Philosophy time! Let's talk about truth. What actually

>>1865104
The truth is that which actually reflects reality. You determine the truth by picking the philosophy you like best.

something you shouldn't talk about on Japanese anime image board

>>1865104
There is no truth, and it's up to the individual to form beliefs around what they perceive is my answer.

>>1865150
I agree, but everyone has their own reality thus forming opinions and and truths.

>>1865150
>The truth is that which actually reflects reality

What does this mean? How do you determine such a thing? Do you mean empiricism aka consensual reality?

>>1865274
>There is no truth

Is this true?

words that correspond with reality

shit ain't that complicate

>>1865104
the truth is something that actually happens

the truth is 2+2=4 as you can test yourself with 4 apples

>>1865326
But what is reality? Everything that is true? Then we've gone circular.

>>1865308
really makes you think huh

But yes, I don't think that many things are objectively true, but I think that the statement there are no (or at least few) objective truths on a complicated level is true to some extent.

Some other anon before me talked about reality, but what is reality? If you can't prove that other people have the same perceptions as you, how do you know what's "real"? How can you, as a being, make observations when you have no control group or way to verify your observations?

It's like doing a lab experiment with materials that may be flawed to any extent. How can you find the mass of an object if your scale displays a random number? All you can state with certainty is that the object exists, but how do you know that your eyes and senses are accurate?

My answer is that you can't. I have no way of knowing if something is objectively true.

>>1865367
hallucinations actually happen, are they true?

File: 1455710480850.png (27KB, 775x387px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 775x387px

>>1865391

>>1865403
I'm not saying that there's no point in thinking about things, I'm saying that it's foolish to take anything as objectively true. Conversely, it's just as foolish to disregard something just because you can't prove it. Just because I don't know that the soup that I'm eating is real doesn't mean I shouldn't enjoy it.

Both views are important to keep in mind, and they complement each other.

Besides, this is a philosophy thread, what's wrong with philosophizing?

File: 1450452349683.png (29KB, 778x458px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 778x458px

>>1865403

File: 1459631520580.png (384KB, 1938x434px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1938x434px

>>1865469

>>1865403
Science:
>I have a theory
>Ok, let's try to falsify it. But don't use conflicting methods or your own reasoning that I don't personally approve of, even if your actions turn out to be proven true. For whatever is true is whatever meets my personal criteria. But if my opinion and expectations are unpopular against conventional opinion, and the conventional consensus agrees with your reasoning and logos, I guess that I will reluctantly accept your theory despite it being potentially flawed or even wrong, unless I'm strongly convicted in my reasoning that it's false. But if said accepted theory turns to be demonstrated as being false, I will still treat the conventional consensus of my peers as knowing the integral truth at the given moment, and pretend any blights that happened in the past never existed or could happen again.

Philosophy:
>I have a theory
>Ok, let's do what the above just said, but instead, let's try not get too convicted and invested in it in case we turn out to be wrong and look like retards.

>>1865388
if you don't believe in things you don't believe in yourself having a conversation and are being utterly retarded either way

>>1865633
We're not talking about truth, and not about belief. I can believe a lot of shit, but what is actually true?

>>1865643
you not being coherent right now is actually true