What is truth?

And don’t lie!

Truth is when what is situated at either end of is equals each other. Ergo, is is equal to an = sign. That goes for all the verbs to be.

So,when you say, “I am a man”, you are saying, “I=man”

If you don’t like my answer, are you going to nail me to a tree?

Which truth, subjective or objective?

“The Pure and Simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.” OSCAR WILDE

[quote=“TheGingerMan”]Which truth, subjective or objective?

“The Pure and Simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.” OSCAR WILDE[/quote]

I understand what you mean, are there not things statements that are always objective? If I say, “Water is wet”, can it ever be untrue?

[quote=“Rinkals”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]Which truth, subjective or objective?

“The Pure and Simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.” OSCAR WILDE[/quote]

I understand what you mean, are there not things statements that are always objective? If I say, “Water is wet”, can it ever be untrue?[/quote]

When water is ice it is not wet. But I think you are referring to water as liquid water. In that case wetness is a property of liquid water and so if it is no longer wet then it is no longer water.

Consider this: How are triangles defined? A triangle is a closed plane figure bounded by three straight lines or a polygon with three sides. Take away or add a side and it is no longer a triangle. Now in the Euclidean plane the sum of interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. And most people would accept that as a true statement of all triangles. However, triangles on the surface of a sphere can have angles such that the sum exceeds 180 degrees. So it is not a true statement for all triangles.

So, three-sidedness defines triangles whereas the interior angle sum does not.

My point is that the properties that define an object must always be true for that object. Everything else is open to conjecture.

If something is well-defined, it could be absolutely, objectively true then?

“What is truth?”= flounder

Not so! This is a philosophical thread. The culture & history forum is the closest thing we’ve got to philosophy, unless the powers that be create a philosophy forum.

[quote=“Rinkals”]Truth is when what is situated at either end of is equals each other. Ergo, is is equal to an = sign. That goes for all the verbs to be.

So,when you say, “I am a man”, you are saying, “I=man”[/quote]

I take it then that = = = to an = sign then? Or conversly, is is is to an is sign. Does that about sum it up professor? Or are there other variations that we should consider? = = = to an is sign. Or perhaps is is is to an = sign?

Or how about this, four equals four. I can switch it around and it means the same thing. Four equals four. Four is four

By the same token I can say “I equal a man.” A man equals me. A man is me?

What about this, a horse is an animal. An animal is a horse?

This last part especially is really confusing. Please clarify.

[quote=“Rinkals”]Truth is when what is situated at either end of is equals each other. Ergo, is is equal to an = sign. That goes for all the verbs to be.

So,when you say, “I am a man”, you are saying, “I=man”[/quote]

What if the speaker is a hermaphrodite?

Then they would say, “A hermaphrodite is me”.

I’ve been told that truth is like a diamond=multifaceted.

But then again I’ve also heard that there are only 3 parts to truth= yours, theirs and God’s. So go figure. :ponder: :idunno:

So how old are you anyway?

[quote=“Rinkals”]Truth is when what is situated at either end of is equals each other. Ergo, is is equal to an = sign. That goes for all the verbs to be.

So,when you say, “I am a man”, you are saying, “I=man”[/quote]

But the example you used doesn’t fit the model you described initially, in that what is situated at either end equals each other.

you=man would be correct, but man=you is not equivalent. you are a subgroup of the set “man” (or men)

Thats my quote… I made it up! (the first one). However it was a slight variation to that. I said that everyone views the world as if through a diamond, with each facet showing a slightly different view.

However what I meant by this is that everyone has an internal bias “colouring” their view of the world. It doesn’t mean there isn’t an objective truth, but simply that we can’t see it.

I think that in many ways not just the english language, but all languages contain vagarities which allow for multiple correct answers to any given question. That gives the impression of a non-objective world when in actual fact it simply wasn’t a good question.

Broken down, everything can be answered with a yes or a no, a 1 or a 0. I believe that ultimately there is an objective truth…

[quote=“NeonNoodle”]

Consider this: How are triangles defined? A triangle is a closed plane figure bounded by three straight lines or a polygon with three sides. Take away or add a side and it is no longer a triangle. Now in the Euclidean plane the sum of interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. And most people would accept that as a true statement of all triangles. However, triangles on the surface of a sphere can have angles such that the sum exceeds 180 degrees. So it is not a true statement for all triangles.

So, three-sidedness defines triangles whereas the interior angle sum does not.

My point is that the properties that define an object must always be true for that object. Everything else is open to conjecture.[/quote]

I’ve considered it, and your wrong. Look at your definition, which is correct. “three straight lines”. Then you want to put it in the 3rd dimension and ignore a dimension by looking at it straight on. The lines only look straight, but in actual fact are curved which goes against the initial definition. By its very definition, triangles can only exist 2 dimensionally. (Triangles cannot exist on the surface of spheres)

QED

There seem to be many sayings abou diamonds. They also say that a diamond is nothing but coal that has been placed under enormous pressure (they both contain graphite).