If we do not change the meaning of "truth" from "fact", the theosophical BS turns to...theosophical BS.

When truth becomes 'other stuff', then we often delve into the fantasy worlds of make believe like it's true 'strong enough' to confuse those who've been confused by the changed meaning.

What is the TRUTH?

Are you telling me that someone has it all figured out?

Yes, we do have it all figured out. When we accept that reality is the actual world, we can then separate the delusional from the actual much better.

(Mind you, we are ALL subject to the delusion of our limited senses, and thus subject to the limited mental maps we create in our minds.) That'...

If we do not change the meaning of "truth" from "fact", the theosophical BS turns to...theosophical BS.

When truth becomes 'other stuff', then we often delve into the fantasy worlds of make believe like it's true 'strong enough' to confuse those who've been confused by the changed meaning.

What is the TRUTH?

Are you telling me that someone has it all figured out?

Yes, we do have it all figured out. When we accept that reality is the actual world, we can then separate the delusional from the actual much better.

(Mind you, we are ALL subject to the delusion of our limited senses, and thus subject to the limited mental maps we create in our minds.) That's why we need to bring back the meaning of "truth" as fact (the actual state of affairs; actuality).

For instance, can anyone anywhere state a spiritual fact? Can anyone anywhere make an actual statement inspired by any god? Can anyone make a factual statement about any god whatever?

However, can anyone anywhere make a factual statement about the world around us? Can 2+2 really be proved? Can that brick dropped onto one's foot really cause injury? Can those germs (once thought to be 'spirits') really be cast out by invocation, or by antibiotics?

Knowing the answers requires the difference between real scientific inquiry (imperfect though it may be), and the delusion of believed subjectivity.

Science is simply separating the two. It's how we gain actual knowledge, as opposed to the delusion of belief. That is to say..

Belief is ihnerently delusional. But to the degree that belief is congruent with actuality, is the degree to which that belief is true.

can anyone anywhere state a spiritual fact?

Oh yes, I can. Do you want me to tell details?

Can anyone anywhere make an actual statement inspired by any god?

Amen, I can. Summon me as a witness.

Can anyone make a factual statement about any god whatever?

Certainly! I can; however, not about any god, but about my God.
(Admittedly I don't expect you to believe me.)

The individual humans construct (their) world, and this construction is not only a re-construction of given parameters (in the sense of positivistic philosophies). Constructing (creating!) a world is not only a matter of scanning, gauging and metering of objects; beyond that th...

can anyone anywhere state a spiritual fact?

Oh yes, I can. Do you want me to tell details?

Can anyone anywhere make an actual statement inspired by any god?

Amen, I can. Summon me as a witness.

Can anyone make a factual statement about any god whatever?

Certainly! I can; however, not about any god, but about my God.
(Admittedly I don't expect you to believe me.)

The individual humans construct (their) world, and this construction is not only a re-construction of given parameters (in the sense of positivistic philosophies). Constructing (creating!) a world is not only a matter of scanning, gauging and metering of objects; beyond that there is a (human) need to effectually enlighten one's positions, interdependences, values, and destinations. These questions are matters of sense-creating interpretation.
Arguing that these processes of mind were a "delusion of believed subjectivity" ignores the state of knowledge of the cognitive psychology and disregards the essentials of human existence.

In short: The mistake is not to talk about improvable truth(es). The mistake is bossiness, cantankerousness, uppityness, smugness, bullheadedness, narrow-mindedness, intolerance, dogmatism, ...

Truth is truth to the one who believes it to be.

That's the subjective definition of "make believe it's true" truth.

"While a common dictionary definition of truth is "agreement with fact or reality,"[1] there is no single definition of truth about which the majority of philosophers agree." [wikipedia]

Notice: Philosophy is subjective interpretation of the objective. So a philoshophy definition is the very B.S. of which I speak.

That's why I said if we go back to the REAL definition, so as not to include the "pretend" truth, we'd instantly eliminate the theosophical B.S. in a heartbeat.

Think: how could something be true...just because someone believes it?

[quo...

Truth is truth to the one who believes it to be.

That's the subjective definition of "make believe it's true" truth.

"While a common dictionary definition of truth is "agreement with fact or reality,"[1] there is no single definition of truth about which the majority of philosophers agree." [wikipedia]

Notice: Philosophy is subjective interpretation of the objective. So a philoshophy definition is the very B.S. of which I speak.

That's why I said if we go back to the REAL definition, so as not to include the "pretend" truth, we'd instantly eliminate the theosophical B.S. in a heartbeat.

Think: how could something be true...just because someone believes it?

"Fact is truth to only those that have the facts."

Arrggghhh! So if you don't have the "fact" that a speeding bullet is trained right at your head...it can't hurt you when it gets there? It just disappears?

You're saying that any fact that we don't have, isn't true!? C'mon skwirlinator, please say you're just joking.

"Facts can be misconstrued and wrong which makes them true only until new facts are discovered."

Okay; I think I understand the problem. You think facts are descriptions of understandings.

Nope. Facts are the data, the actual case.

The conclusions, theories, ideas, interpretations, etc. are the descriptions of that data. (What you're talking about.)

It is true, a lot of people have been taught to think of facts as you do. But that's why I said at the beginning, we need to get back to the original (or core) meaning of a truth = actuality = fact.

In that way, the confusion of facts vs. truth cannot be misinterpreted as...B.S. Simply put, anyone stating a proposition as a fact must have already demonstrated the validity of the data that makes it so.

In other words, it must actually be true.

Johanna_G

In short: The mistake is not to talk about improvable truth(es). The mistake is bossiness, cantankerousness, uppityness, smugness, bullheadedness, narrow-mindedness, intolerance, dogmatism, ...

Uh; I'm sorry, understood none of that.

But yes. Please demonstrate a spiritual fact.

Please demonstrate an actual statement inspired by a god.

Please demonstrate a factual statement about any god whatever.

"...not about any god, but about my God."

Fine. Any god will do.

But also keep in mind, as skwirlinator and I have different definitions of what constitutes a fact (truth). If you're of the same cloth, you might believe that a fact (or truth) is whate...

Johanna_G

In short: The mistake is not to talk about improvable truth(es). The mistake is bossiness, cantankerousness, uppityness, smugness, bullheadedness, narrow-mindedness, intolerance, dogmatism, ...

Uh; I'm sorry, understood none of that.

But yes. Please demonstrate a spiritual fact.

Please demonstrate an actual statement inspired by a god.

Please demonstrate a factual statement about any god whatever.

"...not about any god, but about my God."

Fine. Any god will do.

But also keep in mind, as skwirlinator and I have different definitions of what constitutes a fact (truth). If you're of the same cloth, you might believe that a fact (or truth) is whatever a person thinks is true. (Then what's a delusion?)

I'm not accepting that as a valid definition. They're just bastardizations of the real meaning so that anything can be true as long a person believes it. (I wonder what constitutes something false?)

In my definition, something that's true...really is!

That being said; by all means, feel free to demonstrate any fact about any [your] god or any spirit.

@AcesLucky

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
-- Albert Einstein

I can - with some thinking and verbalizing efforts - try to reconstruct those elements of my cognitive structure which I consider as based on facts or related to that what I have taken for a fact. Whether these "facts" are or are not entities of the "world" as it could be realized also by others, I am not able to decide. In any case "facts" are only represented in my cognitive structure, and this representation bases on experiencing, apperception, interpreting assimilation, and: belief. (Now tell me something about obje...

@AcesLucky

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
-- Albert Einstein

I can - with some thinking and verbalizing efforts - try to reconstruct those elements of my cognitive structure which I consider as based on facts or related to that what I have taken for a fact. Whether these "facts" are or are not entities of the "world" as it could be realized also by others, I am not able to decide. In any case "facts" are only represented in my cognitive structure, and this representation bases on experiencing, apperception, interpreting assimilation, and: belief. (Now tell me something about objectivity and subjectivity! My knowledge of facts is always a construction of filtered and assimilated information.)
Therefore I claim - in accordance with Immanuel Kant - that there is no criterion of empirical truth which is both general and sufficient. There are criteria (namely coherence and consensus which together warrant the assumption of correspondence), but they are not sufficient in the sense of the absolute, that is unconditioned and independent of and unrelated to anybody and anything else.

What remains (as a task) is trying to approach empirical truth by discourse. Not the truth itself, but the relation of humans to it relies on critical communication, transfer, transposition, reconciling.

We should not forget that there are truths which cannot and should not be proven. When I told my sweetheart that I loved him beyond everything else, I told him the truth; and, God bless him, he did not want me to prove it - he believed me. If he had asked for a proof, then I would surely have felt repelled.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
-- Albert Einstein

Apply this to religion and you'll understand instantly the irony of your choice of quotes!

"Whether these "facts" are or are not entities of the "world"..."

A fact is the "actual" state of affairs. If you truly understood this, you couldn't make statements like the one above. A fact is not negotiable based on any belief. A fact is not dependent on belief. A fact is the "actual" state of affairs; that which "is".

"(Now tell me something about objectivity and subjectivity! My knowledge of facts is always a construction of...

read more»

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
-- Albert Einstein

Apply this to religion and you'll understand instantly the irony of your choice of quotes!

"Whether these "facts" are or are not entities of the "world"..."

A fact is the "actual" state of affairs. If you truly understood this, you couldn't make statements like the one above. A fact is not negotiable based on any belief. A fact is not dependent on belief. A fact is the "actual" state of affairs; that which "is".

"(Now tell me something about objectivity and subjectivity! My knowledge of facts is always a construction of filtered and assimilated information.)"

Agreed. This is why I said earlier: "Belief is inherently delusional. But to the degree that belief is congruent with actuality, is the degree to which that belief is true."

In other words, BECAUSE our "construction of filtered and assimilated information" is subjective, we must COMPARE it to the objective to determine if what we believe, is actually true.

"Therefore I claim - in accordance with Immanuel Kant - that there is no criterion of empirical truth which is both general and sufficient."

Immanuel Kant would be generally and sufficiently wrong. If he were correct, we could never advance any scientific knowledge based on any empirical data whatsoever. And you know that's not the case.

We have advanced our understanding of the real world through science exponentially from a just a millennium ago.

Compare that to religious knowledge. No priest today knows any more from a holy book (for example) than a priest a millennium ago from that same book. In short: no advancement of real knowledge. Why? No empiricism.

Immanuel Kant cannot be right, or our empirical knowledge (science) would be stuck in time, just like religion.

PS:
I anxiously await your demonstrations.