Philosophical Question #11

It’s a toughie:

  • Must we have evidence to know the truth?

We all know about “truth.”  You got your casual (subjective…less holy) truths, and your hardcore (objective…more holy) truths.  And if we’re fair, there does seem to be a place for both, in the greater scheme-of-things.  As a collective, we are that (let’s call it) “malleable” (bendable), when considering the amount of evidence needed for truth.

Webster defines truth as:


Now, for some questions:

  1. On a scale of 1-10, 10 of course being highest, how holy (special, important, revered, grounding) is truth to you?  If it depends, what does it depend on?
  2. Are there any truths you take on faith (casual truths), even though there is no direct evidence of them?  If yes, list some of those truths?
  3. Where does casual “truth evidence” come from (e.g., your personal feelings/desires and experiences, lifelong indoctrination, hearsay, misinformation, other)? In other words, who or what provides/has provided it?
  4. Can you think of any kinds of things that are deemed true by the majority of the people, without any actual objective evidence?

Go ahead.  Poke holes in each other’s truth meters. 😁  I.e., debate. 😊

(by PrimalSoup)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices