It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Is "Truth"?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
What is "Truth"?



The question came to my mind after engaging in a heated, though one sided discussion with my ultra liberal uncle regarding the topic of Zionist bankers backing Hitler and the Nazi regime. For the record, I do not believe elite zionists represent the Jewish community in any sense and do not even believe in the Jewish faith themselves, but in fact hide behind this religion so that when critics call them out they can label said critics as “anti-semitic” and thus society follows suit. Effectively canceling any form of meaningful opposition or criticism. Long story short, it ended with me being labeled an anti-semitic white nationalist (see how that works?).

With that, it brought an interesting philosophical question to my mind:

What is “truth”?

Based on the Merriam-Webster definition:




a : the body of real things, events, and facts

b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true

c : the body of true statements and propositions




(Seems even they have a hard time defining that without actually using the word itself…)

Still, it seems pretty vague to me.

Is it what you can read in a book? Is it something you watch in a documentary or news broadcast? Is it what you learn in an establishment approved education centre by an instructor with an acceptable level of verifiable credentials and degrees supporting their authenticity? Though who authenticates those credentials? Who authenticates those who authenticate the credentials? So on and so forth.

How do we know the information we receive from these outlets are in fact, “true”? Do we accept things as true when there is a satisfactory level of social acceptance of a given topic’s validity based on what we have been conditioned to believe about said topic? If enough seemingly reliable sources verify a topic in a seemingly logical manner, does that constitute truth? When enough people hold a similar belief about a given topic; is that "truth”?

Because as far as I can tell, when it comes to the vast majority of historical knowledge we rely solely on written accounts, photographs, videos and testimonies from witnesses. However, can all of this not be distorted and manipulated to serve one agenda or another? Could EVERYTHING you have not personally witnessed or experienced yourself possibly be wrong? How do you know? Because reliable individuals or institutions told you so? How do you really know?

The short answer: You don’t.

Let me break it down for you in a simple, hypothetical conversation regarding World War 2. Now I’ll be clear, I am not doubting World War 2 took place. I'm am personally certain it happened, I’m simply using it as an example as it’s an incident most people are aware of and accept as “true”.


Person 1: Are you sure WW2 took place?

Person 2: Of course it did. I was told about it by relatives, I’ve read about it in books and learned about it in school… My grandfather was a tank operator in The Battle of Arracourt. It obviously happened….

Person 1: Okay, but how can you verify that information conclusively? Were you there to witness it yourself? Did you personally experience the events of WW2?

Person 2: Obviously not… But my grandfather wouldn’t lie… He has the medals and marks to prove it… I’ve even seen the tank he operated. It happened…

Person 1: Alright, we can at the very least assume your grandfather did operate a tank during The Battle of Arracourt, but does that confirm the entirety of events that occurred during WW2? Was he involved in every battle? Did he personally witness the concentration camps and the widespread death and destruction?

Person 2: Obviously not, that’s impossible…

Person 1: Right, so ultimately your grandfather can only confirm what he experienced within his immediate sphere of influence during his time serving in WW2, correct? Are you sure the tank you saw was in fact the tank he operated and not a replica? Are you sure your grandfather actually experienced what he claims and didn’t fabricate the story or simply hallucinate it?

Person 2: Yes… but. This is stupid! We’re done here.


Really, you could replace “WW2” with a number of topics to the same effect.


Which brings me to my ultimate point: NO ONE can tell you what is or isn’t true. No one. The truth is what you choose for yourself.

The only exception would be if the individual or outlet has been proven time and again to spread misinformation, ala, CNN, WaPo, NYT, etc.. Even certain alternative media sources (Though most are discredited for not having enough evidence rather than simply spreading disinformation. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.). The response then is to simply use your common-sense. Still, the choice is ultimately up to you.

I’m reminded of a phrase from an old video game I enjoyed as a kid:

“Nothing is true. Everything is permitted”.

I never really understood what that meant until now.

On a final note, I would like to wrap this up by pointing out a massive double-standard in the scientific community and the like, in regards to fringe topics such as the paranormal, the existence of extraterrestrial life, evil and clandestine powers controlling our world, etc.. It seems when it comes to these topics, the same rules no longer apply. Because for the most part there is a near equal amount of evidence by acceptable societal standards. You have photo and video evidence, eye witness, first and second hand testimonies, in some cases physical evidence (though it is often quickly scooped up and suppressed), written accounts and documentaries. However, because these topics are not “socially accepted”, all of a sudden none of this is enough to verify any phenomenon is taking place at all. All of a sudden, everyone needs that DEFINITIVE PROOF before coming to a general consensus as to whether or not these topics are even worth investigating let alone be believed. Though I ask you, do you have proof that WW2 took place? Were you there to witness it yourself? If not, then how do you 100% know for sure?

Once again, you don’t. So with all of that said; No one has the right to tell you what can or can’t be believed. No one can tell you what is or isn't an acceptable truth. Anyone who does, or worse, ridicules you or DENIES you the ability to investigate or discuss is in fact a FASCIST. What’s the bottom line definition of a fascist?: Someone who controls what you can or can’t do; What you can or can’t say. Someone who controls your FREEDOM.

 Of expression or otherwise.

End rant.
edit on 14-8-2017 by HorizonFall because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
If i call the color red blue from now on, and eliminate everything contradicting this. Does that make the color blue red in truth.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ElOmen

Do you not see the colour red and blue in your day to day life? Are you not able to confirm this yourself within your own sphere of influence?



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: HorizonFall

RE: "a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true "

What dictionary are you using!!! There is no use of the word "judgment" in the definition of truth.

This is what I found from Merriam-Webster:



1 : the quality or state of being true
2 : a true or accepted statement
3 : the body of real events or facts
4 : agreement with fact or reality


I think there is a big distinction between truth and opinion. If I say, "all liberals and Democrats are lying scum." That is an opinion even though it may be a fact. Same thing is true if I said the same thing about Republicans. Facts to me are like "the sky is blue." Facts and truth are like some mutually agreed idea in science. I think everything in politics is mostly opinion. The problem is many people think their own opinion is a fact. For example, many people believe the following facts:

1. Obama was a Muslim
2. Bill Clinton was the worst president
3. Democrats were responsible for 9/11
4. Israel is our ally
5. Liberals are responsible for everything bad in our country

There are many facts that exist that do not support those statements as being true. But many people ignore facts that disagree with their own opinions on what is considered truth. Hence today in this country we now have the deepest possible divisions. Nobody can agree on what is truth if everyone thinks their opinions are facts.

Using truth is followed by some measurement. The USA is 17th in the World in healthcare outcomes. Or the US pays the highest percentage of GDP for healthcare. Or the US spends more on military spending than all the other nation's of the World combined. These states are true based on facts. It's not something that lends itself to an opinion. We know what the US spends on the military every year. We know what other countries spend. The comparison of the two is based on facts. So any statement on the comparison is either true or false.

Opinions are no so clear cut. For example, it's a fact the sky is blue. Now if you said the "sky is beautiful" it is not really a fact but a subjective judgment. I'm not sure it qualifies as truth. Subjective judgments are anytime we think of something as "good" or "bad".

How many times have you heard, "It's a fact Barack Obama is a Muslim and the worst president we've ever had?"

Many people think like Muslims. But it's clearly an opinion to think Obama is a Muslim. You can't tell what other people are thinking.

Again, everything in politics is opinion in my opinion. There are no facts in politics. Or let me put it another. There are no facts in politics people can agree on that are the most important facts to focus on in terms of government policy.

But I'm sure someone here will claim with all their might, "It's a fact North Korea is a threat to this country."

edit on 14-8-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: HorizonFall

Great rant and exposition. I would add that even events that you directly witnessed can not be classified at true. Our perceptions and memories are greatly influenced by a myriad of factors including our emotional state and our past history. I've seen numerous cases where separate individuals witness the same exact event but have very different statements regarding them.

Once the red pill is taken, there's no going back. Everything, everything, EVERYTHING is up for grabs. The key is to not let it drive you insane.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: HorizonFall



do not believe elite zionists represent the Jewish community in any sense and do not even believe in the Jewish faith themselves, but in fact hide behind this religion so that when critics call them out they can label said critics as “anti-semitic” and thus society follows suit.

Correct, many of the alleged Jewish elites are in fact Turkic Khazars in blood lineage. Anti-semitism is a dead slogan now since people discovered Jews are not the only Semites. As a matter of fact, the state of Israel is probably one of the top three most anti-semitic states on Earth based on how they treat their other neighbors of Semitic origin that are not Jewish.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Many times people have told me I was not speaking the truth with events I directly witnessed. They said I was lying. However, in my heart I know what I saw.

P.S. Love the Douglas Adams reference in your signature.


edit on 14-8-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015



Do my eyes deceive me?



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: HorizonFall

So all the unexploded ordinance being found around the world which dates between late 1930s and mid 1940's is hypothetical? All the photographs are fake? All the newspapers are part of a conspiracy? The USS Arizona, complete with all it's dead interred is a fantasy? All of Mengele's thoroughly documented experiments were just interpretive hyperbole?

Sorry, there are ways of verifying history sir. And while certain details may differ depending upon the source, the main points usually fall in line with the accepted narrative. When one can piece together archeological digs, current events, and personal anecdotes...that sir, is history. Whether you accept it or not, it is history.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

P.S. Love the Douglas Adams reference in your signature.



Never heard of him... and here I thought I was original. Could you link to his quote?



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: HorizonFall

if someone doesn't know what truth is then they're already lost. Lost in all sense of the word.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: CliffoCambridge

Then tell us, what is truth?



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

The question of doubting WW2 was hypothetical. I personally believe it occurred. It was a simple example. But to further humour the idea, how do you know that ordinance was leftover from WW2 and not simply placed there after or left from an unrelated incident? Photographs, videos, newspaper articles have all been fabricated in the past, whose to say this does not apply to WW2? Did you personally witness the events of WW2? Is that not the only way to 100% verify that an incident took place? Even then, is it not possible you could have hallucinated the entire event?

Once again, these questions are purely hypothetical to humour the idea that perhaps everything we know could be wrong. Do not undermine my intelligence because you fail to grasp my query...
edit on 14-8-2017 by HorizonFall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: HorizonFall

Great rant and exposition. I would add that even events that you directly witnessed can not be classified at true. Our perceptions and memories are greatly influenced by a myriad of factors including our emotional state and our past history.



Very good point. This alone could bring into question every written historical account to date. could being the key word here...



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: HorizonFall

Yes i see them. We only call them that because we agreed to whemever they taught you the colors.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: HorizonFall

Yes i see them. We only call them that because we agreed to whemever they taught you the colors.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElOmen
a reply to: HorizonFall

Yes i see them. We only call them that because we agreed to whemever they taught you the colors.


Spellcheck is your friend.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: HorizonFall

No it's not.
edit on 14-8-2017 by ElOmen because: (no reason given)


friend
frend/Submit
noun
1.
a person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically exclusive of sexual or family relations.
edit on 14-8-2017 by ElOmen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ElOmen

What is your purpose here, "frend"? To constructively add to the discussion or debate semantics and your colour palate?



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: HorizonFall

Well we were discussing. Until you decided to bring up grammar.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join