The Instigator
anti_ethnocentric
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ryang5859
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is the Truth ; The Truth?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 685 times Debate No: 117914
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

anti_ethnocentric

Pro

A prominent political and legal figure recently made the Statement "The truth is not the truth". I vehemently disagree with such oxymoronic statement. What is truth? Win Loose or Draw lets debate and settle once and for all the answer to this mystery.
Ryang5859

Con

Hi there, I accept your debate question, If I understand correctly I will be arguing in favour of the statement that 'the truth is not the truth'. That this is indeed a logical phrase and that we will be expanding onto what is the nature/definition of 'truth'.

For what it is worth, I happen to agree with the statement that 'the truth is not always the truth'. That there are indeed many reasons and logical premises that demonstrate that written truth and 'fact' can indeed be wrong and unfactual. Of course, I will provide real-world, Actual examples of this (academic in nature, If possible)

*Please note though I am accepting this debate as a causal (yet still formal and mature) debate.

Should be an interesting topic :)
I'll allow you as the instigator to make the first remarks.
Debate Round No. 1
anti_ethnocentric

Pro

Thanks for accepting the debate. Is the Truth; The Truth? . . . This question can certainly entice the curiosity of the least noble of man. Truth is implied in every conceivable human endeavor ; Human relations, Science, Religion, Philosophy. Truth is the ultimate answer seek by those who lay their lives in search of the unknown. The Universe with its vast Galaxies and millions of unanswered questions asked by humanity. Still remains Truth to its existence not needing to explain it self nor yearn for external acceptance. Truth ; How many spankings as children's did we received for not telling the truth even when at such age we had no remote idea of what truth was. A criminal defense Lawyer, A Religious leader, A Political Entity, A scientist at a R&D lab, A General commanding troops in the front line, An Aborigene in the Canadian Northern territories, A teenager falling in love for the first time. All are burden by their respective dilemmas and seek the outcome of the truth by their given limited human cognition. An Opinion, A Hypothesis, An Ideal, A desire, An emotion may be guidelines that separates social classes and dictate behaviorism. Yet truth is the truth regardless of what our short comings may be and what length of time it may take in accepting it.
Ryang5859

Con

Firstly I would argue, What is truth?

We could both look at two pieces of information completely identical to each other and arrive at two different conclusions. This would likely be caused by other factors such as previous information and experience, Education etc. But it is possible for two (or more) people to conclude different answers from the same information. The fact is they are both concluded from the same material. They are both sourcing their information and points of difference from the same source. But the difference is their interpretation of the information.

Truth is nothing more than a human word and a human concept. It is a creation of our mind that we associate things that are 'right' with. What exists outside of our mind is 'Reality'. When we understand something about reality as a species, It becomes a fact. Facts become/are truth. For instance, We all know our planet rotates around our Sun. That is the reality of the universe we live in. Yet thousands of years ago we thought it was the sun that rotated around us. It was the widely accepted view of the time and was the 'truth'. If you were asked in ancient Greece does the sun rotate around the earth, They would answer yes. That was the truth for them with all the evidence at hand, At the time. This doesn't mean it was true in reality. Only in their minds.
It wasn't until we sent probes to space and viewed it with our own eyes we saw that it was the Earth that rotates around the Sun.

The fact is, Our minds simply attempt to understand reality. We know a few things about reality, And these are what we could call absolute truths. The information is so accurate and so reliable and testable that they are certain. Things we know for certain and to be true. And just because we claim something to be true, Doesn't make it so. I would use this example to counter your statement:

" Yet truth is the truth regardless of what our short comings may be and what length of time it may take in accepting it. "

If we were back in ancient Greece together, We would agree that the Earth rotates around the sun, We know that as a fact and to be true. The ancient Greeks would all disagree with us claiming they know the truth is that the sun rotates around the earth.

Truth is purely subjective and can be interpreted in many different ways. One of my favourite movies could explain this in a simple sentence:
" Truth is singular, Its versions are mistruths "
The fact is there are many, Many different versions of a single truth. And while we may agree on what is and isn't true. We cannot know for sure about everything whether or not we are talking about a singular truth or a version of the truth.
Debate Round No. 2
anti_ethnocentric

Pro

You have presented 1 historical fact and one situational. Yet both are nothing more than the mere conclusion of a social Collective or individual logical inference.

For the past 100 years human history and archeological discoveries have revealed. That the Greeks were not the only one's who had their belief of the Universe vast mysteries. Anthropological discoveries in Egypt, South America and the Far East have proven the Greeks concept of the Universe to be one Social groups vantage point of view and their conclusion to that effect.

The advent of technology and its use in Outer Space exploration are constantly baffling the experts. With every newer discovery former theories have been scraped, Scholar have retracted from their earlier conclusion, Universities have had to change the rhetoric on the subject matter. That is the current status of the establishments Truth until we're told other wise.

Situational. If you and I were hungry. Hunger would be an undeniable truth. The question is what are we going to eat to rid the hunger. In this case several factors will come into the equation. Yet the truth is we're both hungry. Deciding Where are we going to eat, When are we going to eat, What are we going to eat etc. Are the conflict we both generate in
agreeing upon. Coming to an agreeable decision does not invalidate the essence of the truth our individual self determinations only creates an illusion of complexity to the truth.

It is no secret that Empires from centuries past and Nation builder in our modern era resort to distortion of the Truth with the intent to polarize the masses views and opinions. An those who defy or question the truth are given a social label with the intent of discarding them as pest. Galileo Galilei is an example who currently comes to mind.

The Truth is the Truth and does not needs the approval of a majority nor a change in rhetoric to validate it.
The Truth haves no conflict with itself. It is we who create the chaos when we imprison it around walls of economic bi lateral agreements, Conventional treaties, Sociopolitical mandates
A dialogue in the movie A Few Good Man could well explain this " You can't handle the Truth "
Ryang5859

Con

" Yet both are nothing more than the mere conclusion of a social Collective or individual logical inference. "

Correct. And perhaps the example of our solar system wasn't the best. Nor your following example of hunger. In that particular situation, Sure, It is pretty evident what the 'truth' is. In that situation we can conclude we are both hungry, We can both evaluate the information and arrive at the same conclusion.

But what I think you have brought up (inadvertently) is a perfect example of my point. See, What I think you are describing when you say:

" The Truth is the Truth and does not needs the approval of a majority nor a change in rhetoric to validate it.
The Truth haves no conflict with itself. It is we who create the chaos when we imprison it around walls of economic bi lateral agreements, Conventional treaties, Sociopolitical mandates "

Is a perfect example of what you think truth is, I would argue, That it is not 'truth' but 'reality' that you are arguing for here.
And are mixing the two together. Reality does not need majority approval, Reality does not care for human-made understanding in our limited language. Reality is Reality regardless if we see it for what it is, Or misunderstand it for something it isn't.

Truth IS indeed subject to majority approval, And to current rhetoric. It is the sum acceptance of the information we have processed. I think you are arguing perfectly about the nature of reality. Not truth.

Our history books are constantly changing to keep up with new discoveries. Such as evolution (just one example)
Before Darwin's theory, We had no idea of the origins of our species, The accepted 'truth' by society was a deity (God) or some kind of creation myth. It is still something that divides people into two basic categories. Those that accepted the FACT of evolution and those that deny it in favour of a creation myth. 500 years ago it was an accepted fact and truth that some kind of God created mankind. Humanity as a whole almost in its entirety accepted a creation myth from Africa to Europe, To the natives of Australia. It is one thing present in all societies and culture in history regardless of contact with other cultures or not. All that we used to argue about, Was whose creation myth was right. People argued over this truth so much they fought wars, Crusades, Jihads etc in order to enforce their truth on others.
the REALITY of the matter is even IF there is a creator (personally I doubt it) there is now, No denying the reality that humans did indeed evolve as a species. We were not created. This is a truth that is accepted now based on a newer understanding of reality.

My point is (and again, Maybe I could have made a better one) that truth and facts change based on our understanding of reality. Reality is unchanging it is our pursuit of understanding our reality that we base our facts on. I believe you are arguing my point as well and are indeed arguing that reality is reality no matter what. Whereas the truth is subjective and can be altered based on new information. If the truth is always the truth, This wouldn't be possible, Plain and simple.
So your opening quotation is indeed accurate: 'The truth is not the truth'. Although I would alter this remark by saying instead 'The truth is not always the truth'. As there are indeed some facts and truth we know to be undeniable that are indeed based on reality.


Debate Round No. 3
anti_ethnocentric

Pro

First off understand this. I am not arguing for reality but for truth. Let me make something clear so you may understand
reality is an effect with variants in consequences. A black person steals a car is sentenced to 10 years in jail a White collar investment fund manager fleeces millions from account holders gets 3 years in jail. That is a judicial system reality. Herbert is a wife beater yet Jenny his wife is looking forward to their upcoming 15 year Anniversary. Jeff was a hard worker and good provider to his ex wife of 3 year Elizabeth who left him to go live with Scott. They been residing in the basement of Scott's parent house for the past six months. That is a marital relationship reality. And I can go on with ample examples on the matter.

The realm of human relationships can well be catalogued in the context of reality. So no I'm not arguing for the premises of
reality. I'm arguing the Truth and the principles there off.

Is history Truth? Is human behavior truth? Is there a subatomic structure to Truth? What % of Truth is our human body composed off? . Obviously our brain can be a vast universe in which a quest to finding Truth would take us into unexplored neurological galaxies.

You stated that "Truth IS indeed subject to majority approval, And to current rhetoric. It is the sum acceptance of the information we have processed. . . . "

Your error consist in assuming that truth hoovers from and about based on humanity's polarizing fields of tough and desire. Our habitat and vast Universe attest to the Truth of our very existence it is by it that we are brought to life and we are taken from it. Did humans did indeed evolve as a species? That is not a reality nor a truth but a hypothesis.

You stated " IF there is a creator (personally I doubt it) there is now, No denying the reality that humans did indeed evolve as a species. We were not created. This is a truth that is accepted now based on a newer understanding of reality. " I'll dismiss this statement as imperceptive.

Let us not fall in the errors of the ancients by compartmentalizing Truth with dialectics. I close by stating as I have since the beginning " The Truth is the Truth ". Can you handle the TRUTH!
Ryang5859

Con

" reality is an effect with variants in consequences. "

This may be where the issue lies, This statement is completely incorrect. Reality is not an effect, Truth can indeed be a variant based on a certain understanding of our reality. But reality itself is unchanging. Reality IS the world we live in. It is subject to our interpretation and we can get it wrong or right. It doesn't matter, It doesn't change the reality of the topic/ subject. Reality is what we could call 'absolute truth' I don't really like this wording as it's miss leading and confusing as it has nothing to do with regular 'truth' (in this context)


"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, Invariable, Unalterable facts. For example, It is a fixed, Invariable, Unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.

when you say: " A black person steals a car is sentenced to 10 years in jail a White collar investment fund manager fleeces millions from account holders gets 3 years in jail. That is a judicial system reality. "

You are (understandably) miss-using the word 'reality' you are using it colloquially not literally. If the above example happened (as I'm sure it does often) It would simply be the outcome/ result of our current judicial system. When we use the word reality in this context 'it is the reality of our judicial system' We are misusing the word and using it colloquially.

" Is history Truth? Is human behavior truth? Is there a subatomic structure to Truth? "

The answer is no to all three. If you are talking about history in general and just simply referring to history as the events of the past simply happening, And simply asking ' did they happen/ are they true'. Well, The answer is most likely yes. History becomes 'untrue' quite often when human beings record it from their perspectives. Facts get skewed and miscommunicated often. There are plenty of examples of historical texts that got things wrong.

" Your error consist in assuming that truth hoovers from and about based on humanity's polarizing fields of tough and desire. '

I'm a bit confused by what you mean here, But if by tough and desire, You mean perception and understanding, Then the answer is yes, Indeed it does.

" Did humans did indeed evolve as a species? That is not a reality nor a truth but a hypothesis. "

I hope I didn't confuse you with this statement. Evolution is not a hypothesis? It is an established fact and a reality that homo sapiens did indeed involve from 'lesser' species (please don't take lesser out of context) We know for a fact that humans developed in order from:
  • Homo sapiens.
  • Homo habilis.
  • Homo erectus.
  • Homofloresiensis.
  • Homoneanderthalensis.
  • Homo heidelbergensis.
  • Homo rudolfensis.
  • etc

Sure at some stage further back, The information becomes harder and harder to obtain and verify, In the absence of that evidence there can indeed be a hypothesis of what came before. But our latest developed is well documented and verified. There is no denying the fact we have evolved. I'm sure you understand this also and there is simply a miscommunication somewhere. To state otherwise I would simply assume you have a religious belief then, In which case it is a different subject and topic entirely. Happy to discuss it in a different debate.

" You stated " IF there is a creator (personally I doubt it) there is now, No denying the reality that humans did indeed evolve as a species. We were not created. This is a truth that is accepted now based on a newer understanding of reality. " I'll dismiss this statement as imperceptive. "

Not at all, This statement is completely factually correct (at the exception of my opinion on the existence of a God)
My statement that humans were not created is an established fact. We can trace our ancestry back extremely accurately to the origins of our species today. And then further back still. IF there is a god, There is not a single piece of peer-reviewed verifiable evidence that proves any kind of divine intervention in our evolution. I'm not stating whether or not there is a god, That is unprovable and not being discussed.

" The Truth is the Truth " Again, I would simply conclude with the fact that the truth is subjective and changeable, Whereas reality is absolute. The 'truth' is what we believe to be true based on current information. I still believe you are simply missusing truth and reality and confusing which is which. I believe you are using the word 'truth' when you really mean reality. And are doing so unaware.

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
Xiutecuhtli
If you didn't want to read the whole huge thing I spit out,

Undetermination trumps identity property.
Wikipedia it.

Descartes' evil demon thought experiment also. That was a fun thing.
Are we SURE the identity property is real? Could an infinite liar overcome all perception of REAL logic and give us fake logic which we become certain of? And how do we know it's not the truth? "It's unlikely that a demon would exist. It's stupid. " Or maybe you're guided by the demon into believing that. It could be real.

Maybe the truth is the truth. But we can't be sure what logic really is if the evil demon scenario is possible, And it is.
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
Xiutecuhtli
Also lol that "Victor writes history" turned into "Victor writes his story" is totally great.
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
Xiutecuhtli
Shoulda known that would happen ;-;.
I'd like to be. . . . . . . . . . Disproven though.
THE END
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
Xiutecuhtli
There is no sure truth.

I like undetermination.

If there is no truth, Then there is no truth that could BE the truth.

Identity property might just be a matrix-simulated dream.

Everyone says that that can't happen, But you might suddenly wake up to find your estimation of likelihood was wrong.

I think that if there are infinite unique circumstance sets to wake up to, Then there are infinite alternatives involving waking and only one involving not being asleep, Per dream circumstance set.
It is probabilistically certain that you will wake up somehow, Probably multiple times.

And you might wake up to different logic, Finding that what you thought made sense was bizarre and unusual, A strange dream involving identity property and 2+2=4 (might take several dream layers to get a change like that, But it's possible. )

When logic gets unverifiable, Every statement becomes unverifiable. The truth/falsehood system might stop making sense. You can't be sure of anything at all, Ever.

And I can't even tell you with sureness that this is all true.
EXCEPT,
ACCORDING to these dream rules, These dream rules don't operate alone. They determine that other dream rules have to exist. So I can be sure that we wake up at least once. Except, If we do wake up, Then my sureness/unsureness breaks. Maybe I can be sure I can't be sure, When I act as if logic is real, And I can't be sure of anything when I act as if it isn't. But if it isn't, I can't verify that that is a correct course of action. Or maybe I can, Because I'm not exactly certain about not being able to verify. Or maybe I am certain.
Or maybe.
But "Or maybe. " could be false under some wacky rules. I guess I can't tell if I'm right or wrong anymore. Or maybe I can. I'll stop now. Or will I? (even that last question proved I didn't. Or did it? )

:P It's hardly a worldview to use practically. It's fun to play around with though because it's so undisprovable to me. Maybe to everyone. I'd like it to be
Posted by Whispering 3 years ago
Whispering
This discussion is one that happened during the enlightenment.

I believe there are some mistakes in our lexicon and there is an alarmingly important word missing in this discussion; belief. Truth and reality are synonymous terms; they exist independently of our existence or awareness of them. Belief is the sort of perceived, Re-imagined version of reality that we create in our minds; it is through our senses and consciousness that we form these beliefs and it is the closest relationship we can have with absolute truth (here-on refereed to as simply truth. Absolute truth is redundant).

David Hume as part of his attack on the enlightenment movement in the 1700's essentially credited this gap between consciousness and truth, Which we now call belief, To discredit the life philosophy of the enlightenment which was one of rationalism, Logic and numerical and observational deduction on which to form one's life and make decisions. He argued that although we can make concrete deductions of causation as science loves to do and in this knowledge of our environment we can place our confidence, All of these confidences rely on one deduction that we can not certainly prove through logic of any kind, Or through proof and that that deduction is that we exist. No one is sure they exist; we all believe we exist. We accept it on faith.
Posted by anti_ethnocentric 3 years ago
anti_ethnocentric
Victors write His Story. Survivors write theirs and the Generations after them repeat the vicious cycle. Thus History is a fallacy of savagery.
Posted by MahmoudSonbaty 3 years ago
MahmoudSonbaty
"Victors write History"
That's a fact and another fact "Powerful determines Truth"
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.