A defining question

[tessa]

My thought is if it's what you believe to be true in your heart, that's all that matters. Then it is true. If someone else disagrees, it is their problem to cope with, not yours.

What if I'm the one disagreeing with my own self? Talk about an endless debate.

Truth changes, constantly, because truth is just what we decide.

So don't cling too tightly to the concept of "truth". Today's truth may be tomorrow's quaint superstition.

If truth, in some way, has to conform to reality, how does truth stay truth when we decide something else should be the reality? Can we decide such a thing?

Your comments here made me stop and think, so that was me thinking out loud more than anything. But any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

The interesting thing here is the truth, not the definition of what can be considered...(truth).

The truth is that one thing happened, and only one thing.

This thought you present here is a new perspective for me. I am trying to get beyond the acceptance of justified reasoning as truth, and this from you helps me trememdously.

PS! I recommend anybody who wants a course in applied epistemology without any fancy terminology to see the film "Lars and the real girl".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/
It's absolutely hilarious, and very cleverly crafted.

I must see this movie.

[TomOfSweden]

I must see this movie.

Just so you know. It's one of those films best seen with your lover. It's very much a feel-good film.

[Thorne]

If truth, in some way, has to conform to reality, how does truth stay truth when we decide something else should be the reality? Can we decide such a thing?

I never claimed that truth has to conform to reality. In fact, throughout history "truth" has quite often been in direct conflict with reality. Whenever science has come into conflict with those in control, truth is whatever those in control declare, and reality suffers.Because "truth" is only what we believe to be reality, not necessarily reality itself.

A good example of this is the current global warming debate. The reality is that the planet is growing warmer, slowly but surely. The "truth" which is being propagated by certain people is that it's all mankind's fault, that we are responsible. Yet evidence shows that the Earth has undergone other periods of warming and cooling which rival the current period, before man ever became "civilized" enough to have a significant effect. So how much of an effect are we really having? Nobody knows for sure, but those with an agenda, one way or the other, will tell you the "truth" as they declare it to be.