Truth

[eikons]

The reason for a universally accepted truth is it's practical application in the past. If I drop a brick, I'm quite sure that gravity will do it's job in forcing it down. I cannot prove that bricks will always do this, the next brick I drop might not. But we all accepted that this is how gravity works just because it has proved more reliable than "bricks fly up" in the past. The same goes for math on geometry, or religion, for that matter. It cannot be disproved, but that doesn't make it useful.

[dndn1011]

@eikons You can be sure the brick will fall, but can you be sure of why? It accelerates dues to a force, but you cannot see the force, you infer the force. Thus force is an assumption. No doubt it might be possible to come up with a version of classical mechanics where force is not given a name or considered. On such assumptions rules are built. The point is which ever assumptions we make are based on practicality, not truth.

[eikons]

@dndn1011 I feel this enters the domain of philosophy, and arguments always water down when it comes to that, since arguments rest on the foundations that philosophy question. But I'll give it a shot. Don't you think that instead of inventing a new system of geometry that adheres to the constraints of what such a system is supposed to be, we should question those constraints? Because if I "prove" gravity wrong by showing how helium works, the mistake would be to disregard the weight of air.

[eikons]

@eikons That is to say that a system being "self-sustaining" does not prove it to be any more true than a system we can practically apply. This is why, when multiple systems that cannot be dis-proven, it is safe to assume the one with practical value may be regarded as the true one. Ultimately, nothing can be proven. Uncomfortable as it may be, assumptions are the foundations of our knowledge. Looking for things that haven't been dis-proven is just a backwards way of going about science.

[dndn1011]

@eikons The disregarding of something of which one is unaware is an implicit assumption. You may not know about it, but it is there. It simply does not belong to your version of the truth.

[amccann7]

Interesting thoughts you share.

[heatherlynblue]

i can't tell you how many times i've watched this vid... i'm not keeping count anymore. thanks for making it.

[dndn1011]

@heatherlynblue you are welcome :)

[Rayxl1]

Wonderful thinking. I am a Christian and I find it so irritating when other Christians think the first few chapters of Genisis are literally true; for example they think Adam and Eve suddenly appeared from nowhere as modern humans and we are all decendents of their's. They are so feircely defencive of this that they miss the whole point of the Adam and Eve story of how they fell from grace though eating the forbiden fruit which explans many of the problems we have today.

[Jak35ter]

I second this.. i also am frustrated by the fact that so many dont SEARCH for the truth... dont Exhaust all thier resources trying to find it!

[Alexknobsob]

I think my mother-in-law would agree with you, lucky man!

[dndn1011]

@Alexknobsob: Cryptic!

[Alexknobsob]

Yeah, she needs a lot of undersanding

[Alexknobsob]

like a leaky vessel.

[WAKEUPstudios]

no absolute truth? is that true? if it is true there is no absolute truth then how can that be true? It would be an absolute truth.

[dndn1011]

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. If there is one absolute truth, it would be that :)

[WAKEUPstudios]

i thought you said there is no absolute truth

[Alexknobsob]

He does not lie.

[floating00eye]

@WAKEUPstudios I agree, he doesn't address the self-referential paradox. In which case the argument is more aesthetic than epistemological. And even though scientific thought has to make certain assumptions, that doesn't mean that ANY assumptions made about any belief system are equally valid; i.e., many problems have an infinite number of related solutions, but there is an infinitely greater number of solutions which are, indeed, incorrect.

[dndn1011]

@floating00eye you miss the point; all belief systems (including scientific belief) is founded on what is most convenient for any purpose. The self referential paradox is perhaps easily shown to fall outside formal systems due to the fact that an SRP is not self consistent. Self consistency is an important aspect of "completely self consistent belief systems that explain the world".

[2gointruth]

I am of the belief that "IS" is Truth Absolute and Science is actually the "Tool" used by mankind for researching and discovering what "IS" already.

[Jak35ter]

TELLIN' it like it is..

[brokennarcissist]

Lab coats and mathletes tell me nothing about my life, let them boast of their intellectual masterbation.

[b1heqh54]

Judge naught, for truth like simultaneity is a matter of perspective. -Me

[DrummerInExile]

ah man i subscribed you to listen to your guitar playing!! post more jazz!!! haha

so what got you into philosophy? thinking of studying PPE at uni :)

[dndn1011]

Sorry! Since you ask I will work on some jazz. Any particular flavor?

[DrummerInExile]

no worries man :)

errr not really, be-beop's cool. anything really. something that's hip. or maybe do something really easy and then tear it up...i dunno! I do like jazz guitar! I look forward to hearing more!

[sistaspooky1013]

By the most - you can try to create one harmonious convenience - ok, but there will always be inconvenience when people's best interests are not united (which is REALLY hard to achieve when you think of it - such harmony)

Then there is lack of peace, wars, fights over which is 'true'

Get more (in an honest way) to share more and give more and you can make a positive progress

may not be perfect, but for sure is rather convenient :D

[dndn1011]

Uniting people in theory should not be that hard, when people realize that we are all the same. It is ego that holds us back. The idea that I have more of a right to be attached to something than someone else is the root of disharmony.

[sistaspooky1013]

Come on, have you ever been in love?

[dndn1011]

Attachment is different from treasuring. Attachment is about fearing loss. What you fear to lose you cannot fully enjoy. The fear takes you out of the moment which is where you need to be to fully experience love. It is not so easy to describe and not easy to live. Jealousy is about the fear of losing. But the truth is that if you love someone and they love you truly, you have nothing to fear. When things are taken from us, it hurts, but attachment is something that makes you...

[dndn1011]

...fear that you will lose what you have, and thus diminish your enjoyment of it, or cause the suffering when we experience the loss to remain protracted.

Un-attachment is very different from not caring. I care about my life very much, yet I try to remain unattached to it, because everything changes, nothing is permanent... and when become attached those changes can tear us appart and inflict terrible suffering until we learn to...

... let go.

[sistaspooky1013]

It's rather a personal and even intimate question but I've always been the careless curious:

Does un-attachment affect the intensity of your feelings of love or even passion in life?

Letting go is probably the best freedom in the world - it is pure love and for some the greatest challange (parents for example who depend on their children also for survival in later age, the child has its own life - can be very difficult stage)

[dndn1011]

I would say that the unattachment I speak of increases feelings of love. The reason is clear when you consider that the opposite of love is actually fear. Not the fear that is helpful for survival in dangerous situations, I speak of the fear the paralyzes and takes away joy. This is the opposite of love. When you live without that fear, you can live with love. The attachment I speak of is a fear of loss. Without the fear of loss, we can fully enjoy what we have! :)

[sistaspooky1013]

It sounds heavenly - to love without fear :)

Wish the world was filled with fearless love :D

[sistaspooky1013]

truth=convenience that can also be random :)

what affects truth? according to what 'truth' is conceived? that defines the believer/person

hence - people are shaped by their beliefes

that can also work the other way

;o)

people fight because it is CONVENIENT to them

You cannot change that, you CAN change what is convenient to them - by getting to know them and learning to control them

But that won't make you the first person trying to 'liberate, unite, set free' the world ;p

[dndn1011]

Maybe the purpose of life is to ask awkward questions ;)

[sistaspooky1013]

That's individual

To me the purpose of life is to give awkward answers :D

Also - you can SUCCEED liberating, setting free, uniting ;) If you are GOOD

;p

[SABRESTR]

this I like! haha I always loved awkward questions.

[captainhampton]

It seems to me, to which you seem to agree as well, that truth is quite subjective to whatever one person may assume to be the "truth". So from that standpoint, the truth should be changing all of the time, it should be dynamic in nature.

As you stated earlier, truth of Euclid's geometry or Riemann's geometry was only truth until proven false by another more general sense of a progressive truth.

[dndn1011]

Ah well the things is that both systems are true *for their own given set of assumptions*. One does not prove the other wrong. This is a very important point here.

[captainhampton]

As far as the last statement is concerned, I'm not quite sure I can entirely agree. The truth that changes all the time may progressively work its way to a more broad sense of what the "truth" is.

However, the truth that is only stated once may be entirely false, or perhaps found to be false.

[dndn1011]

Ah yes, in fact I did not answer the question, I merely asked it. I am not sure of the answer, but I think the question is very important :)

[SalixAlba256]

So we have the difference between mathatics and physics. In mathematics we start with an axiomatic system and reason from there. In physics the task is to find the set of axioms which best match the world we observe.

Can Buddhism be considered an axiomatic system? There are certainly tenents which sound axiomatic to me. Are these a good fit to the world we live in?

[dndn1011]

There's not much difference really, in both cases you end up with a formal system based on axioms (assumptions). The method of development of this formal system is different, that's all.

Buddhism also makes assumptions about the universe, and creates a formal system (a logical system, rather than a mathematical one), which is very useful in dealing with the human condition.

Science is concerned with knowledge. Buddhism is concerned with wisdom. Wisdom is probably as relevant today as ever.

[sistaspooky1013]

"Buddhism is concerned with wisdom. Wisdom is probably as relevant today as ever"

Which is what makes it so popular/convenient :D