What is the difference between perception of "reasonable action" and "the truth"?

[needimprovement]

I think what we define as "reasonable action" is relative. What a person does is always reasonable in their own eyes, relative to whatever purpose they have. That's why having a shared purpose, and one that serves people the most is so important, it creates the setting for shared definition of "reasonable action". A purpose like: "greatest happiness for greatest number of people" will now create a shared context for what each of us defines as reasonable action.

 

Truth is NOT relative. It stands on its own. But perception is always based on the observer.

 

In short, purpose is a concept, not a truth. And your perception of what is reasonable is based on your own purposes in life.

 

What are your thoughts?

[Mr Skeptic]

Truth is NOT relative. It stands on its own. But perception is always based on the observer.

 

I'd say truth has nothing to stand on. There is no evidence that truth exists, much less that anyone can know it. The closest you can get is via consistent observations, but then that makes "truth" functionally equivalent to "consistent observations'.

[needimprovement]

I'd say truth has nothing to stand on. There is no evidence that truth exists, much less that anyone can know it. The closest you can get is via consistent observations, but then that makes "truth" functionally equivalent to "consistent observations'.

Truth is conformity of mental images and ideas with what is "out there." If two people see a dog, one might say, "That is a dog," while the other says, That is a cat. The first statement is true because it conforms to reality; the other is false because it does not. Such realism is the normal human reaction to reality, the natural position of the human mind and indispensable for avoiding skepticism.

 

How could saying "there is no such thing as absolute truth" be absolutely true? It is a contradiction in terms.

 

****

Does 2+2=5 for this person? of course not, what they mean is that what they believe may be different than what you do, but that doesnt change what the truth actually is.

Edited September 23, 2010 by needimprovement

[Mr Skeptic]

Truth is conformity of mental images and ideas with what is "out there." If two people see a dog, one might say, "That is a dog," while the other says, “That is a cat.” The first statement is true because it conforms to reality; the other is false because it does not. Such realism is the normal human reaction to reality, the natural position of the human mind and indispensable for avoiding skepticism.

 

And what if one of those two people are crazy? If one person sees a man who is out to get him and another person next to him sees nothing, which one is right? What is the truth?

 

How could saying "there is no such thing as absolute truth" be absolutely true? It is a contradiction in terms.

 

Of course, just like saying God is the most evil thing in the world but also the most good, would be a contradiction. Of course, since you never said that that wouldn't be a problem for you. But if you want me to defend the above statement you made, then I shall ask you to defend the above statement I made. Seem fair?

 

****

Does 2+2=5 for this person? of course not, what they mean is that what they believe may be different than what you do, but that doesnt change what the truth actually is.

 

For what person? 2+2=5 for very large values of 2 (I have done this and verified it to be true). Also, there is no reason to have the value of 5 be IIIII rather than IIII. The only reason 2+2=4 is because of how we define 2, +, =, and 4. Define them differently and you get a different result.

[lemur]

I think what we define as "reasonable action" is relative. What a person does is always reasonable in their own eyes, relative to whatever purpose they have.

 

I think you have to pay attention to the fact that the word "reasonable" is derived from a verb, "to reason." This idea presumes that individuals can reason their way to valid decision-making, recognition of facts, and truth. If you don't believe that reasoning results in reasonable thoughts and actions, then you fall into cultural relativism where everything is arbitrarily dependent on paradigms or the whims of the dominant individual or institutions. If the dominant institutions produce a definition and criteria for what counts as "reasonable action," then the actual process of reasoning is lost and "reasonable" becomes another tool for arbitrary cultural authority. Ideally the "culture of reason" should remain faithful to the principle that critical reasoning possesses the capacity to arrive at truth and legitimate actions when done in good faith. It's a different story when people set out to reason their way into pre-selected conclusions. At that point reasoning just becomes rhetorical exercises in rationalizing emotionally-governed will.

[needimprovement]

For what person? 2+2=5 for very large values of 2 (I have done this and verified it to be true). Also, there is no reason to have the value of 5 be IIIII rather than IIII. The only reason 2+2=4 is because of how we define 2, +, =, and 4. Define them differently and you get a different result.

Yes, which is why language only works when we all agree on the same meanings for things.

Edited September 24, 2010 by needimprovement

[needimprovement]

And what if one of those two people are crazy? If one person sees a man who is out to get him and another person next to him sees nothing, which one is right? What is the truth?

Why should you bring in insanity to dispute truth? Sanity is the ability to face reality and to use our God-given reason from cause to effect in the natural moral law to acquire truth. The fact that we live in an ordered world created by God and endowed with reason means that He wants us to discover His laws.

 

The fact of Original Sin has clouded our intellects and distorted our wills for doing good, so God sent His only Son to redeem us and show us His Way to Him through His Church which has the fullness of His truth.