This morning I came across this passage, which seems relevant to what you are asking about, quoted from C S Peirce in John Deely's The Red Book:

"All you have any dealings with are your doubts and beliefs, with the course of life that forces new beliefs upon you and gives you power to doubt old beliefs. If your terms "truth" and "falsity" are taken in such senses as to be definable in terms of doubt and belief and the course of experience (as for example they would be, if you were to define the "truth" as that to a belief in which belief would tend if it were to tend
indefinitely toward absolute fixity), well and good: in that case, you are only talking about doubt and belief. But if by truth and falsity you mean something not definable in terms of doubt and belief in any way, then you are talking of entities of whose existence you can know nothing, and which Ockham's razor would clean shave off. ... "

1905: CP 5.416-420.

But if by truth and falsity you mean something not definable in terms of doubt and belief in any way, then you are talking of entities of whose existence you can know nothing, and which Ockham's razor would clean shave off. . — Janus

Great quote.

Well, if we presume that we cannot speak of truth and falsity with any certainty, then it follows that we must come outside of ourselves and our beliefs/doubts to arrive at possible 'eternal truths'.

Infinity by its nature is infinite and therefore truths that have an infinite nature must be closer to THE truth (if such a thing exists), than temporal truths which are eroded by time. Indeed time might erode all truths, however we might then assume that the longevity or temporal nature of a truth renders it more 'true' than a truth that is falsified relatively quickly?

Therefore can we then suggest that enduring truths are more true by virtue of their persistence in time?.

M

Well, if we presume that we cannot speak of truth and falsity with any certainty, then it follows that we must come outside of ourselves and our beliefs/doubts to arrive at possible 'eternal truths'. — Marcus de Brun

I think what Peirce had in mind is that the only possibility of certainty is the absence of any reason to doubt. We can entertain the idea of 'eternal truths", the question would be as to whether there are such metaphysical, as opposed to more relative, commonsense, truths as we could have no reason to doubt. Relative truths always have their context, if they are, relative to us at least, 'eternal' insofar as they relate to the most essential aspects of the human context.In other words their may be such aspects as are as "eternal" as the "the human' itself is. The 'eternal verities' of human nature, if there be such.

Infinity by its nature is infinite and therefore truths that have an infinite nature must be closer to THE truth (if such a thing exists), than temporal truths which are eroded by time. — Marcus de Brun

If we think of the possibility of there being truths "of an infinite nature" would we not also be thinking of an infinite intellect for whom there are such truths? Then would not such truths be not merely "closer to THE truth" but THE very truth itself?

Therefore can we then suggest that enduring truths are more true by virtue of their persistence in time?. — Marcus de Brun

Yes, I think this is what Peirce has in mind, although I think it would be more apt to have said merely 'true" than "more true". Or perhaps the idea could be reversed so that 'we then suggest that enduring truths persist in time in virtue of their truth'. "Their truth" here consisting in the absence of reason to doubt them.

Yes, I think this is what Peirce has in mind, although I think it would be more apt to have said merely 'true" than "more true". Or perhaps the idea could be reversed so that 'we then suggest that enduring truths persist in time in virtue of their truth'. "Their truth" here consisting in the absence of reason to doubt them. — Janus

I use the words 'more true' in deference to the possible truth of infinity itself. We can only assume an infinite truth if we assume the veracity of infinity.

My point being that the longer a truth might endure (the closer it approximates to a possible infinity) the more true it is.

If we are agreed on this it follows that true-truth has a relationship with time. To understand potential truths we must then have a full or better understanding of time.

If we consider the empirical fact that today's truths are constituted of many of tomorrow's falsities, we should in essence be able to consider the interaction between time and truths, outside of our belief systems, and arrive at a possible mechanism to select current truths that have a greater or lesser temporal potential. What is 'it' (outside of belief or doubt) about truth that determines its temporal persistence?

What is 'it' (outside of belief or doubt) about truth that determines its temporal persistence? — Marcus de Brun

As Peirce suggests in the quoted passage, you cannot separate truth from belief and doubt. We can entertain the idea of Absolute Truths that have no dependence on belief, but for the fallible human mere absolute truths are what we will, at the end of inquiry, have no reason to doubt. It's the best we can do.

Some of what was believed to be true in the past has come to be doubted, even disbelieved, and no longer thought to be true. This may likewise be true of some of what we believe today; we might even say that it will be true of at least some of what we believe today, but we don't know how extensive that 'some" will be. If we could know that we would not merely be knowing today, but would already be knowing tomorrow.

I would say there is no "interaction between time and truths" beyond the human development of knowledge, and the evolving actuality of the cosmos, neither of which could be foreknown with adequate certainty for the kind of investigation you seem to be imagining.

Are there 'ever lasting truths'? If given enough time, will all truths as we know them today ultimately become fallacy? — Marcus de Brun

If by "truths" you mean true statements, then if they are properly indexed they will always be true, assuming that they are when formed.

I don't think truths are functions of time in that they morph with whatever it is that happens between two points in time.

If I understand you correctly you seem to be implying truth changes from a to b to c from time t1 to t2 to t3. I don't think that's what's happening.

A truth x is true at ALL times. It's just that we don't see it as such and appears to us as "different" truths over time because we either didn't think it over properly or simply didn't know.

For instance slavery is wrong everywhere and anytime. We just didn't figure it out in the past.

As Peirce suggests in the quoted passage, you cannot separate truth from belief and doubt. We can entertain the idea of Absolute Truths that have no dependence on belief, but for the fallible human mere absolute truths are what we will, at the end of inquiry, have no reason to doubt. It's the best we can do. — Janus

Pierce's assertion contains a contradiction in that the fallibility of the human animal may be escaped through objective measurement that is less confined to belief and doubt. For this truth to be true we need only presume the existence of an objective reality. This assumption is of course a big one but it appears confirmed through our interactions with other consciousness, that apparently (independent of me) agree upon a measurable objective reality and measurable 'truths'.

The agreed longevity association between truth and absolute truth (true-truth) would appear to be a measurable and objective aspect of truth, and therefore independent of belief and doubt.

don't think truths are functions of time in that they morph with whatever it is that happens between two points in time.

If I understand you correctly you seem to be implying truth changes from a to b to c from time t1 to t2 to t3. I don't think that's what's happening.

A truth x is true at ALL times. It's just that we don't see it as such and appears to us as "different" truths over time because we either didn't think it over properly or simply didn't know.

For instance slavery is wrong everywhere and anytime. We just didn't figure it out in the past. — TheMadFool

No of fence mad, but these are precisely the 'beliefs' that we are trying to escape:

"If I understand you correctly you seem to be implying truth changes from a to b to c from time t1 to t2 to t3. I don't think that's what's happening."


This is a reference to the validity of truth in respect of what is believed. Belief's morph from t1 to t2. Therefore belief is not a safe reflection of truth, which apparently is associated with the longevity of the truth, therefore true-truths are related to greater time.

It is the temporal association of time and truth that is at issue, and whether this association might provide a means to establish the objective measurement of true-truths.

If by "truths" you mean true statements, then if they are properly indexed they will always be true, assuming that they are when formed. — creativesoul

If by 'always' you mean infinite, this does not seem possible as the Universe seems to be heading towards its own expiration (open), rather than a closed loop (bang-crunch) that might (at least through repetition of the bang-crunch cycle) allow for a potential infinitely true statements.

Either way the universe seems to be evolving in time and in this sense any kind of stasis or permanence whether applied to truth or material form, seems unlikely. We can, apparently only approximate the truth of truth, with its persistence in time.

If truth is temporally dependent it follows that the true form of time itself, its existence or non existence must be an established apriori.

M

Oh I see. You're talking about beliefs and not truths. I agree then but I feel that time isn't a cause of belief morphing. Time is just a frame of reference.that's all

Are there 'ever lasting truths'? If given enough time, will all truths as we know them today ultimately become fallacy? — Marcus de Brun

Truths, falsehoods, beliefs, etc. as mental phenomena only last as long as the mind conceiving/claiming them. What those truths/beliefs pick out in reality may change, whether perceiving and conceiving minds last or not.

Truths, falsehoods, beliefs, etc. as mental phenomena only last as long as the mind conceiving/claiming them. What those truths/beliefs pick out in reality may change, whether perceiving and conceiving minds last or not. — numberjohnny5

You are simply returning us to the question of whether objective reality exists outside of the mind, and we have already agreed that for the context of this discussion, there is an objective reality that is independent of individual consciousness.

Although I take your point, it is not valid in this context as we are assuming a temporal external reality independent of the individual consciousness.

M

we are assuming a temporal external reality independent of the individual consciousness. — Marcus de Brun

I believe that too. I'm a realist. But I'd also say that both internal and external "realities" are temporal (in other words, reality is temporal, period).

I believe that too. I'm a realist. But I'd also say that both internal and external "realities" are temporal (in other words, reality is temporal, period). — numberjohnny5

We are drifting off topic a bit, However, I would agree with the 'both realities' idea, however I suspect that what ultimately differentiates the two, is that one is temporal and the other is not.

M

We are drifting off topic a bit, However, I would agree with the 'both realities' idea, however I suspect that what ultimately differentiates the two, is that one is temporal and the other is not. — Marcus de Brun

Ok, I disagree. But it seems that you'd prefer things to stay on topic (as in, you'd prefer to discuss this topic around the belief that temporal reality obtains externally only) so I won't go there.

Put your position/disagreement on a new discussion and we can break a lance on the idea?

M

Sure, maybe another time.

:smile:

298
Frequently, all too frequently, intelligent people have intelligent arguments upon the right or wrong nature of a particular thesis.

Philosophy is crowded with theses that are debated upon the basis of right or wrong. Many of today's truths are destined to become tomorrows fallacies.

Is it not therefore possible that intelligent people are always (or at least almost always) right AND wrong, and it is merely the context of the thesis, more specifically it's position in time that is the arbiter of truth.

Are there 'ever lasting truths'? If given enough time, will all truths as we know them today ultimately become fallacy? — Marcus de Brun

An analogy is connected to the colors black and white. If you had a pure black piece of paper and wrote on it with a light gray ink, the light gray will look almost white to the eyes, due to the contrast. The pure black background will wash out the black that is in the light gray, so it appears whiter.

If we started wth a medium gray piece of paper and used the same light gray ink, it will look like it is lighter gray. There is less contrast since both contain black and white. The brain works this way in terms for contrasts for good and evil.

If culture is very light; good, then one has to be very good,; Saint, for others to see your good. Average good is nothing special. If culture is very dark, then even semi-good behavior can appear white. Various writers write in the context of their times and locations, where certain contrasts appear more obvious . They write to make people aware.

Eternal truth would by definition be pure white. This cannot be seen as easily differentiated in a dark background, since light grays will also appear white; relative morality. It needs to be seen against a light gray background, so only the whitest whites stand out.

On the other hand, even a small spark can be seen far away in the darkness of night. Darkness or evil backgrounds are the beginnings of truth, since they set a contrast for even subtle light.

Sorry wellwisher, that comes across as mumbo-jumbo, and I don't know what point you are trying to make. Could you possibly summarize same in a sentence or two? We are trying to stay 'beyond good and evil'

M

At time t1....

...Joe hit a homerun...

At time t1+1, the ref called a foul; and at t2 the 'truth' of the homerun was deemed untrue.....

M

If the ball was foul, then Joe never hit a home run to begin with...

And that remains true for eternity as well, assuming it was to start with.

If the ball was foul, then Joe never hit a home run to begin with...

And that remains true for eternity as well, assuming it was to start with. — creativesoul

He "never" hit a homerun, from the point that the revisionist steps in at t2 and makes the truth a falsity.

It was a home run at t1... you said so yourself!

M

If it was foul it was not a home run. If it was a home run it was not foul. Not interestes in gamesmanship. I've shown you the error in your thinking.

It does not follow from the fact that we've been wrong about some things that we've been wrong about everything. Your argument here demands that to be the case. Assumes it, actually.