How do people who believe 'There is no truth' function in society?

"There is no truth. There is only perception." - Gustave Flaubert

If someone really believed that, it would have ramifications in every area of their life. I would think that it would make one unable to function in society. Let's consider some of the choices one must making when starting a business:

1. What products/services should be offered?

Market research is necessary to make a good decision on this issue. However, one who believes there's no truth wouldn't see any value in market research. Such an individual could never admit that one product or service would be more successful than another because that would contradict their worldview.

2. What prices should products/services be sold for?

Making a decision here would also involve a contradiction of their worldview. How can there be a "market price" that yields a high enough profit margin to make the company successful if there's no truth?

3. Location

Obviously, the old maxim, "Location, location, location" could not be admitted to be true.

4. How do you determine who's most qualified to hire?

If you believe there's no truth, how do you come to grips with the fact that some professions require special training, education, experience, etc.? All of those things contradict your worldview.

Those are just a few simple examples but one could easily write a book on this topic. There's an endless number of things that would stop someone who believes that there is no truth from functioning in society.

a reply to: Profusion

There is no Truth doesn't mean that there is no opinion. We all like one food better than another. That doesn't mean that one food is better is the Truth.

I think you don't really understand the meaning of the phrase. All it means is that we all have our own perception, opinions, beliefs and contexts of the world.

a reply to: Profusion

I always viewed it as a position of wisdom, not a belief set. Just like Socrates with, "I know that I know nothing". He doesn't mean that he actually knows nothing.

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
a reply to: Profusion

I always viewed it as a position of wisdom, not a belief set. Just like Socrates with, "I know that I know nothing". He doesn't mean that he actually knows nothing.

Then why did he say it that way? Surely to to appear wiser and flatter his ego.

"I know that I don't know everything." There, fixed.
BTW, I hate pretty much everything having to do with Socrates.

"There is no truth. There is only perception." ?
"Sometimes truth is a matter of perception." Another one fixed.

a reply to: theMediator

Right, and you could do this all day to make historical philosophical quotes less poetic. It proves nothing, though makes them a lot less memorable.

"One man's trash is another man's treasure"
"Don't be throwin' that out someone else might want it!"

You see?

a reply to: Profusion

They exist on the good graces of those who do believe in absolute truth. LOL

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
a reply to: Profusion

I always viewed it as a position of wisdom, not a belief set. Just like Socrates with, "I know that I know nothing". He doesn't mean that he actually knows nothing.

Just like Socrates with, "I know that I know nothing". He doesn't mean that he actually knows nothing.

Do you have proof that Socrates didn't "mean that he actually knows nothing"? Could you give me the actual quote where he claimed that please?

You brought up an interesting point there. I thought about your post and I would say, "I know that I know nothing." However, I would never say that there is no truth.

For example, I have no way of knowing if we're living in a computer-simulated world. If we are, then everything that we think we know about the world could be wrong. All of the "rules of physics" could be reprogrammable at any time, "history" could be reprogrammable at any time, etc.

However, if I believe "There is no truth", I have to believe that I'm not sitting on a chair at this moment when I clearly am. I've actually debated with people who believed "There is no truth" who have claimed that at the molecular level I was not sitting on a chair when I definitely was. I agree with that argument, by the way. However, it can be logically proven that I am sitting on a chair, so I believe that it's a matter of fact that I am sitting on a chair. I believe the statement, "I am sitting on a chair now" is truth.

Now, it could turn out that there are infinite ways of perceiving the universe and that only through common human perception (one of an infinite number of perceptions), I am sitting on a chair.

To me though, the fact it can be logically proven on one level that I'm sitting on a chair makes it truth.

I personally think it's absurd to go to the molecular level to prove that I'm not sitting on a chair in order to maintain the "There is no truth" belief but again I end up at the same question that's in the original post:

How do people who believe "There is no truth" function in society?

It's called playing the odds. It's called making the best choice you can with the information you have. Is like investigating a mystery or crime. You don't know the answer, but do the best you can with the evidence available to make what decisions you can. I "could" get in a car accident every time I get in my car, doesn't stop me from getting in my car cause I can't be certain I won't get in one.

So I can't be certain of anything, but I can have enough of an idea and enough evidence to make a reasonable educated guess. I'm also not going to wallow in paranoia about that which I don't know.

originally posted by: Profusion
Do you have proof that Socrates didn't "mean that he actually knows nothing"? Could you give me the actual quote where he claimed that please?

The fact that it's a paradox shows that it can't be true. If he knows that he knows nothing, then he knows something.

originally posted by: Puppylove
It's called playing the odds. It's called making the best choice you can with the information you have. Is like investigating a mystery or crime. You don't know the answer, but do the best you can with the evidence available to make what decisions you can. I "could" get in a car accident every time I get in my car, doesn't stop me from getting in my car cause I can't be certain I won't get in one.

So I can't be certain of anything, but I can have enough of an idea and enough evidence to make a reasonable educated guess. I'm also not going to wallow in paranoia about that which I don't know.

You don't sound to me like someone who believes "There is no truth" though, correct?

After all, you're referencing probability theory as the basis for your decisions. Look at all the "truth" you have to accept in the following paragraphs before you could even consider using probability theory as the basis for decisions.

Probability theory is the branch of mathematics concerned with probability, the analysis of random phenomena.[1] The central objects of probability theory are random variables, stochastic processes, and events: mathematical abstractions of non-deterministic events or measured quantities that may either be single occurrences or evolve over time in an apparently random fashion. If an individual coin toss or the roll of dice is considered to be a random event, then if repeated many times the sequence of random events will exhibit certain patterns, which can be studied and predicted. Two representative mathematical results describing such patterns are the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem.

As a mathematical foundation for statistics, probability theory is essential to many human activities that involve quantitative analysis of large sets of data. Methods of probability theory also apply to descriptions of complex systems given only partial knowledge of their state, as in statistical mechanics. A great discovery of twentieth century physics was the probabilistic nature of physical phenomena at atomic scales, described in quantum mechanics.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement

originally posted by: Profusion
Do you have proof that Socrates didn't "mean that he actually knows nothing"? Could you give me the actual quote where he claimed that please?

The fact that it's a paradox shows that it can't be true. If he knows that he knows nothing, then he knows something.

First, paradoxes can be true. For example:

brainden.com...

Second, you're claiming that Socrates' alleged statement (you refuse to give the context), "I know that I know nothing" "can't be true."

However, you called that statement "a position of wisdom" below. And you also called "There is no truth" "a position of wisdom." According to your beliefs ("a paradox shows that it can't be true"), the statement "There is no truth" cannot be true as it's a paradox.

So, by your logic, "wisdom" need not be true.

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
a reply to: Profusion

I always viewed it as a position of wisdom, not a belief set. Just like Socrates with, "I know that I know nothing". He doesn't mean that he actually knows nothing.

Bah all it means is, "anything I think I know could be wrong, therefore I know nothing."

It's a lesson on having the humility to recognize that what we have faith in could be just as wrong as the person who believes differently and to always remain open to other ideas as we flawed humans can never know for 100% percent certainty the ultimate truths of the universe.

If anything it's the code of the agnostic.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Ever notice how so many truther dialogs end up sounding like Steely Dan lyrics?

originally posted by: Puppylove
Bah all it means is, "anything I think I know could be wrong, therefore I know nothing."

It's a lesson on having the humility to recognize that what we have faith in could be just as wrong as the person who believes differently and to always remain open to other ideas as we flawed humans can never know for 100% percent certainty the ultimate truths of the universe.

If anything it's the code of the agnostic.

Is that your own personal interpretation or did you pick that up from somewhere/someone else? If you picked up that interpretation from somewhere/someone else, could you give me the source please?

I've debated this topic several times over the years on the Internet and you're the first person I've come across who has given me that explanation for the phrase "There is no truth."

I would like to read any comments you have on the following (which I posted earlier in the thread). The following is an example of the kinds of debates I've had on this issue before. People will use quantum physics to literally try to prove "There is no truth." Not in the way you explained it but literally claiming "There is no truth."

if I believe "There is no truth", I have to believe that I'm not sitting on a chair at this moment when I clearly am. I've actually debated with people who believed "There is no truth" who have claimed that at the molecular level I was not sitting on a chair when I definitely was. I agree with that argument, by the way. However, it can be logically proven that I am sitting on a chair, so I believe that it's a matter of fact that I am sitting on a chair. I believe the statement, "I am sitting on a chair now" is truth.

Now, it could turn out that there are infinite ways of perceiving the universe and that only through common human perception (one of an infinite number of perceptions), I am sitting on a chair.

To me though, the fact it can be logically proven on one level that I'm sitting on a chair makes it truth.

I personally think it's absurd to go to the molecular level to prove that I'm not sitting on a chair in order to maintain the "There is no truth" belief but again I end up at the same question that's in the original post:

How do people who believe "There is no truth" function in society?

a reply to: Profusion
I don't wanna speak for Puppy Love but I am guessing they just applied simple hermeneutics to the statement.
Context is everything when reading any type of text or parsing out any statement made.
I think the folks you dealt with who were going on about "sub atomic" levels were in short just being wordy.
For some reason folks like to think that "getting" that we are made up of atoms is some novel idea that no one else fully understands, the depth of.
Eh maybe I ma just "crotchety" today.

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement

originally posted by: Profusion
Do you have proof that Socrates didn't "mean that he actually knows nothing"? Could you give me the actual quote where he claimed that please?

The fact that it's a paradox shows that it can't be true. If he knows that he knows nothing, then he knows something.

First, paradoxes can be true. For example:

brainden.com...

Second, you're claiming that Socrates' alleged statement (you refuse to give the context), "I know that I know nothing" "can't be true."

However, you called that statement "a position of wisdom" below. And you also called "There is no truth" "a position of wisdom." According to your beliefs ("a paradox shows that it can't be true"), the statement "There is no truth" cannot be true as it's a paradox.

So, by your logic, "wisdom" need not be true.

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
a reply to: Profusion

I always viewed it as a position of wisdom, not a belief set. Just like Socrates with, "I know that I know nothing". He doesn't mean that he actually knows nothing.

You'll have to forgive my wording then. In that particular paradox, "I know that I know nothing", it can't logically be said to be true. Since the rest of your post was based on the way I worded it, I'm not sure what else to add.

a reply to: Profusion

My personal interpretation. It's the way I've always taken such statements. It's always made sense to me that way. In fact it's my personal philosophy as well. Is why I'm agnostic. I'm not willing to pretend my interpretation of the reality I observe is so superior to everyone else's I couldn't possibly be wrong.

Including this actually. I'm none of these people, I can only interpret to the best of my ability what they mean, and this is mine. Is why I can't be Christian or any other religion that requires me to believe something so wholly I'm not allowed to consider and acknowledge my ability to be wrong.

Is what rubs me most wrong with such beliefs, the I KNOW God is real and you are wrong, period, end of story. I'm not trying to be an ass, but such a statement seems the height of arrogance to me.

I soft know thing, but I try very hard to never claim to hard KNOW anything. The second I do, I've closed myself off from the possibilities, that may be superior or better that reality has to offer.

There is a HARD reality, I believe that, but what it is, it is regardless of any interpretation or belief any of us may have. There's REALITY which I believe no one knows, and there's reality, that which we make our decisions by, that which is our best guess based upon our observations and sciences.

Is this a "truther" dialog? (LOVE Steely Dan!)

Anyway, I think the OP is taking the saying far too literally, when it's a philosophical point, encouraging people to think.

As for people who claim the belief there is no truth, in the literal sense. They exist because it's only "real" to them on the philosophical level. They still have hunger, emotions, wants, needs that exist outside their philosophy. It's a thought project, not a way of life. They don't use it for guidance in their day to day. It's pot circle talk.

a reply to: Profusion

I don't know who you've been talking to then;
Puppyloves comment is so on the mark and
intuitively obvious to the most casual of
observers. It's year one epistemology.

Of course that's my opinion and its
impossible to validate the ultimate
truth of that ;-)