What Is Truth?

[Jose]

Onions... as we peel away each layer, deeper skins reveal themselves,

not necessarily negating the existence of prior layers.

Truth... as each layer reveals itself, a deeper truth appears before our eyes,

not necessarily negating prior truths.

jose

[sabaijai]

I have not yet responded to this post as I was enjoying it so much!!! One of the best ever. I do feel that in our efforts to describe truth, we invariably fall into describing 'truths' as we see them.

I totally agree with the posts who said truth, by it's nature, can only be truth. Our definitions, prejudices, personal belief systems, etc, etc, cannot change what by definition just 'is'.

So my findings from a Christian perspective is 'God is truth'.

So whether or not we belief in a 'one true God', like I do, or we believe in a pantheon of gods, or no gods, if one true God exists, he only is truth.

Thanks you all so much for the wonderful debate, I really enjoyed it.

Thank you, Suegha, for your thoughtful contribution.

if one true God exists, he only is truth.

Isn't that cirular logic? "If one truth exists, only it is truth"? I'm getting further and further out of my depth here, between physics and philosophy.

I like your attitude, you have obviously taken the Pascalian wager (best to bet on God's existence, because if he does exist, you have much to win, but if he doesn't you have little to lose), by even entertaining the "if" idea, and I respect that. Some people are so firm in their beliefs (and not just Christians) that they will admit no "ifs".

[Abandon]

It does not seem too circular to me so much as definitive. If there is an ultimate truth, then only it is the ultimate truth by definition Same applies to Enlightenment .. if it is "the shore that has not shore beyond it" then it must be the absolute furthest. The point of such circular logic is to point out that there is an actual 'highest' truth that is not merely subjective opinion or experience.

My only answer to that is that if Enlightenment is the shore that has no shore beyond it, ultimate truth, ultimate reality etc.. and so is God, then they must be the same thing. The question then remains is you religion/practise one suitable for taking you to this ?? Generally in Christianity and Islam, it is held that you cannot - which is why God appeared to moses from within a cleft in the rock shrouded by mist. However, there are Christian mystics, such as Saint Teresa d'avila who speak of 'union with God' as a living breathing experience.

I doubt she would have any truck with my comparisons though.

Anyway, if either of these (or in Philosophy the Summon Bonum) are the 'highest' they are by definition the same. So If I get Enlightened but find that God eludes me, I am not enlightened. If someone is united with god, but is not enlightened, then they are not in Union. Of course, who would recognise such ??? we only have our definitions and predujdices by which to judge.

[Abandon]

sheesh ^^^^^^^

l l l l l l l

is my English really that bad ??

[Jose]

If there is an ultimate truth, then only it is the ultimate truth by definition Same applies to Enlightenment .. if it is "the shore that has not shore beyond it" then it must be the absolute furthest.

Would you agree that by "ultimate" and "no shore beyond" this implies a finite reality, with a beginning and an end?

jose '-)

[sabaijai]

If there is an ultimate truth, then only it is the ultimate truth by definition Same applies to Enlightenment .. if it is "the shore that has not shore beyond it" then it must be the absolute furthest.

Would you agree that by "ultimate" and "no shore beyond" this implies a finite reality, with a beginning and an end?

jose '-)

Bhikkhus, the round is beginningless. Of the beings that travel and trudge through this round, shut in as they are by ignorance and fettered by craving, no first beginning is describable.

SN 15:1

[Jose]

If there is an ultimate truth, then only it is the ultimate truth by definition Same applies to Enlightenment .. if it is "the shore that has not shore beyond it" then it must be the absolute furthest.

Would you agree that by "ultimate" and "no shore beyond" this implies a finite reality, with a beginning and an end?

Bhikkhus, the round is beginningless. Of the beings that travel and trudge through this round, shut in as they are by ignorance and fettered by craving, no first beginning is describable.

SN 15:1

So, perhaps if there is no beginning nor end (except in our minds), then it is unlikely that an "ultimate" anything exists.

No ultimate truth - just different views of One truth, all distorted to some degree by our conditioning.

jose '-)

[sleepyjohn]

I wonder if this thread is not reifying truth.

In other words is it trying to concretise something inappropriately.

In other words is this thread trying to thingify the unthingifiable?

Even if you disagree you'll have to admit I've used some great words.

[suegha]

I wonder if this thread is not reifying truth.

In other words is it trying to concretise something inappropriately.

In other words is this thread trying to thingify the unthingifiable?

Even if you disagree you'll have to admit I've used some great words.

This post gave me a chukle! Someone who obviously read the whole thread...

[Abandon]

I wonder if this thread is not reifying truth.

In other words is it trying to concretise something inappropriately.

In other words is this thread trying to thingify the unthingifiable?

Even if you disagree you'll have to admit I've used some great words.

We agree, you have.

[dog412]

you are your truth.