Actuality vs The Real Truth

[HARDCORE]

4-18-2021

Isn’t schooling a wonderful thing, or could it be that what we have all been taught, often has very little basis in fact? I mean, who could possibly question the great men and women of literature and history, who have carefully written themselves into the often faulty pages of actual world events? Or is it at all possible that you actually believe all that you have read, and everything that you have been taught – an interesting quandary?

The fact is – “That many of us still only accept what we have been brainwashed into believing – (nothing more, and nothing less?) So, for those of you out there who still swallow (Hook, Line, and Sinker), every damned thing that you have ever been taught, or even subjected to in life, and this without even questioning, then I invite you to once again dig much deeper into the actual truth – “You Just Might Be Amazed At What You Find?”

“SOME BULL CRAP IS ALL WELL AND GOOD -
BUT IT STILL TAKES REAL MONEY TO BUY A
DECENT CAN OF PREMIUM BEER!!!!” (Author Unknown)

Hardcore

[Boats]

Truth and actuality
By: Philosophy
Re: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com...-and-actuality

#1: J. Krishnamurti and Prof. David Bohm discuss the topic of truth and actuality (reality). They touch on reality however in my opinion and understanding don't clarify or define truth.

For example, truth is described as below however it isn't clear what is truth. What is honest and faithful? Is honesty and truth the same as is faithful and truth? Does this mean that if i am dishonest, i am not telling the truth or is this not a matter of perception? What may be real to me may not be real to you? Is this also not truth?

Yes, we must consider that, but first may we look at this question of truth. I think the derivation of words is often very useful. The word 'true' in Latin, which is 'verus', means 'that which is'. The same as the English 'was' and 'were', or German 'wahr'. Now in English the root meaning of the word 'true' is honest and faithful; you see, we can often say that a line is true, or a machine is true. There was a story I once read about a thread that ran so true; it was using the image of a spinning-wheel with the thread running straight.

#2: Part of the work in philosophy is finding clear definitions to the words we are using. It seems that the discussion you cite pursue this goal. They don't define truth and reality because they're searching for a definition. The origin of words, their etymology, can be informative in this task but it is not decisive and should rather be taken as a direction of exploration. As you point out, honesty and faithfulness are not sufficient for truth: one can be honest and faithful, but still wrong. More needs to be said.

Regarding your questions about truth and reality: philosophers have come up with the following definitions which are generally accepted:

reality is what exists independently of the mind (of being perceived or conceived in such or such way).
So reality, for philosophers, is not a matter of perception, quite the contrary. Assuming that reality is relative to the perceiver is actually denying that reality exists.

Truth is more contentious. There are three traditional families of theories of truth, but also deflationary, quietist or sceptic accounts. The three traditional theories are:

correspondence: truth is correspondence (of a belief or a proposition) to reality

pragmatism: truth is ideal rational assertability, or ideal verifiability, or ideal long term utility (a belief which would "work" endlessly when interacting with reality)

coherence: truth is the coherence of a belief with our whole system of representation (usually associated with idealism, because there is no reference to reality).

It seems that in the discussion you linked Bohm and Krishnamurti lean toward a pragmatist theory of truth.

Further to that stated in #2 (see below)

his is a complement to (and a compliment on) quen_tin's excellent answer.

Building on the three common ideas of truth:

correspondence theories say that something is true if the proposition obtains in the world. Thus, following this theory, "Sydney is the capital of Australia" is false since that does not map onto our reality. "it is raining" is true at all times when it is uttered while it is raining in the relevant scope. The basic idea is that truth is what we get when there's no mismatch between our thoughts and external reality. (In Heideggerian terms this is the more abstract vorhandenheit -- present-to-hand).

pragmatic theories of truth say that something is true when it is functionally true. In other words, if I want you to use a brick as a hammer, I can say "here's your hammer." This is ready-at-hand, and we don't really care if it our "hammer" is a mallet, hammer, axe bottom, brick, weight, or anything else as long as it does the job. Sometimes this theory is set in opposition -- as for Heidegger who calls this zuhandenheit and thinks this is a more authentic way to relate to our world. Full fledged pragmatists often make this the only definition of truth -- i.e., it does not matter whether it corresponds to reality or not.

Coherence Theories of truth: are somewhat difficult to find and understand. As far as I know, the basic idea begins with Hegel who sees truth as kind of a web of meaning. To use Wittgenstieinian language, it is language game where everything implies everything else, and they are all true, because they as a whole compose the game. So to use chess, sentences like "this is a knight" or "this is a bishop" make sense insofar as they have that meaning in the game. It does not matter if we are talking about blocks of wood or pebbles or something else. For Hegel, our understanding and reason is this interaction between our minds ("Spirit") and the world.

History stated by Plato Everett:

The primary downfall of contemporary philosophy is that it takes one of two positions, reality is observer-dependent or reality is observer-independent.

The shared assumption is there is one type of real, one level of existence, one way of being.

Our experiences and sensations are undeniably real, and so are the physical objects around us. But they are just the relative reality, just shadows on a cave wall, that exist because of a deeper reality.

This has been true from Plato to Everett!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal comment: All the definition's of Truth & Actuality have been in existence for a long time.
-
But - Reality are the things in life - that are commonly observed - and verified to exist, like most things that are consistent and not random or influenced by conformity or mass hysteria. Something that is perceived as real and is physically experienced by the senses.
-
Such as: In the eye of the beholder this could mean - this is a matter of personal opinion.
-
or; The fundamental meaning of the phrase 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is that a person can find beauty in anything or anyone. Beauty is completely subjective. This means that what one finds beautiful might not be beautiful to someone else.
-
These things I've learned: As are most things in life: Are what we make of it!
-
The full Greek proverb from which this phrase / idiom comes, is as follows: “Great minds think alike, though fools seldom differ.” This suggests that the people that reached the same conclusion as you may not be as smart as you think! (something to ponder).
-
Boats