I would move out of the way of a stampeding rhino. Well, I don't know what getting gored would prove, but unless one allows the rhino to disembowel you, then the test remains to be seen. Maybe upon death, one realizes that this is just a ride, an experience, a particular incarnation. Or, maybe there's nothing. Or, maybe you survive sans a torso and some innards.
[2.12] Perhaps getting gored by a rhino is precisely the key to get to the next level in this game we're in and no other encounter will do. We all, then, must go on infinitely at this "level" (whatever that may be), until we stand bravely up to the charging horn. Insanity?
Perhaps, but not impossible. Please, I was only using this as a funny example if there is anyone out there ill enough to think this is true. But, hey, I guess you'll never know until you try and this is Darwinism at its finest.
[2.2] But, it is not true that the world is flat because I know it is not and, therefore, I am asserting disagreement. If there was no disagreement, it would be true that the world is flat. But, because I do not believe the world is flat, I am creating the thought experiment in which I am the one who is disagreeing.
[2.3] The problem lies in testing the "actual" world for the "real" conditions. This would require metaphysical certainty or knowledge of absolutes where we only have science.
The following numbered thoughts are arranged by the time at which
I came to them. I think that this format has some advantages, in terms of clarity and
simplity- and breif yet important thoughts. The subjects vary and the
thoughts diverge from the main topic of existence, but generally remain related. Numbers 8-24 can be found on the existence page.
[1]. There is only truth in what one thinks is the case.
[2]. Consider the statement, "Is it true that Spot is a dog?" In order to
answer this, we must be certain, in an absolute sense, that Spot is the name of the thing
in question, and that the dog is really a dog and not a robot covered by a dog-like
exterior. These worries, among other, infinite possibilities, hinder us from making an
assertion as to the truth or falsity of Spot being a dog.
[3]. Consider the statement, "Is it true that you think that what you think is
referred to as ‘Spot’ is what you think fits the definition of a what you think
is a dog?" To this, given a normal circumstance, one could answer,
"Yes". Why? Because one is speaking about what one thinks is the case rather
than about what is actually the case.
[4]. We can be certain of many things, yet they are not necessarily true.
[5]. Certainty is a psychological state in which one who is in such a state can not doubt
the perception before him.
[6]. When one turns on a bright light in a very dark room, and one shields one’s
eyes from the intense illumination, can one be psychologically certain that there is a
light acting upon one’s eyes? Yes, because we can not doubt that there is something
like a bright light making us squint and become blinded for a moment.
[7]. However, can one answer the statement, "Is it true that there is a light acting
on your eyes?" No, because if we consider a dream, we know that, while in the dream,
we can turn on a light in a dark room and be blinded by the ‘light’ even in the
absence of a ‘real’ light. There could be other possibilities, such as a
hallucination or an alien spacecraft.
Truth can also be considered beauty but this, I think, is an aesthetic form of agreement.
Ultimately, truth is forever elusive other than the truth that there is something going on here. What exactly is going on here we can never be certain of. This would be true for any mind of any capacity.
Philosophy shows that what is true is simple and what is complex is always in doubt. The greatest complexity lies in assumptions concerning metaphysical absolutes- which are nothing more than human fantasy turned into something else through that act called faith.
