Given that the truth is unchanging, when the question is asked “whose truth”, should it be rephrased as “whose conclusion”?

Update:

In response to the truth being inconclusive, I’d argue that a conclusion is simply the end point of an argument structure, whereas the truth is always the truth. It’s what comports with reality and so it is always what it is. A conclusion may be uncertain, but that’s a different matter.

Update 2:

Anonymous, that’s an interesting example. There’s an error, I think. At 11.30, the claim that it’s 11.40 isn’t true, right? It’s 11.30. In ten minutes, the old claim that it’s 11.30 is no longer true. It’s 11.40. The truth isn’t changing, it’s our conception of ‘now’ changes from 11.30 to 11.40. Thought provoking example. I’d love to hear how I’m wrong, if I am

Update 3:

*the old, true claim that’s it’s 11.30

6 Answers

Relevance
  • John P
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Read '1984' by George Orwell and then say that the truth is unchanging.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Given that the truth is unchanging? FALSE. The truth about some things is constantly changing. For example, ask me "what time is it?" right now and I'll tell you it is 11:30. Ask me "What time is it?" in 10 minutes and I'll tell you it's 11:40. Same question, two different answers, both the truth. My conclusion? Your thinking is too narrow and you have to be careful about generalities and universal declarations.  

  • 1 month ago

    OK but there's the problem of getting the truth, and a lot of the time truth is in a locked box nobody has the key for. Pragmatists say, make the best use of whatever facts are available at the moment, form tentative theories you can make of in the here and now. 

  • j153e
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Given "Truth" is "unchanging," we have posited Parmenides, Mr. Permanence.  

    If we continue at his level--which is both physis and psyche--we must update physis to Energy (and Energy of Soul, which is beyond physis), and accept Heraclitus' notion of physis change as the basic Whiteheadian process philosophy.

    Frege developed the post-aristotelian notion of "Truth values" as adamic "proper naming":  "I name, therefore I am truthing."  Truth for Adam as Kantian Anyman/Everyman = extensionality as science or scientism--"hippopotamus" as a Wittgensteinian object-concept, its "truthness" correlated with its 5-sense objectivity.  "Truth for you" (known commonly in some circles as "truthiness") is the Sinn-idea of e.g. "hippopotamus as river-god."  "Ye shall not surely die" is an analytic based on extension of a Truth Word as intentionally (ideationally) modified, showing the Fregean distinction between reference (concept as Kantian 5-sense data set) and sense (ideational intensionality).

    Generally, Frege is dealing with the import of first order logic.  A generation later, Godel proved the incompleteness of relatively complexly axiomized first order systems of deductive logic (i.e., any first order deductive logic that uses multiplicative (and higher) math processes).  Thus there is no sound and complete first order logic (at the processing level of multiplication, etc.).  Accepting that basic level of intellectual humility, one may accept Bell's FAPP (for all practical purposes) and von Neumann's framing...howbeit, these are primarily epistemological, and the ontological notion of the rightness of being (not to mention the deontic-consequentialist divide between rightness and utility) is generally either "I Am"-based or reductive-existential:  Plotinus' "One Mind Soul" realization or a Garden-variety Kierkegaardian Knight of Faith in things not 5-atomistically sensed or seen (or an even more circular or pre-Elijah assumption that "what you see is what you get" and "it is what it is"--Frege's and early Wittgenstein's "concept" as adamic indicating of objective truth).

    Before Elijah realizes, he draws water and chops wood; after realizing, he still has to eat, shelter, and rest, yet does so as a Light separate and elect unto I Am *that* I Am, fully understanding the living Lightness of Being.  Like Joseph, his predecessor of the rainbow, Elijah understands temptation in the wilderness, whether of concept and/or of sense.  Thus, vocation a la Plotinus, et al.

    Related:  Understanding Yourself by Mark Prophet;

    Answers by Mother Meera.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Yes, or whose perception.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    The truth can be inconclusive. It can also be changeable.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.