Selection, Round 2, comments...

We can start discussing the fifth round right here.

Once again, huge props to mart28 and sailor, because their takes were easily the standout winners from the last round.

Voila!

jadeheron5 said:Truth is simply whatever we collectively decide to agree upon.

"All descriptions of reality
are merely temporary assumptions."

Buddha

(Quote: "The future of civilization depends most heavily on the relationship established between the two most powerful forces in history: science and religion," A. N. Whitehead)

Sandra Murphy33 said:"All descriptions of reality
are merely temporary assumptions."

Buddha

(Quote: "The future of civilization depends most heavily on the relationship established between the two most powerful forces in history: science and religion," A. N. Whitehead)

I find myself nodding along here. It’s funny, really... how many times have we all sat there, absolutely certain of something, only to be proven completely wrong moments later? Or even looking back at the history books—how many "scientific certainties" from a century ago were just tossed out the window once a new discovery came along? I suppose that's just the constant rhythm of human society, isn't it? Always shifting, always adjusting.

Maybe she should try writing something in that vein regarding 🙂

@Terry Martinez10 props on this question. It really forces you to sit back and actually think first. Plenty of people throughout history—think Pontius Pilate (IV 18,38)—never actually got an answer to this one. It’s such a massive, messy question that some thinkers, like Lacan, basically argued absolute truth doesn't even exist. Even when facts are laid out in an American courtroom, people who don't like the verdict struggle to wrap their heads around it—and honestly, you have to wonder if what’s being called "truth" is just whatever the person in power says it is. Same deal in science. Everything we call "fact" today might get debunked tomorrow. So, I'm tossing out all that legalistic and scientific positivist nonsense and just sticking to pure thought. In philosophy, they say when Hegel was called out by certain facts, he just shrugged and said, "go check the facts." @Amanda Jackson5 knows exactly the context behind that, assuming he even said it.

The answer is brewing in my head, but let it simmer for a bit.

@Amanda Jackson5, loved your response. You're definitely on the same wavelength as me. ruggedraven36, the answer is identical to Sigmund's 😲

thanks to everyone for the votes in the last round.

Joseph Murphy10 said:@Terry Martinez10 props on this question. It really forces you to sit back and actually think first. Plenty of people throughout history—think Pontius Pilate (IV 18,38)—never actually got an answer to this one. It’s such a massive, messy question that some thinkers, like Lacan, basically argued absolute truth doesn't even exist. Even when facts are laid out in an American courtroom, people who don't like the verdict struggle to wrap their heads around it—and honestly, you have to wonder if what’s being called "truth" is just whatever the person in power says it is. Same deal in science. Everything we call "fact" today might get debunked tomorrow. So, I'm tossing out all that legalistic and scientific positivist nonsense and just sticking to pure thought. In philosophy, they say when Hegel was called out by certain facts, he just shrugged and said, "go check the facts." @Amanda Jackson5 knows exactly the context behind that, assuming he even said it.

The answer is brewing in my head, but let it simmer for a bit.

@Amanda Jackson5, loved your response. You're definitely on the same wavelength as me. ruggedraven36, the answer is identical to Sigmund's 😲

thanks to everyone for the votes in the last round.

Deleted it. No point in having two identical answers cluttering things up. I'll try to come up with an answer that's slightly less truthful next time.

Joseph Murphy10 said:@Terry Martinez10 props on this question. It really forces you to sit back and actually think first. Plenty of people throughout history—think Pontius Pilate (IV 18,38)—never actually got an answer to this one. It’s such a massive, messy question that some thinkers, like Lacan, basically argued absolute truth doesn't even exist. Even when facts are laid out in an American courtroom, people who don't like the verdict struggle to wrap their heads around it—and honestly, you have to wonder if what’s being called "truth" is just whatever the person in power says it is. Same deal in science. Everything we call "fact" today might get debunked tomorrow. So, I'm tossing out all that legalistic and scientific positivist nonsense and just sticking to pure thought. In philosophy, they say when Hegel was called out by certain facts, he just shrugged and said, "go check the facts." @Amanda Jackson5 knows exactly the context behind that, assuming he even said it.

The answer is brewing in my head, but let it simmer for a bit.

@Amanda Jackson5, loved your response. You're definitely on the same wavelength as me. ruggedraven36, the answer is identical to Sigmund's 😲

thanks to everyone for the votes in the last round.

Thanks
This question has been gnawing at me for quite some time now, so while I will certainly try my best to tackle it, I am genuinely curious to see what everyone else has to say—I suspect the responses will be fascinating.

Joseph Murphy10 said:@Terry Martinez10 props on this question. It really forces you to sit back and actually think first. Plenty of people throughout history—think Pontius Pilate (IV 18,38)—never actually got an answer to this one. It’s such a massive, messy question that some thinkers, like Lacan, basically argued absolute truth doesn't even exist. Even when facts are laid out in an American courtroom, people who don't like the verdict struggle to wrap their heads around it—and honestly, you have to wonder if what’s being called "truth" is just whatever the person in power says it is. Same deal in science. Everything we call "fact" today might get debunked tomorrow. So, I'm tossing out all that legalistic and scientific positivist nonsense and just sticking to pure thought. In philosophy, they say when Hegel was called out by certain facts, he just shrugged and said, "go check the facts." @Amanda Jackson5 knows exactly the context behind that, assuming he even said it.

The answer is brewing in my head, but let it simmer for a bit.

@Amanda Jackson5, loved your response. You're definitely on the same wavelength as me. ruggedraven36, the answer is identical to Sigmund's 😲

thanks to everyone for the votes in the last round.

He actually never said that:

There are three identical responses here:

Amanda Jackson5's, ND-owned, and WW-owned

🙂

Sandra Murphy33 said:There are three identical responses here:

Amanda Jackson5's, ND-owned, and WW-owned

🙂

It just proves how much sense the answer actually makes. 🙂

That’s Thomas Aquinas for you, Veritas est adaequatio intellectus et rei.

James Lee77 said:That’s Thomas Aquinas for you, Veritas est adaequatio intellectus et rei.

Sure, but he didn't just pull that out of thin air; he picked it up from Aristotle, who in turn lifted it from the Pre-Socratics—those folks who argued that the laws governing thought are essentially identical to the laws governing being. Nowadays, we tend to frame this within the correspondence theory of truth, treating truth as a sort of "relational property." Essentially, truth is something—in the realm of the mind—that maintains a specific relationship to reality, whether that connection happens to be affirmative or negative.

Sigmund said:Truth is just where opinion and reality collide.

somebody else said:Truth is the identity between perception and what actually exists.

Quote : Weekend Warrior said:Truth is when a judgment aligns perfectly with the facts on the ground.

mart28 said:Any relative truth is—within certain limits—just a decent reflection of objective reality.

If we actually bothered to distinguish between correctness and truth, then most of these definitions are really just talking about being correct, not finding the actual truth.

ruggedraven36 said:If we actually bothered to distinguish between correctness and truth, then most of these definitions are really just talking about being correct, not finding the actual truth.

That might hold water when you're looking at how Hegel defines a concept, but we aren't just playing around with conceptual definitions here; we’re talking about the classical notion of truth, which isn't strictly tethered to the concept itself.

Amanda Jackson5 said:That might hold water when you're looking at how Hegel defines a concept, but we aren't just playing around with conceptual definitions here; we’re talking about the classical notion of truth, which isn't strictly tethered to the concept itself.

Fair enough. But there's no harm in acknowledging this other version of truth—the kind that shows up in everyday life (like when someone talks about an "honest friend").

medonaodmoru said:Look, the truth is my dog peed on the car.

What you've done here is offer a specific claim that might be true or might not be—it’s only actually "the truth" if your dog really did just mark the car.
If the question had been "What is the truth?", then your answer would have been ambiguous enough to pass, even as a joke. But since the question is "What is truth?", we're looking for the concept itself, the actual definition of what makes something true. So, technically speaking, the joke misses the mark.

ruggedraven36 said:If we actually bothered to distinguish between correctness and truth, then most of these definitions are really just talking about being correct, not finding the actual truth.

But isn't truth essentially just Correctness used in the sense of being right? When we say someone did something "right," we aren't just talking about mathematical accuracy; we're often implying it was done correctly, which brings us right back to the realm of truth.

Terry Martinez10 said:But isn't truth essentially just Correctness used in the sense of being right? When we say someone did something "right," we aren't just talking about mathematical accuracy; we're often implying it was done correctly, which brings us right back to the realm of truth.

I'm with you—in this specific case, they're essentially the same thing. I was actually tapping into Hegel here—he makes that distinction between Correctness and truth. In this sense a bad state is an untrue state, and the bad and untrue in general consists in a given contradiction. Encyclopedia Britannica Section 24, Supplement 2 lays it out pretty clearly—something can be technically correct and still be fundamentally untrue at the exact same time.

Being untrue is just another way of saying something is bad—it's essentially failing to live up to its own potential. In this sense, a bad state is an untrue state, and the bad and untrue in general consists in a given contradiction between the determination or given concept and existence of an object. When you look at an object like that, you can make a representation of it... and the content of this representation is an inherent untruth. It’s like when the correspondence of the concept and reality fails—all finite things have an untruth in themselves, they have a concept and an existence, but if the concept is inadequate, everything falls apart. Correctness. The premise itself—well, the whole point is baked right into the setup. I can't even begin to wrap my head around this. It’s just complete nonsense.."

"Untrue" basically just means "bad"—it’s inherently flawed. In this sense, a bad state is an untrue state, and the bad and untrue in general consists in a given contradiction—specifically, that gap between the determination or given concept and existence of an Object. When you're dealing with an object like that, you can only make a representation... Correctness Make a representation, but the content of this representation is an inherent untruth. The content of this representation is an inherent untruth..)

ruggedraven36 said:I'm with you—in this specific case, they're essentially the same thing. I was actually tapping into Hegel here—he makes that distinction between Correctness and truth. In this sense a bad state is an untrue state, and the bad and untrue in general consists in a given contradiction. Encyclopedia Britannica Section 24, Supplement 2 lays it out pretty clearly—something can be technically correct and still be fundamentally untrue at the exact same time.

Being untrue is just another way of saying something is bad—it's essentially failing to live up to its own potential. In this sense, a bad state is an untrue state, and the bad and untrue in general consists in a given contradiction between the determination or given concept and existence of an object. When you look at an object like that, you can make a representation of it... and the content of this representation is an inherent untruth. It’s like when the correspondence of the concept and reality fails—all finite things have an untruth in themselves, they have a concept and an existence, but if the concept is inadequate, everything falls apart. Correctness. The premise itself—well, the whole point is baked right into the setup. I can't even begin to wrap my head around this. It’s just complete nonsense.."

"Untrue" basically just means "bad"—it’s inherently flawed. In this sense, a bad state is an untrue state, and the bad and untrue in general consists in a given contradiction—specifically, that gap between the determination or given concept and existence of an Object. When you're dealing with an object like that, you can only make a representation... Correctness Make a representation, but the content of this representation is an inherent untruth. The content of this representation is an inherent untruth..)

It keeps coming back to me, if my memory serves me right: "God alone is the true correspondence of the concept and reality; all finite things, however, have an untruth in themselves, they have a concept and an existence, but the concept is inadequate."

If I were to put this into my own words...

Only God represents the true correspondence of the concept and reality for all finite things, yet all finite things possess an inherent untruth in themselves; they have a concept and an existence that is fundamentally inadequate to their own understanding.

Terry Martinez10 said:It keeps coming back to me, if my memory serves me right: "God alone is the true correspondence of the concept and reality; all finite things, however, have an untruth in themselves, they have a concept and an existence, but the concept is inadequate."

If I were to put this into my own words...

Only God represents the true correspondence of the concept and reality for all finite things, yet all finite things possess an inherent untruth in themselves; they have a concept and an existence that is fundamentally inadequate to their own understanding.

Yeah, though I wouldn't be quite so rigid about it. Correspondence isn't all-or-nothing. There's a massive difference between something that fits its definition almost perfectly and something where the gap is so wide it practically vanishes into nothingness.

Besides, God himself has to carry every single lie within him—otherwise, he'd be missing something entirely. By definition, the absolute can't have anything existing outside of his own being.