The Only Source of Truth?

[regnauld]

---

Just to be honest, the subject about "truth" has been a headache of philosophers until this time. It was the bases of all persecutions, inquisitions, excommunications and other form of maltreatment which exist in another form until today. This "truth" was considered as one of the most difficult area of philosophical research and thesis writing for students, may they be from the undergraduate to the graduate up to the post-graduate studies. Although there is already a sort of formula crafted by some thinkers of the past pertaining with truth, still their guidelines doesn't provide the answer to the question such as the one asked "who has the truth?".

Only the arrogant mind could afford to pretend that he knew the thing called "truth". It is not something which could be associated with a concrete object, but some philosophers opined (although their opinions were diversified) that is it something produced by one's mental conformity, such as the belief of a god or any other diefied characters.

Other philosophers offered classifications on the possible measurement of truths, they were:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth - it refers to the truth where there is confirmation of the existence of the object which corresponds with the statement. Ex. All stones are solid matters.
2. Corehence Theory of Truth - it refers to the truth which will necessarily follow from the correct reasoning even the object has not been proven existent. Ex. 10 + 10 = 20
3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth - it refers to the truth which is confirmed by the results. Ex. Biogesic tablet is a true cure for headaches because it works.
4. Conventional Theory of Truth- it refers to the truth which is solely based on the common agreement of humanity or of any group of individuals. Ex. The supremacy of a dollar currency; the Law; the value of gold costs a lot than a bronze; etc.

Now, which truth do our persuasions were aimed into?

God is true (that is #4)
All crows are black - and this is true (that is #1)
Anesthesia can deceive the senses to feel pain - this is true according to results (this is #3)
When Felix is a cat and a cat has a tail, it follows that Felix has a tail - this is true according to correct thinking (this is #2)

Skeptics (another classification of thinkers) maintained that there is no truth because it is only a matter of perception.

In law, truth is something which a result of appreciation from the authority (like the judge); versions of truths will be presented by the defense and prosecution. The spectators had also their own appreciation of truth and also the jury (in another territory). The truth of the MTC judge maybe overturned by the RTC judge on appeal, then it could be revived or rejected by the Court of Appeals Justices on review on the same TRUTH and maybe totally abrogated by the Magistrates of the Supreme Court when in their appreciation that particular truth is no truth at all.

Recent events suggested that the "truth" appreciation maybe altered by a negotiable considerations, lets say a million pesos will do. In this instance, truth depends on whose lips are to be listened to.

I hope this discussion helps.

This is brilliant!!!

[brownprose]

Just to be honest, the subject about "truth" has been a headache of philosophers until this time. It was the bases of all persecutions, inquisitions, excommunications and other form of maltreatment which exist in another form until today. This "truth" was considered as one of the most difficult area of philosophical research and thesis writing for students, may they be from the undergraduate to the graduate up to the post-graduate studies. Although there is already a sort of formula crafted by some thinkers of the past pertaining with truth, still their guidelines doesn't provide the answer to the question such as the one asked "who has the truth?".

Only the arrogant mind could afford to pretend that he knew the thing called "truth". It is not something which could be associated with a concrete object, but some philosophers opined (although their opinions were diversified) that is it something produced by one's mental conformity, such as the belief of a god or any other diefied characters.

Other philosophers offered classifications on the possible measurement of truths, they were:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth - it refers to the truth where there is confirmation of the existence of the object which corresponds with the statement. Ex. All stones are solid matters.
2. Corehence Theory of Truth - it refers to the truth which will necessarily follow from the correct reasoning even the object has not been proven existent. Ex. 10 + 10 = 20
3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth - it refers to the truth which is confirmed by the results. Ex. Biogesic tablet is a true cure for headaches because it works.
4. Conventional Theory of Truth- it refers to the truth which is solely based on the common agreement of humanity or of any group of individuals. Ex. The supremacy of a dollar currency; the Law; the value of gold costs a lot than a bronze; etc.

Now, which truth do our persuasions were aimed into?

God is true (that is #4)
All crows are black - and this is true (that is #1)
Anesthesia can deceive the senses to feel pain - this is true according to results (this is #3)
When Felix is a cat and a cat has a tail, it follows that Felix has a tail - this is true according to correct thinking (this is #2)

Skeptics (another classification of thinkers) maintained that there is no truth because it is only a matter of perception.

In law, truth is something which a result of appreciation from the authority (like the judge); versions of truths will be presented by the defense and prosecution. The spectators had also their own appreciation of truth and also the jury (in another territory). The truth of the MTC judge maybe overturned by the RTC judge on appeal, then it could be revived or rejected by the Court of Appeals Justices on review on the same TRUTH and maybe totally abrogated by the Magistrates of the Supreme Court when in their appreciation that particular truth is no truth at all.

Recent events suggested that the "truth" appreciation maybe altered by a negotiable considerations, lets say a million pesos will do. In this instance, truth depends on whose lips are to be listened to.

I hope this discussion helps.

Again...kudos to forester for such clarity of definition.

[Alel]

WOW! That was a brilliant post Mr. Forester!

Our model of the world, and 'what is true' soley relies on the extent of what we have percieved afterall. (And how it is filtered by our individual experiences and at some extent, by language. Because again, language is an insufficient metaphor of reality - whatever that is.)

[The_Child]

WOW! That was a brilliant post Mr. Forester!

Our model of the world, and 'what is true' soley relies on the extent of what we have percieved afterall. (And how it is filtered by our individual experiences and at some extent, by language. Because again, language is an insufficient metaphor of reality - whatever that is.)

What is happening today with metaphor? And without metaphor, what is happening?
Qu'est-ce qui se pase, aujourd'hui, avec la metaphore? Ed de la metaphore qu'est-ce qui se passe?

Derrida. The Retrait of metaphor, p.5. (1987)

[munzter666]

Just to be honest, the subject about "truth" has been a headache of philosophers until this time. It was the bases of all persecutions, inquisitions, excommunications and other form of maltreatment which exist in another form until today. This "truth" was considered as one of the most difficult area of philosophical research and thesis writing for students, may they be from the undergraduate to the graduate up to the post-graduate studies. Although there is already a sort of formula crafted by some thinkers of the past pertaining with truth, still their guidelines doesn't provide the answer to the question such as the one asked "who has the truth?".

Only the arrogant mind could afford to pretend that he knew the thing called "truth". It is not something which could be associated with a concrete object, but some philosophers opined (although their opinions were diversified) that is it something produced by one's mental conformity, such as the belief of a god or any other diefied characters.

Other philosophers offered classifications on the possible measurement of truths, they were:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth - it refers to the truth where there is confirmation of the existence of the object which corresponds with the statement. Ex. All stones are solid matters.
2. Corehence Theory of Truth - it refers to the truth which will necessarily follow from the correct reasoning even the object has not been proven existent. Ex. 10 + 10 = 20
3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth - it refers to the truth which is confirmed by the results. Ex. Biogesic tablet is a true cure for headaches because it works.
4. Conventional Theory of Truth- it refers to the truth which is solely based on the common agreement of humanity or of any group of individuals. Ex. The supremacy of a dollar currency; the Law; the value of gold costs a lot than a bronze; etc.

Now, which truth do our persuasions were aimed into?

God is true (that is #4)
All crows are black - and this is true (that is #1)
Anesthesia can deceive the senses to feel pain - this is true according to results (this is #3)
When Felix is a cat and a cat has a tail, it follows that Felix has a tail - this is true according to correct thinking (this is #2)

Skeptics (another classification of thinkers) maintained that there is no truth because it is only a matter of perception.

In law, truth is something which a result of appreciation from the authority (like the judge); versions of truths will be presented by the defense and prosecution. The spectators had also their own appreciation of truth and also the jury (in another territory). The truth of the MTC judge maybe overturned by the RTC judge on appeal, then it could be revived or rejected by the Court of Appeals Justices on review on the same TRUTH and maybe totally abrogated by the Magistrates of the Supreme Court when in their appreciation that particular truth is no truth at all.

Recent events suggested that the "truth" appreciation maybe altered by a negotiable considerations, lets say a million pesos will do. In this instance, truth depends on whose lips are to be listened to.

I hope this discussion helps.

i just reached my reading quota for the day.hehe
nice one.

the idiocy of "that's why its still a theory" banats might pop up...unahan na lang nato.

[zney25]

bible is not just the only one source of truth,their are still some books to read,bible is just one of the sources of truth and so are the other sacred books in every religion....

[regnauld]

bible is not just the only one source of truth,their are still some books to read,bible is just one of the sources of truth and so are the other sacred books in every religion....

Bulls Eye!

[amingb]

Yes the Bible is the Only Source of Truth about God ... if there is another what is it ?

2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

[regnauld]

Yes the Bible is the Only Source of Truth about God ... if there is another what is it ?

2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

You mean to say we cannot find SPIRITUAL TRUTHS and WISDOM in Gnostic Gospels and other Sacred Books from other religions other than the BIBLE? Are you really sure of this?

[GrEenOCIDE]

Do you believe that the BIBLE is the only source of TRUTH? I don't. In fact The bible is very dangerous for the fanatics! Look at Christianity now. There are hundreds and thousands of Christian cults and denominations who each profess that they are the true church of Christ. Just look at here in the Philippines. There is this group of Ang Dating Daan (ADD) founded by Eliseo Soriano claiming that his church is the true church of GOD. Then look at Iglesia ni Cristo founded by Felix Manalo in 1914. Look at the cult of Apollo Quiboloy who proclaimed himself as the Son of God. Just to name a few. The most depressing part is that they quarrel each other in the television IN THE NAME OF THE HOLY BIBLE in front of millions of people. Is that what The Bible teaches? HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!!!

i do believe that the bible is the only source of truth. discussing differences in doktrines is not a problem, its a way of finding who tells the truth or not, i find it not depressing but a sort of information in every religions existing.