How do you have a relationship with someone who doesn't care about truth?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The truth is what is actually happening and no one can tell it

Thats as deep as saying there is water flowing in the river

originally posted by: GreenGunther
Personal truth is just someone trying to justify their own beliefs to themselves.

Hardly.

If you and I do not agree on the meaning of a term, it is easy for there to be a disagreement on what is true.

That does not make one a liar, or the other. For each, they have spoken what is true for them.

And I can tell your study of philosophy is...limited.

a reply to: Bedlam

I am perhaps not as familiar with philosophy as I should be.

All you are saying is that we can disagree on some human made concept. Perhaps we both have different interpretations of the term and we are simply miscommunicating. But if my species defines a term in a specific way and we can both read and understand this terms definition, why should we disagree? people far more educated in the term and what it entails have decided what the truth is regarding this term.

So either one of us is wrong, or we are both wrong. I don't care which, as long as we learn what is right.

So lets say your spouses definition of adultery is different to yours, is one of the two parties not lying and greatly damaging the other because they have spoken what is true for them?

originally posted by: GreenGunther

So lets say your spouses definition of adultery is different to yours, is one of the two parties not lying and greatly damaging the other because they have spoken what is true for them?

The challenge is that our view of truth is very closely tied to our perspective on what is true. This means that in the end, we may be able to come up with a reasonable definition of truth, but if we decide that no one can get to what is true (that is, know truth), what good is the definition? Even more problematic is that our perspective will even influence our ability to come up with a definition! These are no small concerns and we'll explore some responses below.

Source

What if it's YOU with the "wrong" definition? Then YOU are doing the damage. And what it it's not possible to know what is true in a circumstance? Or if both parties disagree on your definition of adultery? Then both may be following what is 'true'.

There may BE no truth. Or in many cases, what you feel has obvious truth may be an opinion, or a judgement, and may have no objective truth at all.

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: Bedlam

So either one of us is wrong, or we are both wrong. I don't care which, as long as we learn what is right.

So lets say your spouses definition of adultery is different to yours, is one of the two parties not lying and greatly damaging the other because they have spoken what is true for them?

Except that the truth of the exchange in that example has nothing to do with terminology - the truth is about two people and their relationship.

Actually being truthful would be more like, "Call it whatever you want, but when you have sexual intercourse with someone else besides myself, I feel insecure, hurt, betrayed."

Or as in the OP, (I don't know the context in which the private messages came up, but to make a point)
"When you show messages I sent you to others in our workplace, I feel like I cannot trust you and that you don't respect me."
or
"I feel my place in the hierarchy here threatened by you and feel a desire to challenge you for dominance."


The debate on terminology is NOT being truthful or even concerned with truth at all.


(unless of course you are autistic, in which the red apple example would fit here)

a reply to: Bedlam

Or... There could be ultimate truth

a reply to: GreenGunther

But probably not in this circumstance. Even with math, it doesn't/can't encompass its own definitions, and that's true for any logical system that meets even relatively minor restrictions. (see also: incompleteness theorem)

originally posted by: Bluesma

Except that the truth of the exchange in that example has nothing to do with terminology - the truth is about two people and their relationship.

Bingo! And the problem there is that it is generally subjective. Guys don't see 'truth' in emotional problems the way women do.

a reply to: Bluesma

I agree, but we have learned inalienable truths as humans, and I am not referring to terminology here.

We should stick to these.

a reply to: Profusion

And I would say the apple is red once we have measured the wavelength of light reflecting from it.

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: Bluesma

I agree, but we have learned inalienable truths as humans, and I am not referring to terminology here.

We should stick to these.

My point is that some facts are abused in the attempt to avoid truth and hide it.
(remember, the title of the thread - it is in reference to relationships, not authoring textbooks)

a reply to: Bluesma

And on that statement I will fully agree, thank you for reminding me why I am here.

a reply to: Profusion

It depends on the topic, and whether or not they believe in absolute truth.

If they don't believe in absolute truth, and they aren't open to discussing it, then I will avoid them like the plague.

But if they do believe in truth, and they're only being stubborn:
I might argue with them.
I might [drop it and] avoid the topic.
I might avoid them, depending on how brass they are.

In my experience, whether or not someone believes in absolute truth only comes up when an argument has come to a head, and by then, it's basically all or nothing for the argument, and maybe even the relationship (since whether or not they believe in absolute truth sits at the core of who a person is, spiritually, and intellectually.)

p.s. Experts do not create truth - at best, they can only describe him. That is, trying to create truth would be like trying to create the image of conception - like making a measurement (weight, length, etc.) and calling it truth himself (like we pretend to do with the kilogram.) (Bedlam touched on this by mentioning the incompleteness theorem.)

I believe there is an ultimate core truth, but as 3rd dimensional observations cannot see it as for what it is, its more like a million faceted gemstone, although a solid and singular construct.

And then we have perspective based truths, which are "created" by each individual's view of the larger truth, a different perspective will show different facets. In this case, all perspectives are contradictory while simultaneously supporting each other if one will be open minded enough to step outside of their original perspective.

And then we have entirely personal "truths" which very well may be straight up fabrications, but are accepted by an individual's or collectives mind to be true but they are in no means connected to the core truth, and in essence only lead away from the core truth.

This is why arguing over politics, color, grammar, or any descriptive methods at all ar pointless. I have conducted multiple (intentional and unintentional) tests on the members here as to their flexibility of perspective and ability to see beyond their facets, and sad but true almost everyone I've analyzed here is completely solidified as to what truth is to them. I can't stop orbiting the many facets of the one construct and continue upon new observations in attempt to describe new facets, although my word descriptions of these are usually poor and misunderstood.

Peace and love

I suggest profusion instead of categorizing everything as true or false you entertain that they are variables that can contain more truths or more untruths which might tip the scale one way or the other depending on our belief systems. So instead of pointing out to people that they are wrong, try give them information that could tip the scales into your way of thinking,

a reply to: GreenGunther

People are "trying to argue on a philosophical level" because this was placed in the Philosophy & Metaphysics forum. If the author of this thread didn't want that aspect to be focussed on then he should have put it in the Relationships forum instead.

You keep mentioning "absolute truths" but didn't give an example of one, perhaps you would like to do so now?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

A hydrogen atom is an atom of the chemical element hydrogen. The electrically neutral atom contains a single positively charged proton and a single negatively charged electron bound to the nucleus by the Coulomb force.

If everyone agreed with you you would never know if you were right or wrong. You just have to accept he doesn't agree with you and move on.

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: Dark Ghost

A hydrogen atom is an atom of the chemical element hydrogen. The electrically neutral atom contains a single positively charged proton and a single negatively charged electron bound to the nucleus by the Coulomb force.

Except...it's also hydrogen if it's got a neutron in. Chemically, pretty much the same. Different weights, though. From a chemist's point of view, they're both hydrogen. From a physicist's, one's deuterium.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: Profusion

Who argues about the number of private messages they've exchanged with another person? If that is the truth you or the person you were arguing with are worried about...you probably want to reevaluate what matters in life.

Someone wanting a marriage proposal (not forthcoming)?