Hi there. I would like to learn about truth and understanding. Excuse my clumsy language, I have little knowledge of existentialism's jargon. I tried to consult the dictionary for definitions of the words themselves but was swamped by metaphorical explanations which didn't clarify anything for me.
In trying to make sense of things, I feel like I am working against that goal with the attempt itself. Concepts and other mental products seem to be deviations from reality's true nature, useful to us because they break and pervert incomprehensible reality into information we can work with, create theories and make predictions. However, these same mental products are a part of the reality they distort in order to make it comprehensible. It seems like a paradox, another deviation. It seems the closer I get to truth, whatever it is (besides seemingly unknowable due to consciousness itself?), the more theories break down, or the less things make sense. So what is truth and what is understanding and what is the relationship between the two?
-b
In trying to make sense of things, I feel like I am working against that goal with the attempt itself. Concepts and other mental products seem to be deviations from reality's true nature, useful to us because they break and pervert incomprehensible reality into information we can work with, create theories and make predictions. However, these same mental products are a part of the reality they distort in order to make it comprehensible. It seems like a paradox, another deviation. It seems the closer I get to truth, whatever it is (besides seemingly unknowable due to consciousness itself?), the more theories break down, or the less things make sense. So what is truth and what is understanding and what is the relationship between the two?
-b
posted by:
|
Canada
|
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Thu, May 11, 2006 - 5:31 AMTruth as we have come to use the term , is our attempt to understand what is real as distinguished from our perception or our lack of understanding of a reality.Understanding is that conclusion we have reached from the attempt to formulate the search for truth.Since the capacity for humans to seek and collate the real and the facts as we know them is limited by time and chance, our understanding is muteable but truth is fixed.However, existentialist thinking generally doesn't deal with that formulation, rather it concerns itself with what we understand and how to cope with our ignorance.
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Sat, May 13, 2006 - 6:22 AMFrom a pragmaticists view, "truth" is simply that which works for us. It's a label. If an idea or belief aids us in survival, if it benefits us in understanding ourselves and our world, we call it "true." In the same way that a species of bird will evolve a type of beak which aids in its survival, so man's definition of truth evolves. Once a truth no longer proves useful to us -- i.e. Apollo brings the sunrise each day, or the Earth is flat, or Jesus died for our sins -- we jetison it, and relabel it as myth, falsehood, or misunderstanding. -
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Sat, May 13, 2006 - 6:36 AMConcisely stated!!!
-
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Sat, May 13, 2006 - 10:32 PMTruth of self is nowhere but in the gut, if we listen.
Truth of the universe must be like 99% unknown. -
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Sun, May 14, 2006 - 3:43 AMDo you mean to imply that as we come to know more facts about the universe we have less truth? -
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Sun, May 14, 2006 - 5:04 AMHere is where I am confused - this seems to depend on what "facts" are and what is the nature of information? -
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Sun, May 14, 2006 - 4:05 PM(I feel) Truth is subjective, you feel it, what resonates, what doesn't. Than five minutes pass, and you learn something new. If we all are on our own worlds (which I believe), we all incessantly grow and evolve to find our individual destiny, is it fair to seek truth in others? It's awesome to have conversation that allows us to share our individual outlook, but ultimately, I say please find truth within. But that's just my contestable truth. And that's the brilliance of it, it's ALL contestable.
Thanks for the great thread Bryce.
-
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Sun, May 14, 2006 - 6:45 PMNot exactly
I just think that there is so much more that we dont know. -
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Mon, May 15, 2006 - 3:58 PMI certainly concur that most of what is knowable about the universe is beyond us, but I get a bit oogie when we start talking about "personal truths". I fear that such an attitude inevitabley leads to what Simone de Bouvoir calls, "the anarchy of personal whim", or what I call, the "Chaos or Camus". -
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Mon, May 15, 2006 - 4:13 PMIts not to say that we should project onto others. When it comes to self(listening to the gut) Im only talking about things like "what was I meant to be" or "what should i do about this(whatever it is)". -
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Mon, May 15, 2006 - 9:46 PMThat's the thing Joe, I feel that all we have is individual truth. Individual lives, individual experience, individual perception. I mean other than the biological axioms of this organism (earth) like oxygen, gravity, etc. this world is subject to our individual interpretation. Therefore, certain answers we can only find within. As far as what way we should look at life, if you're (not anyone specific) looking to impose outlooks, you should find a tribe with more impressionable folk. I agree, there must be more to this place than any knowledge or theories that any human mind can come to. But to discuss universal truth and harmonious ideals with existential thinkers is brilliantly absurd, in my opinion. I cannot speak for anyone other than myself though. Bottom line is, I believe in you believing in you.
'It's been said a long time ago: you'll be the first and last to know.' -
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Tue, May 16, 2006 - 4:21 PMI agree with most of what you say "i". I whole-heartedly agree that certain answers can only be found within, and that reality is, to a great degree, subject to our own interpretation. I also feel however, that we live our lives in conjunction with hundreds and thousands of other souls, and to not give consideration to their well-beiing as well, is to not live an honorable life. Perhaps I have just seen too many friends take select pieces of Sartre and Camus, and use it to justify their own selfish desire for material posessions, sex, and nililistic pleasure.
On a side note ... the phrase "brilliantly absurd" is monumentally sublime. You must leave your house right now, and go join a rock band! -
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Tue, May 16, 2006 - 5:31 PMIf you think this stuff about me(in response to what I said), then you are wrong about me. I always take others into consideration(maybe a little too much in fact). Come to think of it, there should be a balance between caring for oneself and others.
Anyway, that is a tangent from what I was originally getting at..... -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Truth and understanding?
Tue, May 16, 2006 - 11:40 PMOh no Wendy. I wasn't reading anything into what you wrote. I'm speaking purely theoretically. I would never presume to know anything about you. In fact, it's quite the opposite. If I assume anything, it's that you're a reasonable, well thought out individual. If that were not the case, I doubt you would have found your way to this particular conversation. Cool?
-
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Wed, May 17, 2006 - 10:55 AMJoe, I like what you bring to this discussion thanks for sharing. I see what you're saying about turning an existential outlook into an excuse for reckless and careless behavior.
Wendy, I feel like you may feel attacked. It's not the case, there is discordance here but that's ok. Thanks for what you have shared here too.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Thu, May 18, 2006 - 8:56 PMTruth is Knowledge with an aproximate analog in fact which also has an analog in reality, which is constantly iin flux in some areas and static (or changing too slowly to be observed) in others. There is no absolute truth which is not universal, there are however pleanty of impossible to confirm truths.
Just because somthing IS does not mean that it must have some possible to track rationalisation for it's heccaety. That would necessitate that everything hwich exists must be rational, and thats not true, for i can be irrational and still exist. i may also hold true to some grotesque falacy or paradox, and still it's true that i do.
Understanding is awareness of truth.
in some cases I think working towards the goal of trying to make sense of things IS working against the goal because not all things may be made sense of...some are senseless. On the whole you have nailed the very reason I abandoned "trying to make sense of things" long ago as a viable and relyable means to seeking a wholisticaly compatable internal state of being in real perceptual harmony with what is.
Acceptance is far superior. You can not know what does not conform to the rules of the knowable , but you can still accept it and learn to comprehend it on it's own terms. -
-
Re: Truth and understanding?
Fri, May 19, 2006 - 3:16 AMAre we not gifted with the brain to attempt to learn of our universe while being burdened with the need to know it? -
-
"Are we not gifted with the brain to attempt to learn of our universe while being burdened with the need to know it?"
Sat, May 20, 2006 - 12:13 AM1. "Gifted"? (not that I disagree...but try and prove it.)
2. The presence of a brain means a specific use?
3. Learning of our universe means a specific method? (you seem to imply this).
4. An internal drive to know must be a need and not a desire?
5. If it even IS a need (and I do not agree that is what anyone feels , though I also do not agree that they do not need it) why would that be a burden and not a calling, or somthing else? -
-
Re: "Are we not gifted with the brain to attempt to learn of our universe while being burdened with the need to know it?"
Sat, May 20, 2006 - 5:23 AMTrue, semantics is crucial and the statement was sloppy.We have a brain which allows us to know and organize facts about our universe in our effort to control or manage events and matter. The burden is that we care about control. -
-
Re: "Are we not gifted with the brain to attempt to learn of our universe while being burdened with the need to know it?"
Sat, May 20, 2006 - 5:16 PM
"True, semantics is crucial and the statement was sloppy."
I wouldn't have said sloppy, that seems rude. I was realy just trying to clerifiy.
The first part is semantics but only in part. "gifted" makes it hard to tell what you meant.
The faculties of the mind can do quite a bit besides learn.
"We have a brain which allows us to know and organize facts about our universe in our effort to control or manage events and matter. "
YES, but does that imply a specific method of organization or fact aquisition? You seem to imply that agressive imposition of meaning upon a given informational bit is denoted here. I am not sure controll is the point, i am not even sure if controll is anything more than an illusion.
"The burden is that we care about control. "
Not everyone does. -
-
Re: "Are we not gifted with the brain to attempt to learn of our universe while being burdened with the need to know it?"
Sun, May 21, 2006 - 5:37 AMA cursory understanding of the causal relationship between mankind's development of science, mathematics, language, art, archetecture,laws and methods of governance demonstrates his striving to control his environment. Striving implys care as does the refinement of those efforts.Even the hermit or most reclusive monk attempts to create a more comfortable environment, at least to satisfy his needs, even if it is the avoidance of his fellow man.
-
-
-
-
-
