Truth With A Capital “T”

The following conversation took place at my Discord server.
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX

The forward ( > ) symbol indicates β€œresponded to”.
Example:Β Freddy > JasonΒ (Freddy responded to Jason)

oπ–“π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–”π–˜π–Š π–Œπ–šyπ–˜
There is no truth, only perspective. Whose truth? Knowing truth is both subject and object. It is not an accurate metric to gage the veracity of a claim. FACTS are the only things that matter. G’day you beautiful unique people. I hope you are well.

Abdul > oπ–“π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–”π–˜π–Š π–Œπ–šyπ–˜
“There is no truth, only perspective.”

Wouldn’t that be a truth?

oπ–“π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–”π–˜π–Š π–Œπ–šyπ–˜ > Abdul
sure, it would be my truth. however, I see that it comports with reality and fact. other’s truth is truth can only be object. I just wish to know as many true and as few false things as possible. I retain my skepticism in what I think I know. I think that is a healthy worldview. I cant say that worldview is a truth though. ALSO…

holeymoley
Ummmmm, truth is based on fact. If something is not factual, it can’t be the truth. The truth cannot be based on opinion, then it’s a belief.

There’s no such thing as MY truth, or YOUR truth. Those are called opinions or beliefs.

oπ–“π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–”π–˜π–Š π–Œπ–šyπ–˜ > holeymoley
do you believe in god? If so, isn’t that a truth for you? I get it, it’s a belief. that doesn;t not make it true to you. hence, a self truth. truth is not always objective, by definition. that’s why I stay away from that word, due to its subjective connotations.

holeymoley > oπ–“π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–”π–˜π–Š π–Œπ–šyπ–˜
do I believe in god? None of your business. If so, isn’t that a truth for me? No, that would be a belief. If I wanted to make it true for me, I would need facts. There is no such thing as a self truth. Where is this definition that says truth is not always objective?

oπ–“π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–”π–˜π–Š π–Œπ–šyπ–˜ > holeymoley
idk what your leanings are to gawd. that wasn’t the point. the point is, people call things that aren’t falsifiable true all of the time. I also understand that people lie to themselves. in doing so, they call these lies truth.

bbblackwell
When I use the word β€œTruth” in face-to-face conversations, the response is generally apprehensive; like when someone suggests saying grace before dinner.

I don’t get what the big deal is. Fire burns, no? Cows eat grass? So what the flying fuck?! We’re not talking about some grand, mysterious concept we have no direct access to.

Morality is no different. Some aspects of Truth require a little more investigation to discern, but that doesn’t mean the universe is all up in the air and anyone’s guess.

holeymoley > oπ–“π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–”π–˜π–Š π–Œπ–šyπ–˜
if you want to say that some people use the word “truth” incorrectly, that’s fine. But truth is merely a announcement of facts.

oπ–“π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–”π–˜π–Š π–Œπ–šyπ–˜ > bbblackwell
why then is there the old adage of, there are three truths, my truth your truth and THE truth. I think it has been widely recognized that the word is a little slippery, hence the aversions.

no one is saying it is a grand mysterious concept. only that people recognize the subjectivity of the word and remain skeptical, for good reason I might add.

I think at the end of the day, it is anyones guess to some degree, at least about some topics. as much as humanity has ruminated on some topics, some things just aren’t able to be known as true. not without first filtering it through some lens. even then, if it’s not falsifiable, it is still taken as true.

oπ–“π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–”π–˜π–Š π–Œπ–šyπ–˜ > holeymoley
is it true that the “founding fathers” were noble men?

bbblackwell > oπ–“π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–”π–˜π–Š π–Œπ–šyπ–˜
For sure, there’s much dispute; but despite him and her, there is THE truth. So it’s just a matter of us working together to figure out what is (AKA science & philosophy). Honest, committed people can’t mess this up.

Someone asserting something as true may give us more motivation to consider it in earnest, but that’s all.

holeymoley > oπ–“π–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–”π–˜π–Š π–Œπ–šyπ–˜
I really don’t know. Can anyone say for sure? I imagine they thought so. I think if you want to ascertain if they were…..you’d have to come up with a working definition of “noble”. Then you could apply a truth table to it, like in computer programing.

Join our Discord community!
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX
Let’s have a LIVE chat!

1st BITCHUTE: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3083/
2nd BITCHUTE: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3783/
FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/ampthirtyeightythree

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s