Truth v. Fact
What is your opinion about the similarities/differences between "fact" and "truth?" I know that by definition, both are essentially the same. As far as I'm concerned, however, the two share a lot of the same qualities but are different.
First, the similarities: Both seem to be grounded on what actually *is* in order to differentiate from what *is not*. They both make claims that are intended to be indisputable because of the very nature of describing what *is*. After all, why dispute something that cannot be something other than it is?
To me truth and fact are different in that fact seems to be based on information that is indisputable because of its blatant simplicity and undeniable proof. Example: George W. Bush is currently President of the United States. Indisputable, right?
I believe truth, then, to be a person's interpretation of data and information, mixed with opinion and life experience, to determine what *is*. Example: Florida voters gave George W. Bush the electoral votes he needed to secure the presidency in 2000. Not so indisputable.
What's your take on all this?
First, the similarities: Both seem to be grounded on what actually *is* in order to differentiate from what *is not*. They both make claims that are intended to be indisputable because of the very nature of describing what *is*. After all, why dispute something that cannot be something other than it is?
To me truth and fact are different in that fact seems to be based on information that is indisputable because of its blatant simplicity and undeniable proof. Example: George W. Bush is currently President of the United States. Indisputable, right?
I believe truth, then, to be a person's interpretation of data and information, mixed with opinion and life experience, to determine what *is*. Example: Florida voters gave George W. Bush the electoral votes he needed to secure the presidency in 2000. Not so indisputable.
What's your take on all this?
Comments
Originally posted by CosmoNut
To me truth and fact are different in that fact seems to be based on information that is indisputable because of its blatant simplicity and undeniable proof. Example: George W. Bush is currently President of the United States. Indisputable, right?
Truth isn't a concept, truth is a person -- the big JC. Short of a truth event on that order, and relying on the human intellect as intelligible to itself as a starting point it's not really possible to have a "truth". One of the big philosophical problems with a secular concept of truth is even more practical: technically speaking, you would have to exhaustivley define who George Bush is order to make sure that there weren't more than one "George Bush".
Originally posted by dmz
Truth isn't a concept, truth is a person -- the big JC. Short of a truth event on that order, and relying on the human intellect as intelligible to itself as a starting point it's not really possible to have a "truth".
That's opinion, not fact, and can hardly be construed as the truth.
Originally posted by segovius
Whilst I do not dispute this, I would argue that 'George Bush' is not one cohesive whole but an amalgam of disparate personalities with differing levels of development, different ways of acting and reacting and different tastes, preoccupations etc. This is the case with all of us unfortunately, but in Bush's case I'm afraid it is extended to the level of the sociopathic (imo).
Politically speaking, you may be more right than wrong, there.
Originally posted by shetline
...surrounding a human being whose existence is based on an unclear degree of historical fact...
You know...the existence of Jesus is not really questioned by anyone of any reasonable education in the subject these days.
Of course His divinity is always questioned.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You know...the existence of Jesus is not really questioned by anyone of any reasonable education in the subject these days.
Of course His divinity is always questioned.
Of course, you don't define whether the existance of Jesus is a physical reality, or a spiritual reality. Im quite happy with the latter, but the first is absolutely bull if you are defining the life of the physical Jesus as he appears in the gospels of pagan sun-worship.
Or perhaps you're being a sneak, in throwing words around that would imply to the naive, the evidence that shows that there was someone named Jesus alive in the 1st Century (absolutely for certain) was the same Jesus as the gospels narrate. For instance - there are 19 named Jesus' known to Josephus + the one obvious interpolated forgery. Including one that was crucified but is known not to be JC, so tell me Mr Cuilla, which one was the divine one?
Of course, as St Paul implies, and many other Christian figures have shown, it's always good and righteous to tell lies for the favour of god.
Why don't you stop lying to us and yourself, you (nor dmz) are not at all interested in establishing any truth, whatever that might be, but are simply living out a sadomasochistic urge of selfish self comfort and hypocricy.
It won't make the slightest bit of difference to the truth even if you managed to convince everyone on the planet to accept your lie.
Originally posted by powermacG6
Of course, you don't define whether the existance of Jesus is a physical reality, or a spiritual reality.
I was speaking of the physical existence of a man named Jesus in and about the areas and times spoken of in the NT.
Originally posted by powermacG6
Or perhaps you're being a sneak,
Not at all.
Originally posted by powermacG6
Of course, as St Paul implies, and many other Christian figures have shown, it's always good and righteous to tell lies for the favour of god.
Why don't you stop lying to us and yourself
I am not lying about anything. Stop it.
Originally posted by powermacG6
but are simply living out a sadomasochistic urge of selfish self comfort and hypocricy.
Whatever.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I was speaking of the physical existence of a man named Jesus in and about the areas and times spoken of in the NT.
Like I added, there are 19 of them in Josephus' account and 1 forgery, so to imply there was a bloke called Jesus about the 'right time' of the gospel mythos being a real person therefore the Bible must be a real historical account is rather lame.
You're all losing track of the point here. I wasn't intending for you to debate whether Jesus existed or whether Bush is a good president.
The question is: Do you believe there is a difference between fact and truth? If so, what are they?
Game on.
Originally posted by powermacG6
Like I added, there are 19 of them in Josephus' account and 1 forgery, so to imply there was a bloke called Jesus about the 'right time' of the gospel mythos being a real person therefore the Bible must be a real historical account is rather lame.
Okay...I'll be more precise (and then drop it to get back on topic). The Jesus as described in the NT the Jesus. His (physical) existence is not really questioned by reputable scholars on the subject.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
OKAY, TIME OUT.
You're all losing track of the point here. I wasn't intending for you to debate whether Jesus existed or whether Bush is a good president.
The question is: Do you believe there is a difference between fact and truth? If so, what are they?
Game on.
Can you provide more context of what you're getting at? It seems to me that a fact is a rather narrow piece of empirical information. The truth is deeper or broader. You could state a fact and yet misrepresent the broader truth. I think.
Originally posted by powermacG6
Like I added, there are 19 of them in Josephus' account and 1 forgery, so to imply there was a bloke called Jesus about the 'right time' of the gospel mythos being a real person therefore the Bible must be a real historical account is rather lame.
Even the 'cleaned up' version of Josphus' description of Jesus is a big plus for his existence. The Gosples supply their own evidence as well, as well as Luke's continuing narrative in the Acts of the Apostles. Then there are also the persecutions beginning with Nero IIRC, to consider, and the apparent connection of the Apostle John with the early Church.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Okay...I'll be more precise (and then drop it to get back on topic). The Jesus as described in the NT the Jesus. His (physical) existence is not really questioned by reputable scholars on the subject.
of course not.
ROTFLMAO x infinity.
OK, I had better take another month off, I'd forgotten how much debating with the mentally ill can suck the life out of a guy.
bye.
Originally posted by powermacG6
of course not.
ROTFLMAO x infinity.
OK, I had better take another month off, I'd forgotten how much debating with the mentally ill can suck the life out of a guy.
bye.
The mentally ill? I don't agree with Cuilla's version of Christianity nor his view that Jesus was divine, but you haven't exactly made a clear case for anything.
Originally posted by powermacG6
of course not.
ROTFLMAO x infinity.
OK, I had better take another month off, I'd forgotten how much debating with the mentally ill can suck the life out of a guy.
bye.
I am starting to think that my time being banned was better than now.
Things haven't change much here. Rational discussions go ad hominem in short order and everything is down hill from there. Sad really.
Originally posted by BRussell
The mentally ill? I don't agree with Cuilla's version of Christianity nor his view that Jesus was divine, but you haven't exactly made a clear case for anything.
Just out of curiosity...what is "Cuilla's version of Christianity"?
P.S. I thank you for your respectful disagreement.
Originally posted by BRussell
The mentally ill? I don't agree with Cuilla's version of Christianity nor his view that Jesus was divine, but you haven't exactly made a clear case for anything.
My wife thinks I'm crazy half the time, does that count?
Back to the point though, I think the biggest, most important step for approaching the notion of 'truth' from a secular prespective is to decide if the human intellect is intelligible to itself on a individual basis, or wether it participates in something bigger that decides in varying degrees, what is preceived. There isn't really any way to move forward until you decide on that.