On a medicolegal perspective truth is often supported by evidence to prove the same. On the contrary, the opposite doesn't always hold good - there can be truth even when there is no evidence to prove the same. Nevertheless if it can be proved beyond any reasonable doubts, it would be better.

My personal view, roughly:

- Truth is a property of statements

- A given statement is true if (one of) the best theory/theories governing the domain of those statements supports it (i.e. if said statement is derivable from them)

- This notion of truth is defeasible: any given „best“ theory can be supplanted by a better theory.

Anu Sasidharan, thank you for your response. Yes, evidence is an important aspect of finding the essence of truth. However, when it is absent, there is space for non-evidential trust and complex beliefs that go far beyond the factual foundations of truth.

I agree with that too completely

Joachim Lipski, thank you for your response. I agree that theoretical definitions, although valuable, may be somewhat subjective and context-dependent. Even if some theories are debated by new scholarly perspectives, those findings contribute to human cognition in their own way.

Truth(n) IS (stands for) subjectification of the verb-phrase ”to be true in your mind” – to appointing a good habit of yours ... that is felt by intuition in the animal mind. Never cheat them – because they will always remember – and then you will always stand out as generally thrustworty. In short, always act according to your personal truths … and you will personify the TRUTH.

Drazen Pehar

In regard to the Tiresias prophet, we can perceive his blindness both metaphorically and literally. I’d like to focus on its literal interpretation. In the ancient times of Greek mythology, blindness might have been perceived as an insurmountable limitation due to the significant lack of resources, assistive technologies, and less inclusive environments. In today’s world, many blind individuals have greater independence and access to assistive devices, which significantly enhance their educational, professional development, and social engagement opportunities. I believe these advancements have laid the foundations for academic inclusion and knowledge sharing.

Arne Kjellman, thank you for your response. The personification of truth sounds interesting. It can enrich the subjective interpretations of truth, as well as view it in an individualized context.

Drazen Pehar

Drazen Pehar

"I hope this does not sound too complicated."

It doesn't just "sound" overly complicated - it's so complex that you're fooling yourself. So, you are deeply "word hypnotized" according to my subjective opinion ... which is the only opinion any subject can have!

Truth is not a static concept but something that is continually navigated and renegotiated in our personal lives and societal frameworks. While there may be philosophical disagreements about its nature, the pursuit of truth is a fundamental aspect of human discourse, learning, and growth. What remains essential is the commitment to engage with truth thoughtfully, recognizing its complexities and implications across varying contexts:

__________________________________________

My personal reflections on the nature of truth emerge from a synthesis of reason, faith, and the principles of our sacred tradition.

Truth, in my understanding, can be defined as a correspondence with reality—a state in which one's perceptions and beliefs accurately reflect that which exists. It is through the lens of reason that we arrive at this understanding, for the intellect is a divine gift endowed upon humanity, enabling us to discern truth from falsehood.

On a theoretical level, truth must be grounded in the laws of nature and the commandments that God has imparted to us. The ultimate truth is represented by the divine will and the laws that govern the universe, which articulate the essential order of existence. Our pursuit of knowledge, therefore, is not merely an abstract endeavor but a means to apprehend these truths that God has embedded in creation.

Practically, the embodiment of truth influences our moral and ethical conduct. The pursuit of truth necessitates integrity in our actions and a commitment to justice, for a life aligned with truth is one that honors the divine moral order. In our interactions with ourselves and others, we must strive for honesty, recognizing that truth fosters trust, strengthens community, and aligns our will with that of our Creator.

In summary, truth is a multifaceted pursuit that encompasses both understanding the nature of reality through intellectual rigor and living according to the moral imperatives that truth dictates. Our ultimate aim Amalya Sukiasyan should be to align our lives with the fundamental truths that govern existence, fostering both wisdom and ethical living in accordance with divine will.

Stephen I. Ternyik, thank you for your response. The pursuit of truth is a fundamental value that does not negotiate with time or life’s conditions. The nature of truth is both absolute and relativistic, depending on the objective and subjective grounds of things, concepts, perceptions, and ideas. It encompasses theological and philosophical perspectives, synthesizing religious and existential laws. As Immanuel Kant said, "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry sky above me and the moral law within me." These ethical principles, as delimitated borders of truth, protect humans from moral suffering and bring metaphysical harmony.

The pursuit of truth requires diligent study, reflection, and an earnest desire for knowledge. In our quest to understand the world and our place within it, we must strive to align our thoughts and actions with these truths. Therefore, while our journey may be fraught with challenges and uncertainties, the essence of truth itself stands immutable, inviting us Amalya Sukiasyan to seek and embrace it throughout our lives.

While human perception and interpretation may fluctuate, the fundamental truths that govern morality, existence, and the natural order remain constant.

We can approach the question of truth with a blend of philosophical reasoning and theological insight. In my view, truth is indeed eternal, as it reflects the very nature of the Divine.

Truth is part of universal principles, transcendental harmony, and moral beliefs. It regulates the chaos of falsehood, restoring the violated rights of justice and equality. Although truth is eternal, original, and unconventional, it is not welcomed by everyone. Sometimes, ungrounded illusions are preferred over true principles because moral integrity brings responsibility, requires psychological strength, and demands consistent effort. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” Nevertheless, truth, like any planet in the cosmos of morals, will continue to regulate the troubles of life and guide one to self-discovery.

Your perspective on truth and the nature of language Drazen Pehar

The role of truthfulness as fundamental to collective meaning-making and communication resonates well with the practical applications of language in everyday contexts. The idea that language serves essential functions – such as orientation, navigation, and socialization – underscores its importance in human interaction and community building.

I appreciate your recommendations of Donald Davidson's work. His exploration of truth, particularly in the context of language and interpretation, offers valuable insights into these philosophical debates. His engagement with figures like Rorty exemplifies the ongoing discourse surrounding truth and its implications in both philosophy and everyday life. Thank you for sharing these thoughts; they add depth to the conversation on language, truth, and morality.

Alina Taroko

Instead of focusing on capital-T Truth, I think the starting point should be the humble workaday use of the predicate "is true".

• Wife: I only had a couple of beers with the girls.
• A husbandly response: Is that true or are you lying to me again?
• An alternative husbandly response: If that's true, how come you're drooling and slurring your words?

No need for hermeneutical interpretation at that level. Next, a conceptual distinction needs to be drawn between something's being true and something's merely being believed or alleged to be true. Next, it needs to be recognized that many truth claims in the sciences, given the nature of the enterprise, implicitly have or should be prefixed with a probability operator. Furthermore, it needs to be recognized that many of the platitudinous so-called truths of wisdom are not true at all (counterexamples are so easy to come by).

Drazen Pehar

I hope it's true that I still have a beer left in the fridge. 🍺🤠

Your contribution Karl Pfeifer around truth claims in the sciences emphasizes the importance of recognizing the inherent uncertainty and probabilistic nature of scientific knowledge.

Rather than asserting absolute truths, scientific claims should often be qualified with a probability operator, acknowledging that our understanding is based on the best available evidence, which can change with new discoveries and insights.

In contrast, many widely accepted maxims or truths of wisdom may not hold universally; this highlights the necessity of critical examination and the willingness to consider counterexamples that challenge these platitudes. This dynamic approach to truth—recognizing that certainty might be more elusive than it appears—can serve as a foundation for a more nuanced understanding of knowledge.

Drazen Pehar's Drazen Pehar

Such contexts often reveal the applicability or limitations of certain truths and can inform how we understand and assess claims in various domains, including both scientific inquiry and everyday life.

By grounding a theory of truth in real-world situations, we can better navigate the complexity and variability that characterize human understanding and knowledge. This pragmatic approach allows for a more flexible and realistic conception of truth that resonates well with both scientific practice and everyday reasoning.

Dear Amalya Sukiasyan , let me bring some fine, related research questions with many answers and resources. It may be helpful for your research.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_may_Truth_be_defined

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_truth_the_same_as_natural_law

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth

Truth is the objective laws discovered by humans. These laws are generally described using mathematics in science, and they must be statistically tested with data. If the log-likelihood value is very high, then the probability that the theory is correct is relatively large. If the p-value is very high, then the probability of generalizing from the sample to the population is relatively large. Currently, physics and chemistry can withstand statistical tests, so they are mainly based on determinism. In biology and social sciences, the log-likelihood values of current models are very low, so they are still in the process of exploring the truth, and from a philosophical perspective, agnosticism is adopted.

The assertion that "Truth is the objective laws discovered by humans" is a broad and somewhat simplistic definition of truth. Philosophically, truth is a more complex concept, often debated in terms of correspondence theory, coherence theory, and pragmatic theory. Your perspective might benefit from exploring different philosophical views on truth, particularly how they intersect with scientific inquiry.

The discussion around log-likelihood and p-values introduces important concepts in statistics, but there are some inaccuracies and nuances that should be addressed:

A high log-likelihood value indicates that a model explains the data well, but it does not inherently imply that the theory is "correct." Statistical models can fit data without necessarily being true representations of underlying phenomena.

The interpretation of p-values is often misunderstood; a high p-value does not indicate a high probability of a theory being correct. but rather that there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. This distinction is critical in scientific reasoning.

The statement that physics and chemistry "mainly based on determinism" could be misleading. While classical mechanics is deterministic, quantum mechanics introduces fundamental indeterminism. It would be prudent to address this nuance, as it reflects the complexity of scientific theories and the ways they evolve.

The claim that "biology and social sciences" have low log-likelihood values and are in a state of exploration could be overstated. Many biological and social science models have proven to be highly predictive and effective. While these fields do face challenges related to complexity and variability, characterizing them solely as explorative may not accurately represent their contributions and achievements.

While agnosticism might be a reasonable stance in light of certain scientific uncertainties, this could be a misinterpretation of how truth and knowledge are regarded in different disciplines. Some areas of science are more empirical and robust than others, and suggesting a uniform agnosticism across fields neglects the successes of various domains in establishing reliable knowledge.

Your statement provides a thought-provoking perspective on the nature of truth, particularly in relation to the scientific method and statistical reasoning; however, please consider acknowledging the complexity of truth itself, the appropriateness of various methodologies across scientific fields, and the care needed in interpreting statistical results. Additionally, recognizing the advancements and established knowledge within biology and the social sciences would provide Zhengchao Ying a more balanced viewpoint.

______________

Hard sciences are successful because they deal with the soft problems; soft sciences are struggling because they deal with the hard problems.

Heinz von Foerster (2007). “Understanding Understanding: Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition”, p.191, Springer Science & Business Media

Is Biological Death definitive?

In philosophy and spirituality, the interpretations of death can vary significantly, but from a biological and medical perspective, biological death is considered permanent.

There are discussions around the topics of near-death experiences, resurrection in religious contexts, and advances in medical technology that can delay or reverse some aspects of death (like in cases of cardiac arrest, where individuals can be revived if treated quickly enough). Still, once biological death is confirmed, it is regarded as an endpoint in terms of current medical understanding.

Once biological death occurs, this includes the stopping of the heart, breathing, and brain activity, it is typically deemed final.

While biological death is generally viewed as final in a physiological context, there are medical, legal, and philosophical considerations that can complicate this understanding.

Zhengchao Ying, thank you for your response. I agree that the objective nature of truth refers to its absolutist perspective, scientific credibility, and evidentiality. As Albert Einstein said, "Truth is what stands to experience." According to the theory of scientific realism, truth can be considered valid only through available data, evidence-based testing, and relevant experiments. Other theories, including logical positivism, Bayesian inference, and causal inference, also contribute to this approach, demonstrating truth through an objective lens. In line with the falsifiability theory, only scientific testing and accurate data can uncover objective truth.

Nevertheless, truth has both objective (absolute) and subjective (relative) natures, and various scientific findings, as well as credible theories, have interpreted it differently, adding value to statistical, philosophical, and metaphysical knowledge.

Ljubomir Jacić, thank you for the resources. It was interesting to read.

From a biological perspective, death is actually a process. Since humans are multicellular organisms, death essentially means the collapse of this system. However, some cells die earlier, while others die later. So, it's not the case that when a doctor declares death, all the cells have died. Therefore, people should focus more on studying biology rather than engaging in philosophical debates, as this can extend our lifespan, improve our quality of life, and allow teachers like us to live better than businessmen.

The truth is not only what can be experienced, but "today", in 2024, is biological death definitive?

Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena, thank you for your thought-provoking question. From a biological perspective, death is considered definitive. In terms of religion, philosophy, and related spheres, death is more of a transcendental category rather than a biological one. Both biology and philosophy explain death in different ways, emphasizing the multidimensional nature of human existence. While biology explains how humans live and how one’s physiological structure keeps one alive, philosophy raises questions about making that life meaningful and full of purpose.

I am glad that my question invites reflection Dear Dr. Amalya Sukiasyan .

Let's see! Let's go in parts, we must start from the beginning! Terminologically speaking, we start with the word: "truth", and from there we can think about what the word "truth" is and what the expression is: "the truth"......and what is today, in 2024, "the truth"

Is there a truth for each science or type of knowledge? Is truth a criterion of interpretation or human understanding?

Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena, just for clarifying, thanks, but I don't have a Doctoral Degree 🙂. Since death contains many unknowns, the exploration of truth regarding it becomes even more complicated. Some perceptions of truth, such as its static and evolving nature, eternality, and value-making qualities, were accepted centuries ago and will probably remain the same in future millennia. The current time, 2024, reflects both individual and collective findings of truth, as well as the potential developments of upcoming scientific discoveries.

Dear Amalya Sukiasyan ,

Remember your Question well, your question does not say what "death" is, your Question says what "the truth" is!

My Question is not about exploring the truth about death.

My question is not about the truth or not truth about death.

My Question does not say: is biological death true or not true?

My Question clearly says: "Is biological death definitive?" I consider it to be a very current Question.

I repeat once again, the truth is not only what can be experienced

Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena Your question is very thought-provoking. If you ask a biologist this question, it would be difficult for them to answer because technology is still advancing, and human lifespans are extending. But if you ask a physicist whether a table will die in 2024, they can give you a clear answer, and they would add, 'I swear.' So different disciplines actually approach things differently. Additionally, I also agree that truth comes before experience. Truth exists objectively, and experience only verifies the truth.

Stephen I. Ternyik

You wrote: "Truth, in my understanding, can be defined as a correspondence with reality—a state in which one's perceptions and beliefs accurately reflect that which exists. It is through the lens of reason that we arrive at this understanding..."

One issue you need to confront is the status of mathematics. Do numbers exist? Is mathematics discovered or invented? If math is invented and numbers etc. aren't out there to be discovered, then the notion of correspondence to reality (for mathematics at least) becomes problematic.

Karl Pfeifer In the era of religion, wars frequently broke out between different nations. In the era of philosophy, at least wars no longer occurred, but debates were still common, due to the ambiguity of language. For example, this question requires defining what 'truth' is and what 'definite' means. There are also translation issues between different nations. However, it wasn’t until the era of mathematics that we reached a consensus. Scientists from all nations worked together to study science and benefit humanity. So, I am very happy to have met all the professors here on ResearchGate. I have found more like-minded people here than even in China. If any of you come to China, feel free to contact me!

Suggestive or not suggestive, my Question does not need to be pigeonholed in any Discipline to have a follow-up and much less does it need to use the word "hope" as a panacea. Does "the truth" really exist objectively and experience only verifies it? do we really consider it? do we really believe it?

Several philosophers suggest a middle ground, where certain mathematical concepts can be intrinsic to the structure of reality (e.g., geometry, patterns) while the specific formulations and symbol systems used are inventions. This perspective Karl Pfeifer acknowledges that while the universe may have mathematical properties that can be explored, the human constructs we use to express them are distinct.

Biological death, in a material sense, marks the end of the physical functions that sustain life. However, from a spiritual standpoint, I would argue that the soul, which is a divine spark, continues to exist beyond the death of the body. In Jewish thought, the soul is immortal and transcends the physical realm, entering a different state of existence after the body ceases to function.

Therefore, while biological death is definitive in terms of the cessation of bodily life, it is not definitive Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena in the realm of the soul's existence. The separation of the soul from the body ushers it into a new reality, where it may achieve purification and ultimately reach a higher spiritual plane.

Thus, in summary, while biological death is an irrevocable end to corporeal existence, it is not the end of being in a spiritual sense, as the soul's journey continues beyond the physical world.

Ref/

Maimonides, in:

The Guide for the Perplexed,

emphasizes the importance of understanding the nature of the soul and its relationship to the body.

A Guide for the Perplexed, translated from the original Arabic text by M. Friedlaender, 4th revised ed. (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1904).

Recommended: free to read as ebook at Project Gutenberg.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The guide for the perplexed.

Things being this way, perhaps my question should have been from the beginning: “Is Truth definitive?" and not “Is biological death definitive?” to avoid going off the essential topic of this important Question “What is Truth?”.

From the beginning I have not wanted to pose my Question in this way: What is biological death? That is not the essence of my initial Question because that is not the essence of the Research Study that I have in hand, which precisely tries to question the “definitive” terminology and its veracity given that in itself it does not entail an “irrevocable end to corporeal existence” by adding the term “definitive”.

With all my respect to the Colleagues

Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena

Epistemological relativism can be defined as a doctrine, according to which among many points of view, views, hypotheses and theories concerning the same object there is no one correct one, the one that can be considered adequate to the real state of affairs in the world. And there is no need to search for it, relativists believe, because all these points of view and all these theories are equal and equivalent. Since to some types of human intellectual activity (for example, to art) the idea of equivalence of different trends and currents appears to be applicable, it is obvious that the doctrine of relativism is based on the desire to deny science the special epistemological status insisted on by classical epistemology.

The concepts of relativism and relativity are sometimes confused and identified. Meanwhile, they are different concepts. Relativity is the relativity of our knowledge to this or that paradigm or culture, to this or that type of rationality within which this knowledge arises and functions. Relativity is, of course, inherent in scientific knowledge. It is known, for example, that in different cultures, at different stages of the development of science there were different concepts of number, as well as different concepts of atomistics. Relativity turns into relativism when it is argued that the concepts of number or the concept of atom, formulated in different cultures, are equivalent, and there is no superior one among them (such a point of view was defended, for example, by O. Spengler in his book ‘The Decline of Europe’).

History and Politics. ‘History is politics turned to the past.’ - Mikhail Nikolaevich Pokrovsky

Source: https://ru.citaty.net/tsitaty/640345-mikhail-nikolaevich-pokrovskii-istoriia-eto-politika-obrashchennaia-v-proshloe/

In the last 50 years, observing the interpretation of historical (political) events, I come to the conclusion that truth is relativistic and the evaluation of these events depends on the state point of view of the one who evaluates them (time of evaluation, country, education and age of the historian, politician, etc.).

For example, the views on the activities of historical personalities (Napoleon, Peter the Great, Emperors of Russia, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, etc...). Evaluation of events before and after the Second World War, e.g. evaluation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.... Evaluating the policies of different countries( and politicians) at present...

‘History is written by the victors’ - Anton Drexler (founder of the German Labour Party, which somewhat later and slightly changing its name, was led by Hitler).

The full phrase is: ‘History is written by the victors, so it does not mention the defeated’. The meaning of the expression: to achieve your goals, you can go to any of the most gruesome and heinous crimes, because after the victory you will be justified by the court historians. .

Cf.

https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/history-is-written-by-the-victors-quote-origin.html

Would venture dear Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena , to express that truth, while it is a fundamental pursuit of wisdom and intellect, can hold a complexity that transcends mere definition. In my writings, particularly concerning philosophy and theology, I have emphasized the importance of understanding the divine and the natural world through reason and revelation.

Truth, in its most ultimate form, is linked to the nature of God Himself, who is the essence of truth. However, in our human experience, we often perceive truth through the lens of variables—cultural contexts, personal experiences, and the limitations of our understanding. Thus, while there are absolute truths, especially those pertaining to divine principles and ethical conduct as outlined in the Torah, our grasp of truth is frequently provisional, shaped by our intellectual and spiritual growth.

So, I would argue that truth can be definitive in its essence, particularly with respect to divine truths. Yet, it is also a subjective journey for each individual, necessitating a commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and the humility to recognize our limitations in fully comprehending the profound depths of existence and divine will. In striving for truth, we engage in a sacred endeavor that ultimately brings us closer to the divine.

The expression "History is written by the victors" suggests that those who emerge triumphant in conflicts or competitions have the power to shape the narrative of events. This means, my dear P.F. Zabrodskii , that their perspectives, values, and justifications tend to dominate historical accounts, often overshadowing or entirely silencing the viewpoints and experiences of the defeated.

This statement implies a cynical view of history, suggesting that moral considerations can be disregarded in the pursuit of success. It posits that individuals or groups may resort to extreme or unethical actions in their quest for victory, and once they have achieved their goals, they can declare their actions justifiable and reshape the historical record to reflect their triumph.

Consequently, history may become a tool not for truth, but for legitimizing power and conquest. The perspective of the oppressed or defeated may be marginalized or erased, leading to a skewed understanding of events that prioritizes the narratives of those in control. In this way, the phrase serves as a cautionary note about the nature of historical narratives and the importance of critically examining whose voices are represented and whose are ignored.

This understanding encourages a deeper exploration of history, prompting individuals to seek out diverse perspectives and recognize the complexity of moral and ethical considerations in human actions and decisions throughout time.

________

PS///

I would reflect deeply upon the ethical implications encapsulated in this phrase. While history indeed may be chronicled by those in power, it is crucial to recognize that true moral worth is measured not solely by one’s achievements or victories but by the means one employs to attain them.

The notion that one might commit grievous acts for the sake of success is fundamentally flawed. In all sacred texts, it is emphasized that we must strive to act justly and righteously, regardless of the outcomes we seek. The ends do not justify the means, for each action carries moral weight and consequences that endure beyond the temporal victories we might achieve.

Moreover, the concept of divine justice reminds us that there exists a higher court than that of the victors! The deeds of individuals are recorded not only in the annals of human history but also in the eyes of God, who judges the intentions and actions of our hearts. Thus, it would be folly to believe that one could attain true honor or legitimacy through actions deemed heinous and unjust.

In a world shaped by history, let us aim to be victors not only in our endeavors but also in virtue, integrity, and the pursuit of righteousness. True victory is found in uplifting the moral fabric of our societies and honoring the dignity of all individuals, regardless of their fortunes in this life.

Each person has a part of the truth about a particular matter of interest. Beyond knowing what it is, it is a permanent search for it. People are the ones who search for the truth during their lives and when they cease to exist that fact does not imply that the meaning of the search has ended or that the truth itself has ceased. We are interested in continuing this search even if we do not know for sure what it is that we are looking for. Sometimes we do not have full control or the knowledge to achieve it.

What is truth? Nothing transcends its true definition, it is just a matter of disregarding the scope of the Disciplines in order to better focus on the terminology itself within our work as Human Beings who are, and therefore, limited.

"Truth" or "the truth"? or both? What is terminologically speaking the term "definitive" in the context of my initial Question unrelated to all types of Disciplines?

The search for truth, not the possession of it, is the essence of philosophy, no matter how often it is betrayed in dogmatism, that is, in knowledge stated in propositions, definitive, perfect and teachable.

The truth of the matter, as Williams recognizes, is that contrary to what deniers claim, humanistic inquiry must be a form of inquiry rather than advocacy and that, contrary to what reductionists and transcendentalists think, it must be sensitive both to the relative autonomy of human culture from the rest of nature and to its intricate integration with the rest of nature. By articulating the ways in which a concern for truth and a concern for the humanities reinforce one another, Williams hopes to raise the standing and deepen the understanding of both.

Would approach the question of truth with profound regard for both reason and faith, recognizing that truth is foundational to our understanding of the world and our place within it.

When we speak of "truth" or "the truth," we must first acknowledge that the term carries with it layers of meaning that may vary depending on context. "Truth" can be understood as the universal principle that aligns with reality and aligns our thoughts and statements with what is. "The truth," on the other hand, often denotes specific truths, particular realities that need affirmation or scrutiny.

In the context of our discussion, when we seek to define "definitive" truth, we ought to consider its implications beyond the confines of the logical or empirical disciplines. A "definitive" truth is that which stands unyielding amid the flux of perception and opinion; it is an absolute, unmoved by the whims of human limitations. Such a truth transcends individual experience yet remains intrinsically connected to the ethical and moral fabric of our existence.

As human beings, we are bound by limitations—our faculties, our understanding, our experiences—but it is our task to engage with these limitations through the lens of reason and revelation. To comprehend "truth" in its fullest sense necessitates striving toward an ideal, acknowledging both the philosophical pursuit of wisdom and the divine truths imparted through sacred teachings.

Therefore, in our exploration of truth, my dear Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena ,we are encouraged to detach our understanding from merely disciplinary confines and instead engage with the fundamental principles that guide our inquiry. The process of discerning truth is akin to a spiritual journey, which requires humility, reflection, and open-heartedness to the mysteries of existence and the divine creation around us. The quest for definitive truth will invariably lead us toward a greater understanding of ourselves and our relationship to the Creator and the cosmos, forging a pathway to genuine knowledge and enlightenment

That is precisely what I have been saying for a long time Dear Stephen I. Ternyik , we must do without any Scientific Discipline that can pigeonhole the term “truth” in so many boxes, but let us also remember that every concept of the term “truth/the truth” has existed, exists and it will always exist since the Human Being appeared as such on Planet Earth, and of course! long before the concept of Scientific Discipline or the concept of Religion arrived.

According to you, does “the truth” really exist?

Dear P.F. Zabrodskii, thank you for your response. Unfortunately, in many cases, Anton Drexler's quote finds practical implications, especially when justice is not welcomed by many, and truth is an unwelcome guest. Nevertheless, an unfair victory can be worse than defeat. In the Roman army, there was an idiom, Pyrrhic victory—a victory that was worse than the defeat itself. In all cases, the victorious power of truth, as a weapon of moral good, will continue to fight against injustice, falsity, and all the evils that destroy the joy and harmony of this world.

Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena, this discussion was started by the question you mentioned, exploring the existence and essence of truth, its objective and subjective nature, various scientific theories, practical applications, as well as individual and collective understandings. I think you can find answers to your question in the previous responses of this discussion.

Dear Doctor

Go To

"What Is Truth?” by Bertrand Russell

[Thus although truth and falsehood are properties of beliefs, yet they are in a sense extrinsic properties, for the condition of the truth of a belief is something not involving beliefs, or (in general) any mind at all, but only the objects of the belief. A mind, which believes, believes truly when there is a corresponding complex not involving the mind, but only its objects. This correspondence ensures truth, and its absence entails falsehood. Hence we account simultaneously for the two facts that beliefs (a) depend on minds for their existence, (b) do not depend on minds for their truth.

It will be seen that minds do not create truth or falsehood. They create beliefs, but when once the beliefs are created, the mind cannot make them true or false, except in the special case where they concern future things which are within the power of the person believing, such as catching trains. What makes a belief true is a fact, and this fact does not (except in exceptional cases) in any way involve the mind of the person who has the belief.]

I am very grateful to you and I hope you can find an answer to my Question, and to my Questions, in the previous answers to this discussion. Have you found them in the previous answers Amalya Sukiasyan ? Have you found the answer in the previous answers?

The challenge Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena is that truth is divided into many small groups, each with its own truth, making it difficult to discern. Furthermore, the discussion tackles the complexity of applying the "why would he lie?" argument in various contexts, implying that the truth depends largely on the situation, witnesses, and individuals involved. Ultimately, the determination of what is "truth" is seen as a complex process with potential for both clarity and misunderstandings.

Would assert that the pursuit of truth is one of the highest callings of the human intellect. Truth exists in the sense that it is reflectively understood through reason and the study of nature, as well as through divine revelation.Truth is not merely a subjective perception; it is an objective reality that can be discovered through careful reasoning and analysis of both the natural world and the teachings of the sacred texts of humanity.

It is, imo, essential to understand that human perception of truth can be clouded by our own limitations and biases. The pursuit of truth requires humility, a willingness to question our beliefs, and a commitment to learning and growing in our understanding. Thus, while truth itself exists, our grasp of it may be incomplete, and it is our duty to strive continuously towards a clearer and deeper understanding.

I assure you that I pose no challenge Dear Stephen I. Ternyik and do not consider “the truth” to be divided into “many small groups, each with its own truth”.

The question is: what is truth? and not “why would I lie?” or the analysis of possible misunderstandings or added limitations or damages.

I consider that following the step of whether the truth is “definitive” or not “definitive” is what will actually be what will show us the path we will have to follow

Truth, in your, my dear Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena , mentioned context, appears to be defined as a combination of consistency with established regulations, claims substantiated by evidence, as well as the inherent value and integrity of a statement made. The truth may not necessarily be definitive or absolute, but may exist in variations or interpretations within different contexts or situations. Therefore, the path to follow depends on the specifics of the situation, the context in which the truth is being evaluated, the evidence provided, and the integrity of the claimants.

The pursuit of truth is, imo, a sacred endeavor that brings us closer to understanding the divine. It is through this journey, fraught with questions and reflection, that we align ourselves with the greater purpose of our existence. It is the commitment to constantly seek and uphold truth, in both its definitive and provisional forms, that shapes our path forward. As seekers of wisdom, we must be ever vigilant, for in the quest for truth lies the essence of our spiritual and intellectual lives.

Dear Sundus F Hantoosh, thank you for your response. Russell’s work is indeed one of the greatest contributions to the pursuit of truth. When something is believed to be true, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is true: well-crafted facts, which might seem persuasive at first, can be refuted by much stronger counterarguments or antitheses that challenge human cognition and provide an opportunity to discover truth at transcendental, experimental, and socio-cultural levels.

With all due respect to your Comments and opinions Dear friend @Stephen I. Ternyik, and with respect to the comments of my distinguished Colleagues. My expression and Question: is the truth definitive? It does not follow norms or values ​​and furthermore, the term "definitive" is not synonymous with "absolute" either

Definitive truth Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena implies a clarity and firmness in its assertion, yet it does not necessarily account for the diverse ways in which different cultures or individuals might comprehend or value that truth. In this regard, norms and values play an undeniably influential role in shaping our perceptions of what is true, as they inform our interpretations and applications of knowledge.

Furthermore, to say that definitive is not synonymous with absolute is to recognize that while some truths hold universally and eternally, others are contingent upon specific circumstances, human understanding, or historical context. For instance, mathematical truths possess a level of definitiveness, yet even they can be debated or reinterpreted within various frameworks.

Thus, while I would affirm the pursuit of truth as a noble endeavor, I would also caution against viewing it as rigid or immutable. The interplay between the definitive and the relative invites us to approach truth with humility, recognizing the limitations of our understanding while striving to seek clarity and wisdom.

Is the truth definitive? where the norms, where the values, where the configuration, where the limit when there is none.

"The truth is definitive" is not the same as saying "the truth is absolute" and this requires neither consyrol nor recognition. What are the universal truths? What are the eternal truths in a Human Being who is already limited?

When we assert that "the truth is definitive," we recognize that truth is consistent and unwavering, reflecting the divine order established by God. It exists independently of our perception, yet it is often perceived through the lens of the finite human condition, shaped by our experiences, cultures, and beliefs, my dear Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena !

In contrast, to say that "truth is absolute" may suggest that it is immutable and unchangeable in all aspects across all contexts, which can sometimes overlook the varying contexts and interpretations that human beings bring to their understanding of truth. This distinction points to the necessity of humility in our pursuit of knowledge, recognizing that while truths may be universal, our apprehension of them is often fraught with limitations.

Regarding universal truths, these can be understood as fundamental principles that transcend individual experiences and cultures—principles such as justice, love, and the pursuit of knowledge. These truths resonate within us, calling us to live a life of virtue and adherence to ethical commandment. They are often reflected in the teachings of the Torah, which serves as a guide to understanding our place in the world and our responsibilities to each other and to God.

Eternal truths, particularly as they pertain to human beings, relate to moral laws and the quest for a relationship with the divine. They remind us of our purpose, which transcends the temporal concerns of our day-to-day existence. As beings created in God's image (Tzelem Elohim), we are endowed with the capacity for rational thought, ethical discernment, and spiritual aspiration. These innate qualities highlight our connection to something greater than ourselves.

Even in our limitations, we are capable of recognizing these eternal truths, as they guide our actions and shape our moral character. In this struggle to align ourselves with divine wisdom, we find not just our inherent limitations, but also our unique potential for growth and understanding. Thus, while the truth remains definitive and guiding, it also invites us into a dialogue—a relationship with the divine and with each other—that is ongoing, dynamic, and ever-evolving

It is sad to know that History has had to become Myth in order not to be lost with the passing of the centuries and this despite not responding faithfully to the truth, a truth that continues to be "not definitive" despite the long time. spent in the long transits of fragility. There we leave our discussion about the truth on September 4, 2022 [comment deletion included!] Dear Stephen I. Ternyik

Cf.

Article REVIEW to Manuela González-Haba, History and Myth. The Great...

Thank goodness that at least you now realize that: “is it the definitive truth?” is not: "is it the absolute truth?" as I told you previously.

Absolutely not! the truth is not definitive, nor is the Universe/Cosmos of which we are a part, and therefore, it is not consistent or unbreakable. Today our cultures, our beliefs or our experiences placed in panaceas that seem comfortable are no longer enough to seek shelter and remain safe.

Would argue Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena that the human intellect is our greatest tool in understanding the Divine and the universe around us. While it is true that our perceptions are shaped by our cultures, beliefs, and experiences—often leading to varied interpretations—the quest for understanding should not be abandoned. Rather, it must evolve to encompass the dynamic nature of truth.

The cosmos may indeed present itself as complex and at times chaotic. However, it is in this very complexity that we find opportunities for growth and understanding. The truths we hold may shift, but the pursuit of wisdom, the study of the natural world, and the engagement with moral and ethical principles remain steadfast pillars for guiding our lives.

Thus, while our comfortable panaceas may fall short, let us not succumb to despair but instead cultivate a deeper inquiry into the nature of truth, seeking to harmonize our experiences with a broader understanding of existence and the Divine. In the embrace of uncertainty, we can find both humility and the impetus to seek knowledge—a journey that I hold to be essential for what it means to be human.

Perhaps Dear Stephen I. Ternyik , the human intellect is our greatest tool to understand the Divine and the Universe that surrounds us, I am not so sure of this statement because we simply cannot do a reverse verification. Every perception needs to be verified and time in continuous transformation is not always enough for us.

We belong to the Universe, we are in it and we recognize ourselves in it as much as we can within our limits, but we cannot continually invoke it as if it were a panacea for all our limitations as Human Beings. The truth cannot be definitive in a Universe where there is no understanding of time, so the aforementioned ethical and moral principles as pillars to guide our lives necessarily enter into another order of ideas and we should not look for cure-all for everything as I told you in my previous comment.

Here it is not about fabricating despair or uncertainties and then saving ourselves from them with the hope of a miracle that does not have to happen, it is about not pigeonholing, encapsulating and gratuitously complicating any truth that in itself is not definitive, simply because neither is the Universe to which we belong.

I do not know what truth is or means, but knowledge is a different but equally difficult matter. Knowledge, or parts and substitutes, are occasionally sought and found, and each one found constitutes more of the information we need. A singular Truth, no.

My friend mathematician

Ha said

"Only Mathematics is true

Physics can be false sometime:

Stanley Wilkin, thank you for your response. Since knowledge can be theoretical and practical, its applicability should sometimes be tested. Singularity may refer to objective truth, which exists regardless of one's consciousness or acceptance. On the other hand, there are subjective truths, which are based on one's personal experiences, worldview, mental horizon, and, at times, petrified biases. The subjectivity of truth reveals its plurality, making space for never-ending interpretations and perceptions, both at individual and societal levels.

Jerzy Zbigniew Achimowicz, thank you for your response. In my opinion, the falsifiability of truth may greatly depend on the context and interpretations of facts, existing knowledge, and original contributions to science. In the case of exact sciences, such as mathematics and physics, the accuracy of truth is grounded in statistical data and evidence-based analysis. In terms of the humanities, there is more room for varied understandings and existential reflections, which enrich the human mind with wisdom and the search for the essence of truth.

You, dear Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena , articulate an essential tension: the interplay between our finite understandings and the infinite, ever-evolving nature of the cosmos. The intellect, while our most potent tool for grappling with the Divine and the universe, is also limited by the constraints of human experience and comprehension. We must acknowledge that our perceptions are subject to the frailties of our mortal nature.

Your assertion Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena that truth may not be definitive in a universe governed by the passage of time is astute! The nature of reality—both physical and metaphysical—eludes absolute certitude. Thus, we must approach our ethical and moral principles with humility, recognizing that while they serve as vital pillars, they are not immune to the vicissitudes of existence.

Your concerns about seeking a cure-all resonate with the Jewish tradition’s emphasis on the importance of struggle, growth, and the acknowledgment of life's inherent uncertainties. It is not despair we should foster, but a profound appreciation for the journey of inquiry and the moral responsibilities we bear as we navigate our existence amidst the great mysteries of life.

Let us temper our search for truth with wisdom and humility, recognizing that our limitations do not diminish the pursuit of understanding. Rather, they remind us of the grandeur of the journey itself—one illuminated not just by intellect, but by the enduring ethical principles that bind our humanity.

We are an integral part of that infinity and I say it repeatedly in my Research Works, and as actors we know that every "truth" cannot be "definitive" Dear @Stephen I. Ternyik, that simple and that essential, the sooner we understand it, the better , ... the fight is best left for the "bullfights".

My humble and simple comment asserts that in consequence all truth cannot be "definitive" and you can see my latest Research Work. It is not necessary to add to this purpose other orders of ideas such as moral and ethical principles or cure-all and its literature...

As you can see, my research is not in search of the "cure-all" nor is it in search of the importance of any struggle or desperation to find the "truth".

My respects

Errespetua/respect, my dear Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena Cordially: stephen

PS///Eskerrik asko zure konpromisoagatik.

Oso ongi! Stephen I. Ternyik lagun estimatua,... garrantzitsuena da beti oreka eta harmonia mantentzea gauza guztietan, "badakigu" egia ez dela "behin betikoa"

Nire desiorik onenak zuretzat

Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena

The reason for this debate may be that philosophers are concerned that the atheism of science will lead to a decline in human moral standards. I believe that the education of human moral standards can be achieved through social sciences and does not necessarily have to be elevated through religion or philosophy. Of course, contemporary Western social sciences, especially economics and business management, are rooted in naturalist philosophy, which is why I wrote the book *Eastern Economics*. Even in an age dominated by mathematics, human beings can return to faith in morality purely through empirical research in social sciences. Social scientists should indeed be idealists.

You suggest that education in moral standards can emerge independently of religion or philosophy; however, I maintain that true morality is intertwined with a divine directive. The moral teachings found in the sacred texts of humanity serve as a compass for ethical behavior, guiding individuals not only by empirical observation but by ideal principles rooted in a commitment to the divine.

While contemporary social sciences could cultivate idealism, the challenge remains: without a connection to a higher source of meaning, even the loftiest ideals may fall victim to relativism and subjective interpretation. Philosophy and religion provide the critical lens through which we can evaluate our actions and their consequences, offering a vision of the good beyond mere empirical findings.

Thus, while I commend the exploration of morality through social sciences, I urge us Zhengchao Ying to remember that the pursuit of ethical understanding should not forsake our spiritual and philosophical heritage. The quest for a virtuous society is most potent when reason and faith are united, leading humanity towards a moral compass that transcends the limitations of empirical inquiry alone.

_________

Causal analysis provides absolutely no value judgment, and a value judgment is absolutely not a causal explanation.

Max Weber

Weber, M. (2011). Methodology of Social Sciences (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315124445

________

One of the theoretical concepts that founding sociologist Max Weber is best known for is the "iron cage."

Weber first presented this theory in his important and widely taught work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. But since he wrote in German Weber never actually used the phrase himself. It was American sociologist Talcott Parsons who coined it, in his original translation of Weber's book, published in 1930.

In the original work, Weber referred to a stahlhartes Gehäuse, which literally translated means "housing hard as steel." Parson's translation into "iron cage," though, is largely accepted as an accurate rendering of the metaphor offered by Weber, though some recent scholars lean to the more literal translation.

Translation from Russian

In the Russian language there are two curious words and concepts in common use - TRUTH and TRUTH (ИСТИНА и ПРАВДА). For comparison: in each of such classical European languages as English, German, French there is only one equivalent word in common use. These are TRUTH in English, WAHRHEIT in German, and VERITE in French. There are also synonyms of the mentioned words in these languages, for example, veracity, verity and so on. (English). However, such synonyms are not in common use and are not firmly fixed in the popular consciousness.

The Russian word PRAVDA TRUTH expresses an individual point of view. Therefore, PRAVDA TRUTH reflects one side of an object, i.e., it is one-sided and subjective (sometimes to the point of bias). There are as many PRAVD's TRUTHS as there are individuals and individual points of view. On the other hand, there is only one TRUTH, which reflects multiple viewpoints, like an MRI image consisting of a whole set of representations of an object taken from different angles in different planes. That is, the TRUTH is multilateral and objective (unbiased). In cognition and polemics one should strive for TRUTH through TRUTH, for objectivity through overcoming subjectivity and its extreme manifestation - bias, for multilateralism of coverage through unilateralism of approach. In the Russian language and the Russian-speaking worldview, the distinction between the fundamental concepts of TRUTH and PRAVDA TRUTH is made explicitly and clearly.

Unfortunately, the English common word TRUTH distinguishes the two concepts described above with difficulty. The meanings TRUTH and PRAVDA TRUTH exist in the semantics of TRUTH, but the distinction between them is ‘hidden’ in the mechanism of polysemy of the English word or lies in its opposition to non-common words like verity in such a way that TRUTH and TRUTH ПРАВДУ from TRUTH have to be ‘dug out’ one by one. The same is true of German WAHRHEIT and French VERITE, so that there seems to be no obvious and clear distinction between the fundamental concepts of epistemology TRUTH and TRUTH ПРАВДA in the three classical languages under consideration.

And if so, does this not explain why the path to TRUTH, for example, in English and the English-speaking worldview, is paved with the thorns of modalities like HIGHLY LIKELY?

P. S. The author of the article appeals to colleagues with a request to comment on the ideas expressed in the article.

***

ИСТИНА — ПРАВДА — TRUTH

📷Автор материала: Юрий Литвинов Отправить Email

В русском языке существуют два любопытных общеупотребительных слова и понятия – ИСТИНА и ПРАВДА. Для сравнения: в каждом из таких классических европейских языков, как английский, немецкий, французский есть только по одному эквивалентному общеупотребительному слову. Это – TRUTH в английском, WAHRHEIT – в немецком, VERITE – во французском. Существуют в этих языках и синонимы упомянутых слов, например, veracity, verity и проч. (английский). Однако такие синонимы не являются общеупотребительными и не закреплены прочно в народном самосознании.

Русское слово ПРАВДА выражает индивидуальную точку зрения. Поэтому ПРАВДА отражает одну сторону объекта, т. е., является односторонней и субъективной (иногда до предвзятости). Существует столько ПРАВД, сколько индивидуумов и индивидуальных точек зрения. С другой стороны, есть только одна ИСТИНА, которая отражает множество точек зрения, как снимок МРТ, состоящий из целого набора отображений объекта, сделанных под различными углами в различных плоскостях. То есть, ИСТИНА является многосторонней и объективной (непредвзятой). В познании и полемике следует стремиться к ИСТИНЕ через ПРАВДУ, к объективности через преодоление субъективности и её крайнего проявления – предвзятости, к многосторонности охвата через односторонность подхода. В русском языке и русскоязычном мировоззрении различие между основополагающими понятиями ИСТИНА и ПРАВДА проводится явно и ясно.

К сожалению, английское общеупотребительное слово TRUTH различает описанные выше два понятия с трудом. Значения ПРАВДА и ИСТИНА существуют в семантике TRUTH, но различие между ними «спрятано» в механизме полисемии английского слова или кроется в его противопоставлении необщеупотребительным словам типа verity таким образом, что ИСТИНУ и ПРАВДУ из TRUTH приходится «откапывать» поочередно. То же относится к немецкому WAHRHEIT и французскому VERITE, так что явного и ясного разграничения между основополагающими понятиями эпистемологии ИСТИНА и ПРАВДА в трёх рассматриваемых классических языках, похоже, нет.

А если так, то не является ли это объяснением того, что путь к ИСТИНЕ, например, в английском языке и англоязычном мировоззрении, устлан терниями модальностей типа HIGHLY LIKELY?

P. S. Автор статьи обращается к коллегам с просьбой высказаться по поводу идей, выраженных в статье.

https://www.russian-translators.ru/perevodchiku/law/istina-pravda-truth/#:~:text=%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%BE%20%E2%80%93%20TRUTH%20%D0%B2%20%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%2C%20WAHRHEIT,%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8B%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%20%D0%B2%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%20%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8.

The article is in Russian. In English truth and ПРАВДА truth are synonyms

The article reveals the essence of such concepts as truth, falsehood and truth. Their distinctive features are presented. Special attention is paid to emotional manifestations accompanying lies. Examples from fiction: domestic and world literature are presented.

1. Truth is the correspondence of the received knowledge to reality. It is objective and ‘is an undeniable absolute, unlike truth’.

2. Truth ПРАВДА is ‘concrete cognition about a fact that has taken place in reality’. Such knowledge is usually incomplete because it is merely ‘a particular person's point of view about a fact or event,’ so it is subjective.

(3) A lie is ‘an untruth НЕПРАВДА, a deliberate distortion of the truth’. It is usually accompanied by feelings of guilt as well as remorse. To stop it - it is necessary to do the right thing and take responsibility for your actions.

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/pravda-lozh-i-istina-otlichitelnye-osobennosti#:~:text=%D0%98%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%2D%20%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F,%2C%20%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D0%B2%20%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%C2%BB.

In English ИСТИНА truth and ПРАВДА truth are synonyms. In the Russian there is ИСТИНА TRUTH and ПРАВДА TRUTH.

The map is not the territory (NLP). It is. And everyone has a different truth? Something's not right here.

As Vyacheslav Butusov (Nautilus Pompilius) sings,

‘The truth ПРАВДА is always the same.’

Pharaoh said that.

He was very clever.

And for that he was called

Tutankhamun.’

There's only one ПРАВДА truth. And how can there be more than one?

One event is the truth ПРАВДА. Anything you can say is a lie. And if one says one thing and the other says something else, at least one of them is lying. On the other hand, some people think that Emperor Nicholas II was bloody, short-sighted, weak-willed, and others think he was a saint.... The same can be said of Stalin and Lenin..... And about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact there are two opinions ...and the event is one and these two opinions are two truths ПРАВДЫ?

Dear friends – I was too vague trying to explicate my standpoint some posts ago:

Truth(n) IS (stands for) subjectification of the verb-phrase ”to be true in your mind” – to appoint a good habit of yours ... that is felt by intuition in the animal mind. Never cheat them – because they will always remember – and then you will always stand out as generally trustworthy. In short, always act according to your personal truths … and you will personify the TRUTHFUL ONE – the truthful who refuses to lie on the personal level. In short, a good habit you have developed on your own. However, your personal truth does not have to coincide with the consensual truth – and in that case, you would do well to examine your self to decide whether you should try to adapt to the current consensus or go on insisting that you are the one pointing in the “right direction”.

”Right and wrong” are (stands for) two ideal directions (pointers) - not to be confused by ”right and left” in their literal sense.

‘There are only two opinions: mine and the wrong one’ - colloquial, joking, ironic or disapproving of an unyielding, difficult to compromise person

***

‘There are two completely opposite opinions about every thing.’

‘Concerning the gods, I do not know whether they exist or not, because there are many things that prevent understanding it: the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life.’

From Protagoras' statements.

Proving their rightness, the Sophists compared laws and moral norms accepted in different polis. Seeing that justice is not understood by people in the same way, they concluded that each thing can be judged in two ways. Therefore, students were often given the task of making argumentative speeches in favour and against. Of course, sophistry could lead to scepticism, but it taught them to be broad-minded and develop the ability to understand another's point of view.

Is it possible to say that in Christianity (except anti-trinitarians - (Arianism, Unitarianism and others) the ИСТИНА TRUTH is one (Trinity, GOD), but the Правды Truths (symbols, scriptures, rituals, ceremonies) are different?

***

Comma Johanneu

The Christian Church believes in one God, who is one in essence but trinity in Persons.

The religious interpretation of truth reflects one's spiritual identity, the immortal essence of the soul, and the eternality of human existence. In Christianity, truth is defined as part of God, identified with His entity. It's worth mentioning the words of Jesus Christ here: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life' (John 14:6)."

Amalya Sukiasyan added a reply - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!++++++++++++

.......the words of Jesus Christ here: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life' (John 14:6)."

‘’What is Truth?' Christ and Pilate ‘ is a painting by Russian painter Nikolai Nikolaevich Ge (1831-1894), painted in 1890. It belongs to the late works of the artist and is part of the ‘Passion Cycle’ created in the 1880s - 1890s. In the same 1890 the painting was purchased by P. M. Tretyakov, and is now in the Tretyakov Gallery (Hall No. 31)[1].

The painting is based on a well-known Gospel story. It depicts the trial of Jesus Christ by the procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, who was accused of attempting to seize power in Judea. The title of the painting (‘What is truth?’) is a quotation from the Gospel of John (John 18:38).

Then Pilate went into the Praetorium again, and called Jesus, and said to him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews? [...]

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have laboured for me, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence.

Pilate said to Him, ‘Are You therefore a king? Jesus answered, ’You say that I am a king. For this cause was I born, and this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth: whosoever is of the truth, heareth My voice.

Pilate said unto Him, What is truth? And having said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said unto them, I find no fault in Him.

- Gospel of John. 18: 33, 36-38

Thus, the picture of Ge depicts the moment when Pilate, before leaving the Praetorium (the palace of the procurator), asks Jesus a question that remained unanswered at that moment, although the followers of Christ already knew this answer: ‘I am the way, the truth and the life’ (John 14:6).

Dear P.F. Zabrodskii, Nikolai Tretyakov's painting conveys not only spiritual but also historical and socio-cultural meaning and significance. Christ and Pilate depicts a hugely important dialogue between Jesus Christ and Pontius Pilate, marked by deep contemplation and divine reflections on the structure of the world, human struggles, and complex destiny. Biblical texts, as bridges between the ethereal and earthly, have always been a source of wisdom, universal hope, and timeless consolation for humanity. The introduced dialogue, with its exceptional mysteriousness, spiritual beauty, and insight, adorns the gallery of the human mind, adding existential depth and value to the rhythm of daily life.

Amalya Sukiasyan added a replyPhoto by P.F. Zabrodsky

12 hours ago

Dear P.F. Zabrodskii,....

How beautifully you articulate your thoughts!

ABOUT PRAVDA (truth)...(Not the truth, but a lie?)

‘Pravda is a Soviet and Russian left-wing newspaper founded by the leader of the RSDLP (b) V.I. Lenin in 1912. Lenin in 1912.

‘So Pravda was a newspaper of Lies": Korney Chukovsky on Stalin and Stalinism.

https://ahilla.ru/znachit-gazeta-pravda-byla-gazetoj-lozh-kornej-chukovskij-o-staline-i-stalinizme/

Dear Doctor

[Remind yourself of Truth. Despair is a liar. It convinces you there is no hope, no possibility of better days, no light up ahead. Like a black sheet over all the windows, despair turns the lights off. So I’ve written a few Bible verses and truths on index cards stationed around my house. If despair is taking me down, these words remind me of the Truth. One of my favorites? Jesus’ words in John 14:18: “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.”]

Dear P.F. Zabrodskii, thank you for your attention. It’s really interesting what the 'newspaper of lies' was called “ПРАВДА”. It crosses all possible boundaries of journalistic irony and socio-political sarcasm. When truth becomes a lie, and a lie becomes truth, human judgment feels tortured and tries to restore its violated rights. As Adriano Celentano said, 'I love hearing lies when I know the truth.'

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!++++++++++++++++++

Amalya Sukiasyan added a reply

2 minutes ago

Dear P.F. Zabrodskii, thank you for your attention

Dear Sundus F Hantoosh, the Bible has indeed been a source of hope that never dies and goes far beyond pessimistic limitations and nihilistic perceptions of reality. Not only in biblical texts but also in literature, art, and culture, hope has been depicted as a powerful weapon against human suffering, immense challenges, and disillusionment.

Truth, the fearless mirror of reality. Truth is the ultimate liberation achieved through fearlessness. Truth and fearlessness are inseparable.